TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

One of the most exasperating qualities of a libtard is their penchant for obfuscating speech. Anyone who is not aware of what the Bush tax cuts actually were would assume, after years and years of the left’s inaccurate mantra, that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy ONLY.
If Bush stood at the edge of a cliff and pushed back a bus in peril, a bus that had every economic class in it, the progfart headline the next day would be “Bush Saves His Rich Cronies From Dying.”
Obama repeats this lie in his hysteric speech in Kansas.
“I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory. Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did they get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class: things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.”
Wrong.
From Wapo -
The bulk of the 2001 tax cuts were marginal rate cuts, which extended to all taxpayers, while the 2003 tax cuts included a reduction in taxes on dividends and capital gains.
But the 2001 tax cuts also included tax changes that benefited the middle class, such as a reduced marriage penalty and expanded tax credits, along with an instant tax rebate. Still, it is correct that most of the benefits of the tax cuts flowed to the wealthy (who, let’s not forget, pay the largest share of income taxes).
Obama has said repeatedly he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250,000; he wants to reinstate higher tax rates only for the wealthy. (In fact, he would retain about 70 percent of the overall tax cut.) But he should not suggest that the Bush tax cuts were aimed only at the wealthy, since that is not correct.