Talk:Read my lips: no new taxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Read my lips: no new taxes is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 23, 2006.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 11, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
September 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
August 12, 2012 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

Unclear opening[edit]

From the second paragraph: "Once he became president, however, Bush raised taxes as a way to reduce the national budget deficit. Bush refused many times but was making no progress with a Senate and House that was controlled by Democrats."

Is this just me or does this not make any sense the way it is written? Should it be Congress raised takes and Bush refused (vetoed) it? I don't know the history very well but it just seems unclear now.

  • A better explanation might have been that Congress raised taxes and Bush the Elder approved it. Had Bush vetoed the tax hike, it still could have returned to the legislature where Congress could override the veto. Had that happened, taxes would have been raised without the President's signature; thus Bush the Elder would have been off the hook. However, that was not the case. Bush approved bills raising taxes; thus he broke his promise. USN1977 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


The article refers to Social Security and Medicare as "Entitlement programs". This is a Biased term, like "Pro Life" that skews the truth in order to support a conservative agenda. In English, entitlement refers to thinking you deserve something you really don't. The purpose of the programs mentioned is not to give people stuff they don't deserve, but rather to function as an insurance program or safety net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured article concerns[edit]

This article was promoted in 2005 and no longer meets the featured article criteria. The prose is full of weasel wording and in need of copyediting. There are many areas lacking citations and dead links to sources. This is only a sampling of the problems that need fixing and this isn't an in depth review. The issues pointed out need addressing or a featured article review will be needed. Brad (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Vice President Bush and taxes[edit]

I'm planning on editing this section anyway. But I raised two [citation needed] [better source needed] objections in this section. Reason - Just using Jack Germond as the source here doesn't cut it. Germond does not have the chops to make this a verifiable claim. Steep reductions in marginal rates was a major part of Reagan's policies -- importantly over the totality of eight year, relative to where he started. This needs at least a couple verifiable economists, academics, tax specialist for this claim to hold water. As I said, regardless, I'm planning on some significant re-write here. Just giving a proper chance for a response. Thanks. 10stone5 (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


This should not be a featured article. It is poorly worded and poorly sourced. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm really surprised this was a featured article for so long! I believe it could still use some NPV work, however I noticed it doesn't qualify for B anymore because it needs citations for challenged sentences so I've demoted it to C. Kirk (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Edited for neutrality[edit]

"The obvious government waste and easy spending cuts had already been made during the eight years of the Reagan administration."

The spending cuts Reagan made were neither obvious, easy or government waste, that is an opinion. I could just as easily write that they were reactionary, counterproductive and regressive, because that is MY opinion. However, I would never write that because I know that different people have different opinions. I have removed the sentence because it is clearly written with a conservative bias, just as I could write a sentence with a liberal bias. Thanks.

Incomplete Citation[edit]

Does anyone know where the citation for this line "Other prominent Republicans had also come out in favor of a tax increase, including Gerald Ford, Paul O'Neill, and Lamar Alexander.[11]" leads to? I tried to find the source to research further but have an author name and a page number and cant find the source.

Thanks for any insight. (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Clinton: tax increase[edit]

A previous edit stated, as if authoritatively, that Clinton's tax increase broke a campaign promise. The PBS article cited actually stated:

"During those chaotic first weeks in the White House and following bad news about the size of the deficit, Bill Clinton made one of the most important decisions of his presidency -- to make deficit reduction the centerpiece of his first budget. Some members of the staff argued he was turning his back on campaign promises, in particular that of a middle-class tax cut. And by now Bill Clinton had already lost so much political capital that his budget was in deep trouble even though Democrats controlled both houses of Congress."

I revised the edit accordingly.

The previous edit also cited a Wikipedia article as a reference, against Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, 1.4. Tapered (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)