• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bush I and "Read My Lips..."

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?


  • Total voters
    19

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Bush I and "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!"

Then he raised taxes.

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?

Note: "Lie" implies intent to deceive.
 
Bush I and "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!"

Then he raised taxes.

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?

Note: "Lie" implies intent to deceive.

He didn't lie with that quote. But he didn't keep word, if I remember correctly.
 
Bush I and "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!"

Then he raised taxes.

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?

Note: "Lie" implies intent to deceive.

In my opinion, he was 100% sincere in the pledge and he fully intended to keep it when he made the pledge. Then we had a normal recession and the normal short falll of cash and somehow the Democrats were able to convince him that they were sincere in giving him three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar raised in new taxes if he would sign their 'tax the rich' bill. He agreed to do so--stiff new luxury taxes on private luxury boats, airplanes, and fine jewelry and such.

The result?

1. The rich simply went elsewhere to purchase their toys just as they will put their money elsewhere if Hillary tries to tax more of it.
2. American boat and private plane industries were decimated and tens of thousands of manufacturing workers lost their jobs. Those industries never fully recovered to what they once were even after those taxes were rescinded.
3. A great deal of America's fine jewelry business moved off shores to places like Grand Cayman. Much of it never came back.
4. The Republicans in the House and Senate quickly distanced themselves from their President.
5. George HW Bush's re-election prospects, almost a sure thing before he broke his pledge, went down in flames and Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote.

And it is interesting, that amidst all that chaos, we did get the new taxes. And not a penny in spending cuts.
 
In my opinion, he was 100% sincere in the pledge and he fully intended to keep it when he made the pledge. Then we had a normal recession and the normal short falll of cash and somehow the Democrats were able to convince him that they were sincere in giving him three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar raised in new taxes if he would sign their 'tax the rich' bill. He agreed to do so--stiff new luxury taxes on private luxury boats, airplanes, and fine jewelry and such.

The result?

1. The rich simply went elsewhere to purchase their toys just as they will put their money elsewhere if Hillary tries to tax more of it.
2. American boat and private plane industries were decimated and tens of thousands of manufacturing workers lost their jobs. Those industries never fully recovered to what they once were even after those taxes were rescinded.
3. A great deal of America's fine jewelry business moved off shores to places like Grand Cayman. Much of it never came back.
4. The Republicans in the House and Senate quickly distanced themselves from their President.
5. George HW Bush's re-election prospects, almost a sure thing before he broke his pledge, went down in flames and Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote.

And it is interesting, that amidst all that chaos, we did get the new taxes. And not a penny in spending cuts.
I fully agree with your assessment. I believe he was sincere. But going further, I also believe he was trying to show how non-partisan he was and that he could work with the other party in times in distress, and it came back to bite him in the butt.

Some might call that naive, I don't know, but I do think it's an example of how and why our political world has evolved to become so absurdly partisan. It almost has to be as a matter of survival.

Wow, that took me farther off than I intended the topic to be. lol
 
I fully agree with your assessment. I believe he was sincere. But going further, I also believe he was trying to show how non-partisan he was and that he could work with the other party in times in distress, and it came back to bite him in the butt.

Some might call that naive, I don't know, but I do think it's an example of how and why our political world has evolved to become so absurdly partisan. It almost has to be as a matter of survival.

Wow, that took me farther off than I intended the topic to be. lol

We the people have become ridiculously partisan yes. And I suppose it is a matter of self defense if we see the policies and proposals of the opposition as the most destructive. I am not sure those in Washington are so partisan as they would have us believe though. Democrats and Republicans have to go through the motions to throw enough bones to their base to get sufficient votes to stay in their lucrative and self serving positions. But ultimately nothing much ever happens to make things better does it? That's because making things better is not as sure a thing as the status quo is to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

I think both Democrats and Republicans hate Trump, for instance, not because he proposes doing bad things. He doesn't. But what he proposes could, maybe would, upset that status quo that is so valuable to both parties. They are not in the least interested in making government more efficient, effective, or honest because it benefits them for it to stay as it is. And Donald Trump is not one of them--one who will toe the line and protect the status quo. Hillary is. So I am thinking the Republicans of course want to retain their majority and those lucrative committee chairs, but they don't want things to significantly change for them. So they are allowing Hillary to be elected as one of them, and they are doing everything in their power to sabotage Trump who isn't.

It is a very different world than when George H.W. Bush was President. Now almost everybody in Congress is part of the permanent political class who want all that corruption and flexibility in their President.
 
We the people have become ridiculously partisan yes. And I suppose it is a matter of self defense if we see the policies and proposals of the opposition as the most destructive. I am not sure those in Washington are so partisan as they would have us believe though. Democrats and Republicans have to go through the motions to throw enough bones to their base to get sufficient votes to stay in their lucrative and self serving positions. But ultimately nothing much ever happens to make things better does it? That's because making things better is not as sure a thing as the status quo is to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

I think both Democrats and Republicans hate Trump, for instance, not because he proposes doing bad things. He doesn't. But what he proposes could, maybe would, upset that status quo that is so valuable to both parties. They are not in the least interested in making government more efficient, effective, or honest because it benefits them for it to stay as it is. And Donald Trump is not one of them--one who will toe the line and protect the status quo. Hillary is. So I am thinking the Republicans of course want to retain their majority and those lucrative committee chairs, but they don't want things to significantly change for them. So they are allowing Hillary to be elected as one of them, and they are doing everything in their power to sabotage Trump who isn't.

It is a very different world than when George H.W. Bush was President. Now almost everybody in Congress is part of the permanent political class who want all that corruption and flexibility in their President.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Maybe they don't actually want it, but since it's there, they're more than willing to accept it and then ignore it! Mustn't let outsiders upset the apple cart, and all that jazz! :mrgreen:
 
Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

Maybe they don't actually want it, but since it's there, they're more than willing to accept it and then ignore it! Mustn't let outsiders upset the apple cart, and all that jazz! :mrgreen:

Well I might have been engaging in a bit of hyperbole--exaggeration for effect and all that--but deep down, I honestly do think they don't want a President who will jeopardize their individual base support by enforcing immigration laws for instance, or actually securing the border. They don't want a President who will actually cut spending so that they can't use pork to bribe, coerce, or engender gratitude from their constituency. They want to continue to use regulation and threats to get corporate America to do their bidding and continue to funnel all that lovely money into their super pacs and eventually into their own bank accounts.

They know they are sitting on a massive house of cards that becomes more unstable day by day. But they figure they'll have theirs and be long gone before it completely collapses. And they trust that the people's memory will be short and they will blame whoever the fools who are in government at the time and will never blame those who let it, even made it happen.
 
I fully agree with your assessment. I believe he was sincere. But going further, I also believe he was trying to show how non-partisan he was and that he could work with the other party in times in distress, and it came back to bite him in the butt.

Some might call that naive, I don't know, but I do think it's an example of how and why our political world has evolved to become so absurdly partisan. It almost has to be as a matter of survival.

Wow, that took me farther off than I intended the topic to be. lol

If you want to see the difference between presidential candidates of that day and today.

Letter from Bush SR to Bill Clinton

Dear Bill,

When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

Your success is now our country’s success. I am rooting for you.

Good luck,

George
 
If you want to see the difference between presidential candidates of that day and today.

Letter from Bush SR to Bill Clinton

I have the utmost respect for the Bush's young and old, but this tradition apparently started with a short note from Reagan to his VP GHW Bush when he was taking over and Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior have carried that forward. One assumes that President Obama will somehow put away his hyper-partisanship and do the same, even if Donald Trump is elected, but I'm not prepared to bet on it since President Obama has done many classless things while President.
 
Bush I and "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!"

Then he raised taxes.

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?

Note: "Lie" implies intent to deceive.

Jesus, weren't those the days. When a candidate could say definitively what his position was, and when he wasn't able to stand by it it destroyed his career and made him a laughingstock.

If only he'd waited to make that comment today. He could have lied about everything just for the fun of it and he would have been fine.
 
I have the utmost respect for the Bush's young and old, but this tradition apparently started with a short note from Reagan to his VP GHW Bush when he was taking over and Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior have carried that forward. One assumes that President Obama will somehow put away his hyper-partisanship and do the same, even if Donald Trump is elected, but I'm not prepared to bet on it since President Obama has done many classless things while President.

I would be surprised to hear that Bush Jr did something similar. IF he did, I would doubt the sincerity.

It may be a little cynical of me to think that way but I don't see that same quality in W. I could be wrong.
 
Jesus, weren't those the days. When a candidate could say definitively what his position was, and when he wasn't able to stand by it it destroyed his career and made him a laughingstock.

If only he'd waited to make that comment today. He could have lied about everything just for the fun of it and he would have been fine.

Now the people of the US excuse everything their own party does, and condemns everything the other party does.
 
Now the people of the US excuse everything their own party does, and condemns everything the other party does.

Partisanship is older than the Earth. The open and shameless acceptance of lying as a normal part of the national discourse is new (at least in my lifetime).
 
I wouldn't call it a lie, so much as a sincere promise, that, due to circumstances, could not be kept.

Taxes pay for things. That's the way it works. And he did the responsible thing by breaking his promise because he was willing to put the good of the country ahead of his own interests, and I am happy to say I voted twice for the man. He would almost be a Democrat nowadays.
 
I have the utmost respect for the Bush's young and old, but this tradition apparently started with a short note from Reagan to his VP GHW Bush when he was taking over and Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior have carried that forward. One assumes that President Obama will somehow put away his hyper-partisanship and do the same, even if Donald Trump is elected, but I'm not prepared to bet on it since President Obama has done many classless things while President.

Traditionally, ex-presidents haven't tried to stay in power. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and soon, Obama have erased that tradition.
 
Presidents don't levy taxes. President Bush thought he'd made a deal with the Democrat congress. He learned that Democrats don't honor their commitments and think those who do are fools.

It takes two to make a peace but only one to make a war. When you're dealing with a group who reject all efforts at peace, or bipartisanship, you're a fool to keep trying.
 
In my opinion, he was 100% sincere in the pledge and he fully intended to keep it when he made the pledge. Then we had a normal recession and the normal short falll of cash and somehow the Democrats were able to convince him that they were sincere in giving him three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar raised in new taxes if he would sign their 'tax the rich' bill. He agreed to do so--stiff new luxury taxes on private luxury boats, airplanes, and fine jewelry and such.

The result?

1. The rich simply went elsewhere to purchase their toys just as they will put their money elsewhere if Hillary tries to tax more of it.
2. American boat and private plane industries were decimated and tens of thousands of manufacturing workers lost their jobs. Those industries never fully recovered to what they once were even after those taxes were rescinded.
3. A great deal of America's fine jewelry business moved off shores to places like Grand Cayman. Much of it never came back.
4. The Republicans in the House and Senate quickly distanced themselves from their President.
5. George HW Bush's re-election prospects, almost a sure thing before he broke his pledge, went down in flames and Bill Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote.

And it is interesting, that amidst all that chaos, we did get the new taxes. And not a penny in spending cuts.

I'd like to add that the media rode his ass into the ground over it, then you add in Ross Perot, and George was pretty well hosed.
 
I'd like to add that the media rode his ass into the ground over it, then you add in Ross Perot, and George was pretty well hosed.

Yes. Even dear old Paul Harvey who rarely ever took a personal jab at anybody was dismayed. I think it was Bush's immediate unpopularity with his own party coupled with Bill Clinton's very high unfavorables at the time that opened the door for Perot who probably wouldn't have been able to gain much traction if either party had a popular candidate. Too bad we didn't have somebody viable with Perot's charisma show up in this election.
 
Yes. Even dear old Paul Harvey who rarely ever took a personal jab at anybody was dismayed. I think it was Bush's immediate unpopularity with his own party coupled with Bill Clinton's very high unfavorables at the time that opened the door for Perot who probably wouldn't have been able to gain much traction if either party had a popular candidate. Too bad we didn't have somebody viable with Perot's charisma show up in this election.
I will say that I cringed at the time, thinking, "Ooh, you might regret that." It was too definitive... which was refreshing, and which did get him a lot of votes, I think... but it's usually not a good idea to paint oneself into a corner like that.
 
Bush I and "Read My Lips, No New Taxes!"

Then he raised taxes.

Did Bush I lie, or was he a victim of unfortunate circumstances?

Note: "Lie" implies intent to deceive.

Do you mean Bush the 1st or Bush Sr.?

Bush "I" doesn't make any sense.
 
I fully agree with your assessment. I believe he was sincere. But going further, I also believe he was trying to show how non-partisan he was and that he could work with the other party in times in distress, and it came back to bite him in the butt.

Some might call that naive, I don't know, but I do think it's an example of how and why our political world has evolved to become so absurdly partisan. It almost has to be as a matter of survival.

Wow, that took me farther off than I intended the topic to be. lol

You have been holding on to this for a really long time... let go with the pain... let go.
 
Yeah i think he was expecting to keep that promise, but became confronted with a unique situation where he set aside his ego and tried to do the right thing for the people by coming to a compromise.

Unfortunately, we punished him for that.
 
I would be surprised to hear that Bush Jr did something similar. IF he did, I would doubt the sincerity.

It may be a little cynical of me to think that way but I don't see that same quality in W. I could be wrong.

Take it as you wish - as with much related to "W", people have a totally biased view of everything he did and said. You'll never hear or see confirmation from him - that's not his style - so it would be up to President Obama and his people to disclose the truth and perhaps, once he leaves office, President Obama will be less partisan and more inclined to acknowledge something favourable about his predecessor.

I'd also note that Bush Junior was quite close to Bush Senior and it wouldn't surprise me if he emulated dad in this regard.

For what it's worth, the attached is a form of confirmation from President Bush II's press secretary - also, take it as you wish. I know what I believe, but I'm also biased in favour of President Bush and his term in office.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/01/bush-to-obama-s.html
 
Back
Top Bottom