Talk:Read my lips: no new taxes/Archive 1

Archive 1

read his lips

IM FULL OF BULLSHIT! Removed from article:

After the convention the phrase was not repeated and Bush moved away from his no taxes pledge. For the last months of the race, when Bush was comfortably in the lead, it was felt that such an uncompromising pledge was an unnecessary risk.

Is there a source for this? The articles I've been able to dig up only show discussion of tax increases by the Bush administration after taking office, and initially the phraseology used was "revenue enhancers" and "user fees". Ellsworth 00:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Ellsworth ought to incorporate that information into the article: that when taxes were first suggested, after the election, they were introduced with the phrases "revenue enhancers" and as "user fees." If the phrase "no new taxes" was not in fact repeated during the campaign, what's the excuse for suppressing this fact? The assessment "when Bush was comfortably in the lead, it was felt that such an uncompromising pledge was an unnecessary risk" is within ordinary bounds of attributed political motivations, which are never expressly spelled out in ways that could be quoted as a "source" satisfactory to a partisan. Wetman 00:34, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of the paragraph in question -

For the last months of the race, when Bush was comfortably in the lead, it was felt that such an uncompromising pledge was an unnecessary risk.

- should at the least say by whom "it was felt". Ellsworth 21:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is the source for Noonan's insistance on the phrase.Scranton 03:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great Article, Should not have been featured

This article is a good example of a good article on wikipedia, however, it should not be featured. It almost belongs as a wikiquote rather than an article. And I could compare it to a Spanish political figure saying somthing that has been quoted, then have an aricle about it, and then somhow have it featured. I believe that the only reason an article like this obtained featured status is because it was a US president, the bias towards the US on wikipedia must stop. Other than that, it is a great article.

I think that if stuff has a page, that page should be all that it can be - up and including a featured article. I agree that not everyting some politician says should have a page, but

1. with respect, a US president is more important than pretty much any Spanish politician
2. this quote did generate an unusual amount of controversy

so it's IMHO pretty consensual that it can have a page. 85.71.109.235 08:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. We had National Anthem of Russia yesterday. Does that make Wikipedia too Russian? Should that article only be in WikiMusic?62.3.70.68 13:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your views are not uncommon. We have an entire wikiproject with a similar theme. You're also welcome to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, where your opinion will probably have more impact. For future reference, new sections usually go at the bottom of talk pages. Cheers!--Chaser T 09:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Why is this featured? Gordo 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the people who participated in the discussion thought it met the criteria: [1]. Henry^Flower 11:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's better than the russian national anthem article though.. I'm not sure whether this article should be featured or not, I mean, you can't write much more on the subject than the contributors have done. But, there's gotta be more suitable articles out there?--84.217.148.230 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After this article has appeared as "Today's Featured Article", we should expect to see "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" as a featured article in wikipedia's main page, to avoid political leaning, shouldn't we?

Kudos!

This article is completely excellent, and made very compelling reading. Bravo to everyone involved! TotoBaggins

Clinton

I heard Clinton promising tax relief for the middle class and breaking that before he was sworn in. I just don't see the point of the article. Who has not broken a campain promise? If it's relevant, fine, but please explain the reason for the article. SRodgers--65.24.77.104 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Its notable because:

• It was a very, very straightforward promise that was straightforwardly broken.
• Bush made a big deal about it during the campaign: it was one of the focal points of the campaign, rather than a minor side-issue.
• It has been parodied and talked about ever since. This is more important than the above, and justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Dark Shikari 01:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It also takes a shot at a Republican. And his name happens to be the same as the nut bloggers favorate target.

The article also discusses a topic of popular culture; as the pharse has been parodied and used repeatedly as a symbol of George H.W Bush's presidency.

Know new taxes

At some point shortly after the famous quote came back to haunt him, I saw the text of a now famous cartoon parodying the quote as "Read my lips: Know new taxes". Such wondering if anyone thinks that statement warrents a mention in the main article?

T h e M a v e r i c k 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Final sentence

The final sentence currently reads:

The song criticizes politician's empty speeches and false promises.

Obviously this needs work in some way, but what? Does it criticise Bush's empty speeches etc? If so, that's POV unless you insert "perceived" or something. Or does it criticise empty speeches etc. by politicians in general? If so, the apostrophe's in the wrong place. And anyway, is this reference that relevant to the article? I've never heard of the song. --A bit iffy 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

This article equates "no new taxes" with "no more taxes" or "no higher taxes". I saw nothing in the FA that stated Bush introduced new taxes. Technically, to my knowledge, he kept his promise, even though it was deceptive. I'm surprised this was not caught in a peer review.whicky1978 ^talk 22:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the "misunderstood" section right below: He promised two or three times that he would not raise taxes. Then he capped it off with the "read my lips" statement. --Mr. Billion 23:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstood

I cannot believe that EVERYBODY has misunderstood Mr. Bush's statement. He said "No NEW taxes." He never said "No MORE taxes" or "No HIGHER taxes" or "No RAISED taxes." He said "No NEW taxes." As I remember, I don't recall Congress creating a tax on, say, catnip or belly button lint. Those would have been NEW taxes, and as we all know, the Bush administration was against NEW taxes. But as for all the OLD taxes, that was a different matter. I believe the quote is one of the slickest in the history of politics.

-Andrew Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.45.178 (talk • contribs)

Just read the full quote, both of you: "And I'm the one who will not raise taxes. My opponent now says he'll raise them as a last resort, or a third resort. But when a politician talks like that, you know that's one resort he'll be checking into. My opponent, my opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And The Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’" (emphasis mine) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is, they are not understanding what Bush meant by new taxes. While technically, you could argue that raising tax is not a new tax, to some extent it is, since you are taxing income (or whatever) that was not taxed before. Nil Einne 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. Actually I had never read Bush's full speech, since I hold the Rich Man's (Repubilican) Party's rhetoric with as much esteem as I hold the belief that the earth is flat. Anyways if I had been Bush, I probably would have worded my speech with the phrase "new taxes," so I could try to worm my way out of it with the reasoning that I used above.

-Andrew (yes that is my REAL name) Jackson

So just to make sure I understand properly, democrats in the legislative branch more or less forced him to compromise on his position, but then democrats also criticized him for breaking his promise? Is that hypocritical or are the different branches just considered separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Audio_Home_Recording_Act was one of his first bills signed, which created a new tax. He was under no pressure from democrats to do so. -- TDR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.56.190 (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What kind of taxes?

I can't believe the article doesn't ever state what kind of taxes Bush was talking about! I would presume personal income taxes, but I could also believe it to be income taxes in general (personal and corporate) or even sales tax, though I don't think the U.S. has a federal sales tax. --Saforrest 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move

Page was moved using cut/paste to "Read my lips: no new taxes" by User:Halibut Thyme, however if the article was made featured at this current name then here it should probably stay, right? Anyway, I've reversed the move for now - certainly cut/paste is not the correct way to move a page... Evercat 14:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Gulf War was part of tax hike?

I inserted a piece about the Gulf War, after the comment that the war made the public forget about Bush the Elder's broken promise and gave him great support. While I certainly agree with those facts, I am concerned that the Gulf War was also part of the reason Bush broke his promise and raised taxes. Historically, wars have been very expensive on taxpayers, and the Gulf War was no exception. Is that a valid point? USN1977 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gulf War didn't end up costing the U.S. Treasury very much, as much of the cost was picked up by other countries. From our article: "The cost of the war to the United States was calculated by the United States Congress to be $61.1 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries around the world: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf States; $16 billion by Germany and Japan." - SimonP (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gulf War was less expensive than the current Iraq war, which has far fewer nations to share in the costs. Still, $61 billion is not chump change. Had it been divided evenly among every man, woman, and child in the United States, everyone would have to pay $244 more in taxes. For many Americans, that kind of tax hike would be a big burden. If Bush the Elder did not bankroll the Gulf War through taxation, his only other options were to borrow or print the money. Both of these are forms of taxation. Borrowing (namely from Red China and Japan), which were, and still are, America's biggest loan officers, is merely deferring the tax. Creditors want repayment and paying back the loans have to be done by taxation, of course. If Bush the Elder got the Federal Reserve to crank up the printing presses and create $61 billion of paper money out of thin air, this also hurt American taxpayers. It means people have devalued money and must use more money to pay for the same products. Inflation is a hidden and insidious form of taxation. Printing up money also causes problems that because the value of worthless fiat currency has been sapped, creditors might likely make a run on the dollar, demanding repayment now. Bottom line, the hypothesis that the Gulf War was a big reason Bush broke his promise has merit. USN1977 (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1992 reelection

Did Bush attempt to rehash the quip for his 1992 reelection campaign? It has pointed out that he tried it, although reception was now lukewarm. Freedom in Chains points out "In his 1988 election campaign, Bush was famous for his line 'Read my lips, no new taxes!'. Two years later, Bush broke his promise and raised taxes. He tried it again in his 1992 reelection campaign but got fewer people to believe it this time. A cartoonist suggested he ought to have added 'This time I am not lying!'" USN1977 (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Audio clip of Bush's speech

Wasn't there an audio file of Bush saying the famous line? Does anyone know what happened to it? - Throw 14:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was inexplicably removed a few days ago. I've readded it. - SimonP 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I wasn't sure if it had been deleted. - Throw 18:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article

I came here to suggest it be nominated as a Featured Article, only to discover it already was one. Nice job by everyone involved! --Doradus (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the detail describing how the Democrats forced Pres. Bush into signing the fiscal budget containing increased tax revenues by causing the whole of Federal government to shut down many times while they played politics?

Smw2005 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)