New York Times Celebrates Bush's Birthday With Piece About Why Perry Don't Like Him

perrybushreading.jpg
Via.
On a certain local man's 65th birthday, The New York Times wonders whether Dubya and Gov. RIck Perry's relationship will help or hurt the latter's more-n-likely run for the White House. After all, they're frienemies now -- have been for years, with Perry insisting since at least '07 that "George Bush was never a fiscal conservative," which used to get some Republicans in trouble. A few days after The Los Angeles Times covered the same subject, Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny road-map their breakup thusly:
On government spending, immigration and education, Mr. Perry's criticisms of Mr. Bush have given him cachet with conservatives, especially with Tea Party voters who blame the former president for allowing spending and the reach of government to grow rapidly.

Those criticisms have burnished the Perry image as less prone to ideological compromise or a fuzzy "compassionate" brand of conservatism, an appealing trait to those Republican primary voters seeking purity in their nominee. And they have helped Mr. Perry escape the shadow of Mr. Bush, whose sponsorship, along with that of his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, was critical to Mr. Perry's rise.
On a related note: A Friend of Unfair Park sends this press release issued yesterday by Americans for Rick Perry, which says the governor's peoples have hired Craig Schoenfeld to exec-direct the Iowa organization. Who he? A former Newt Gingrich campaign worker who "served on President Bush's 2000 Iowa Caucus and general election teams, managing the President's general election campaign in the State of Iowa as Executive Director of Iowa Victory 2000." See? Related.

Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
35 comments
Jack E. Jett
Jack E. Jett

perry and bush are like two bitchy high school cheerleaders fighting over pom poms. 

because pom poms is all they have and all they will ever be. 

scottindallas
scottindallas

The words of Mike Rhyner come to mind, "there are no slow news days, just slow news people."   Just kidding, but it's been a slow news week, save for KC Anthony--gag

TimCov
TimCov

I see the people reaching for ideological purity in both parties as being detrimental to the country. We have the "conservatives" who would saddle us with a government run by and for the corporations that would pry into every aspect of our private lives while providing no safety net at all. Then we have "liberals" who would tax people and corporations so heavily that for many doing business would no longer make sense and would have almost everybody being supported in some way by the government.

We need to get back to moderation. Taxes have dipped to low. The Federal budget has gotten to large. We need to fix both of these things while limiting the amount of  government interaction in most people's day-to-day lives. If what a person is doing affects nobody but themselves, it is none of the government's business.

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

I don't understand conservatives' lust for idealogical purity. They harp incessantly about the good old days, how great America used to be, and what we must do to become great once again (in their eyes, of course). But never any acknowledgement that maybe those 90% top tax rates had a little something to do with our becoming so great. They have a fierce opposition to compromise, when, in fact, this country's greatness has always been built on a solid foundation of mutual compromise.

J. Erik Jonsson
J. Erik Jonsson

I feel like maybe the headline is a reference to something.  Help me out?

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

""liberals" who would tax people and corporations so heavily that for many doing business would no longer make sense and would have almost everybody being supported in some way by the government."

Can you point to one country where this is true?

Montemalone
Montemalone

The truth of the matter is they're just selfish, hateful, greedy bastards. If you're not a white, god fearing war monger, then they have no use for you and care nothing for your well being.

Mike
Mike

I keep seeing this 90 per cent fiction on blogs. Yes we had 90 per cent rates after WW2 and yes we did well. Our competitors were also collective burned out ruin and that relative strength had everything to do with our relative success. Once our competitors got well, we had to bring the rates down.

TimCov
TimCov

The USA. I'm not talking actual government policies. I'm talking about extremes on the political spectrum. Though, I do remember the days of the 90% tax brackets. My mother turned down a promotion because the raise in pay would mean she got a smaller paycheck due to moving up a tax bracket. 

As far as extremes in taxes, I'll make it simple. Why should someone grow their business (or take a job) where they will be making a million per year when they end up with $100,000 after taxes. Instead, you just grow your business to the point where your making below that threshold (or take a job that pays just less than that threshold) and end up with much more money. An extreme tax at the upper end of income only serves to keep the ultra-rich in their position and limit competition for them.

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

"The truth of the matter is they're just selfish, hateful, greedy bastards. If you're not a white, god fearing war monger, then they have no use for you and care nothing for your well being."

Or a fetus. They pretend to care about you if you're a fetus, too.God help you when you're born, though-- unless you're fortunate enough to be born to a white, God fearing, war-mongering married man and woman

Gjaynes
Gjaynes

Are you really this narrow, this dumb?  Or is this just a pose?

scottindallas
scottindallas

Those tax rates persisted (at 70%) until Reagan changed them.  Those tax rates suppressed corporate executive pay.  That's a good thing as it kept the money in productive use, not bled out the top. 

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

The tax rates were a big factor in how we managed to build a gigantic, healthy middle class, which everyone should agree was a big part of our success. Conservatives decry wealth redistribution, but only when it benefits the middle class. After all, what the hell do you call laying off teachers so you can give more tax cuts to the wealthy?!

scottindallas
scottindallas

they have high union membership, high tax rates and a far more generous social net than we offer.  Those policies have created a robust economy where there is little unemployment.  Germany is a perfect example, of high tax rates, high union membership and strong entitlements creating a robust economy. 

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

The Germany economy is stronger than ours, and the standard of living, by all measures, is much better than ours. Your point is incorrect. In addition, a LOWER % of the adult population in Germany is on "welfare" than in the US. Try googling

scottindallas
scottindallas

Tim, what a businessman will do is forgo income and buy equipment, build a factory, warehouse, advertise, hire someone, whatever.  All those are deductible.  It is a simple way to transfer income into wealth.  But, if you want golden trashcans and shower curtains, our current low tax regime is the way.  You should read John Bogle, highly compensated executives and investment advisors are never worth the money.  They are more wrong than right.  These "superstars" elevate risk and drain corporations of vital assets.  Again, I have no problem with an entrepreneur, someone who actually builds something.  But, the fact is, taxes are really easy for them to avoid.  Also, you mother was an idiot.  Any other money would have still increased her income.  Either you don't understand how marginal tax rates work, or you're trying to fool people.

Montemalone
Montemalone

Logic and math are a result of book learnin', and we know how the right hate that.

Montemalone
Montemalone

You know good and well that tax brackets are progressive.(Let me explain for our viewers at home: When you get a raise that puts you in a higher bracket, only those dollars that exceed the threshold are subject to the higher rate.)I don't know anybody that would turn down a raise because they have to pay taxes on their income.

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

For anyone who understands basic 20th century economic history, it is easy to see that the effective tax rate after the loopholes and deductions was at or below what we have today. In actuality, no one paid anywhere near 90%.

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

The 90% would only apply to the money earned after a certain point. For example, suppose the tax brackets are 10% for anything under $20,000, 20% for anything between 20K-40K, etc... It means the first 20,000 is taxed at 10%, the next 20K is taxed at 20%, etc. In no instance, ever, was anyone's entire income taxed at the top rate. 

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

For anyone who understands basic 20th century economic history, it is easy to see that the effective tax rate after the loopholes and deductions was at or below what we have today. In actuality, no one paid anywhere near 90%, or even 50%. read a little

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

"My mother turned down a promotion because the raise in pay would mean she got a smaller paycheck due to moving up a tax bracket. "

Sorry, but that was really stupid. When you move into a new tax bracket, it only applies to the income in that bracket. If you're paying 20% now and a $10,000 raise would put your top tax at 30%, it means that the NEW $10,000 (or whatever part of it forced you into the new bracket) is taxed at 30%. The rest is still taxed at the same rate it had been all along. It makes no sense for her to have turned down a raise. Even if the entirety of her raise was taxed at 90% (which it almost certainly wasn't), she still would have got 10% ot it, which is 10% more than she got by turning it down flat. Every rise in a person's salary results in an increase of after-tax salary.

TimCov
TimCov

Let's see, it is simple math. Using the 90% rate suggested above:$1,000,000 x90% = $900,000$1,000,000 - $900,000 = $100,000

I know it may be a little hard for you to do the math. If you are having problems with this, get a calculator.

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

Can you show me where anyone in the history of the US has ever "making a million per year when they end up with $100,000 after taxes."  

Jason
Jason

I agree with Montemalone, but if you could maybe enlighten us as to where and how he is wrong, I would maybe agree with you.  

He has a pretty valid point.  I see Republicans (and mostly conservative) agree and disagree with each other on a number of things.  But, when it comes to President Obama they are aligned in total disagreement with him.  Raise taxes on the wealthy?  President Reagan did it but he is a hero to the current brand of Republicans and will not vote to raise taxes on them.  President Bush 43 spent us out of a surplus but President Obama is seen as fiscally irresponsible.  And, instead of working with the Obama administration and Democrats to help us out of a huge mess we're in right now, Republicans have openly claimed their only goal is to get President Obama out of office.  Again and again Republicans keep moving the goal post on him.  Take a look at the current negotiations on the debt ceiling.  They were with a few percentage points of each other and without even trying to make a compromise, Eric Cantor walked away from the debt commission saying that Democrats were way off from where Republicans wanted them to be.  

Montemalone might have used a bit of prose (not sure what you mean about "a pose") to make a point but if you really think about it, I sincerely believe he is right.  I can't explain it any other way.

Montemalone
Montemalone

If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share with the rest of us.

scottindallas
scottindallas

yes, because industry invested in the country.  The actual tax rates have stayed pretty constant, though they've dipped even more since Bush Jr. 

Bigjondaniel
Bigjondaniel

again - tax rate and effective tax rate are different. What deductions were allowed? What loop holes were available? A basic search of even a cursory description of the tax policy then would show you that the effective tax rates were lower than today

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

"Those people now have every technology we do, are as smarter or smarter than many of our people..."

Since we're on the subject of conservative stupidity, how long do you think we're going to last in a technological age with competition from countries you acknowledge are already as smart or smarter than we are, if we're steeped in an anti-science climate and plagued by suspicion of higher education because of some perceived liberal agenda? 

Tad Banyon
Tad Banyon

If you owned a business and you had a good year and made an extra hundred thousand dollars, and you could either buy a new phone system and new computers for everyone in the office or hand it all over to Uncle Sam, which one would you do?

It was the threat of the government taking more that caused businesses to use that money to upgrade equipment and make other business expenditures (which in turn creates other jobs) rather than see it simply go the way of taxes. With tax rates as low as they are now, there is no tax incentive to do that anymore, so businesses hang on to every cent they can, spend as little as possible, and funnel as much as possible to executive bonuses. 

scottindallas
scottindallas

No Mike, you don't get it.  The tax receipts don't change, the corporate activity does.  If the corporate execs are discouraged by lower pay, guess what, they'll be forced to HIRE assistants to pick up the slack.  If executive salaries are suppressed--they don't have bosses like everyone else in the economy--that leaves more money for investment and hiring.  They won't pay more taxes, they'll invest and hire to avoid those taxes. 

Taxes aren't that determinate of economic activity.  If you were a small businessman, or a tax adviser you'd understand. 

Mike
Mike

How do high taxes build a middle class? The money is going to stockholders one way or the other. They don't leave any money for employees except what is needed. Employee wages react to supply and demand. Stockholders allocate money to employees to meet that equation. If anything high taxes lower demand for services and consequently wages. I do not know how you draw the conclusion that when the government takes more, employees get more.

It is fantasy land in the fifties and sixties when the rest of the world had nothing and we had everything. Those days are done. Those people now have every technology we do, are as smarter or smarter than many of our people, and likely have a stronger work ethic.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...