• 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!

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

A MUST READ. Don't even read the opinions. Look at the empirical facts. Look at the numbers and tell me Pelosi did all this....

So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?

Here's a short paragraph to give you an idea what economist/professor/pulitzer prize winner David Cay Johnston concludes of the Bush tax cuts.

"The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable."

Obama's fault what?

Clinton created jobs? Created the environment for jobs? How about Clinton was riding on the Reagan coattails, and had the luck of having the tech bubble between two recessions? Bubbles happen and usually have good they bring along.

But... Clinton also pushed (with Cuomo) the financial disaster of the last half-century. Forcing banks to provide loans for houses to people that couldn't afford them. These are Clinton's coattails... a wee bit different from Reagan's.

Rations healthcare? Go to Europe or Kanuckistan and you will learn all about rationing. They are experts at it. That's why Kanuckistani's come to the US for half assed to serious procedures. Ask Ms. Stronach... member of parliament and daughter of a family of hundreds of millions. If Kanuckstani Kare was so great... why didn't she get cared for there?

.
 
We lost manufacturing jobs. all the tax cuts did was to help the middle class keep the hole plugged in their little economic dingy. Now the water rushes in and the democrats and republicans offer you help bailing water? We NEED national manufACTURING NOT WELFARE FROM THE POLITICAL AND BUSINESS CLASS.
 
We lost manufacturing jobs. all the tax cuts did was to help the middle class keep the hole plugged in their little economic dingy. Now the water rushes in and the democrats and republicans offer you help baling water? We NEED national manufACTURING NOT WELFARE FROM THE POLITICAL AND BUSINESS CLASS.

Not going to happen. There has been a structural change in the economy and it can't be reverted. What is needed is the formation of new types of industries.
 
Not going to happen. There has been a structural change in the economy and it can't be reverted. What is needed is the formation of new types of industries.

And the manufacturing that those new industries would create would just go over seas also, thereby not helping one bit. This country NEEDS manufacturing to be brought back HERE. It MUST be reverted or we will continue the downhill slope that we are currently on.

Now I forget...who was it that signed the Free Trade Agreement?
 
And the manufacturing that those new industries would create would just go over seas also, thereby not helping one bit. This country NEEDS manufacturing to be brought back HERE. It MUST be reverted or we will continue the downhill slope that we are currently on.

Now I forget...who was it that signed the Free Trade Agreement?

The manufacturing will be done overseas, but the design, management, marketing and sales would be done here. Those industries will probably be service industries, not requiring much manufacturing.

This structural change would happen with or without the FTA. The FTA opened up new markets to our products and expanded our economy.
 
The manufacturing will be done overseas, but the design, management, marketing and sales would be done here. Those industries will probably be service industries, not requiring much manufacturing.

Jobs which only those with the proper education can do. We need jobs for people that are not as educated. Manufacturing jobs are perfect for this.

This structural change would happen with or without the FTA. The FTA opened up new markets to our products and expanded our economy.

It was the FTA that allowed so many manufacturing jobs to go over seas.
 
Jobs which only those with the proper education can do. We need jobs for people that are not as educated. Manufacturing jobs are perfect for this.

I understand this. The reality is that those jobs are not returning. Period. People need to face this and get educated for the new structural economy or they will have to compete with Mexicans for employment in the fast food industry.


It was the FTA that allowed so many manufacturing jobs to go over seas.

They would have gone overseas without the FTA.
 
We lost manufacturing jobs. all the tax cuts did was to help the middle class keep the hole plugged in their little economic dingy. Now the water rushes in and the democrats and republicans offer you help bailing water? We NEED national manufACTURING NOT WELFARE FROM THE POLITICAL AND BUSINESS CLASS.

Not going to happen. There has been a structural change in the economy and it can't be reverted. What is needed is the formation of new types of industries.

Hence, the reason the current Administration has been pushing for investments in renewable energy, i.e., wind, solar, nuclear, etc, and has stated consistently that businesses that hiring people in the U.S. instead of outsourcing jobs overseas would receive tax cuts. At some point, this country has to recognize that unless we invest in new manufactoring industries we will continue to lag in GDP and have a trade imbalance. Something's got to give.

On the article, I found this part interesting:

The number of people reporting incomes of $200,000 or more but legally paying no federal income taxes skyrocketed in the second Bush term. A decade ago it was fewer than 1,500 taxpayers; in 2000 it was about 2,300. This high-income, tax-free group jumped to more than 11,000 in 2007 and then doubled in 2008 to more than 22,000.

In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.

The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166.

The Statistics of Income data on tax-free, high incomes severely understate economic reality because they exclude deferral accounts, including those of hedge fund managers with billion-dollar incomes who can legally report no current income and borrow against their untaxed gains to live tax free.

So, apparently the criticism that "the poor who don't pay income tax received tax refunds" goes both ways. I can understand people being upset on the low-income end - the poor receiving federal tax refunds when they didn't pay into the tax system - but people making over $200K not paying federal income taxes!?! No wonder the President wants to cut them off...a decade of some of our highest wage earners using tax shelters to avoid paying taxes. I don't mind high wage earners being able to keep more of what they earn, but my goodness!

Jobs which only those with the proper education can do. We need jobs for people that are not as educated. Manufacturing jobs are perfect for this.

That's kinda been the problem over the last 20 years or so. Manufacturing plants began to use more technology, but fewer people had the knowledge and skills to operate the machinery. It's one of the reasons manufacturing jobs began going overseas - not enough trained technicians here.

I applauded the President's initiative to couple education with technology (jobs). It's up to the next generation to fully embrace the education benefits and opportunities that are now afforded to them.
 
Last edited:
That's kinda been the problem over the last 20 years or so. Manufacturing plants began to use more technology, but fewer people had the knowledge and skills to operate the machinery. It's one of the reasons manufacturing jobs began going overseas - not enough trained technicians here.

I applauded the President's initiative to couple education with technology (jobs). It's up to the next generation to fully embrace the education benefits and opportunities that are now afforded to them.

I know one would normally think that the more technology that there is then you would naturally need more educated people. But that's not entirely true. Technology has gotten to the point where a simple push of the button and reading some readouts will do the trick, combined with quality inspectors and thats much of all that needs to be done. Those people could be trained by the company itself to do what needs to be done, they could even train people for the jobs that do require hands on work. And really, wouldn't a company rather have someone that is trained for the specific job they need with their particular quirks in mind than someone fresh out of college that thinks they know what the company needs?
 
good point, the mess started with the New Deal where massive entitlement programs were created along with those who became dependent on them.

You seem to forget that the unemployed rate was over 25 percent, worst in history, when Roosevelt took over.

It's counter productive, even dumb, to judge what he did or didn't do when you weren't there to witness it.

ricksfolly
 
Who cares. The tax cuts were enacted to help fight an inherited recession that was made worse by 9/11 attacks. If not for the tax cuts, it's likely that the economic situation would have been even worse then it was. At that point the least of your concerns would have been tax cuts while fighting a war.

If you recall, Clinton delivered a surplus in 2000. At the end of the year, the stock market was still soaring high and remained there until 9/11. W. Bush ran on promises of tax cuts. They were not a response to anything. He would have done the same thing no matter what was happening in this country. And if you look at the unemployment rate by year (among many other things), it's very clear that the recession in the middle of Bush's term had no relationship to what was happening in 2000.
 
If you recall, Clinton delivered a surplus in 2000. At the end of the year, the stock market was still soaring high and remained there until 9/11. W. Bush ran on promises of tax cuts. They were not a response to anything. He would have done the same thing no matter what was happening in this country. And if you look at the unemployment rate by year (among many other things), it's very clear that the recession in the middle of Bush's term had no relationship to what was happening in 2000.

It was known that the US was entereing recession before the election. It was one of the big topics of the election. And Clinton/Gore and other democrats kept claiming that the republicans were just trying to "talk us into a recession". Basically so that they could win the election. Bush's way to make the recession shallower and shorter was with tax cuts. So of course it was in response to the looming recession. Don't believe me?

The looming Clinton/Gore recession Erdman's World - MarketWatch
What brought out his most recent ire was the suggestion of Vice President-elect Dick Cheney that we might be in for a recession next year, and that we should therefore press ahead with a tax cut to provide what might prove to be badly needed fiscal stimulus.

Despite all the signs pointing to the obvious, Krugman seems to still be in denial regarding a looming Clinton/Gore recession in 2001. He writes: "Mr. Cheney suggested - with more confidence in his forecast than any professional economists I know - that we are facing a looming recession." One wonders who Krugman is hanging around with these days.

Equally puzzling is that he regards tax cuts as a "specious recession fighting rationale." This from a former MIT economics professor. He even accuses Cheney of being a "vulgar Keynesian."

BTW, the official start date of the recession inherited from Clinton's administration was 03/01. A mere 3 months after taking office. Bush didn't cause a recession in just three months. He hadn't even hardly done anything yet. The recession was inherited from the prior admin - not that i blame Clinton, it's just the way it goes.

PPS. I just checked the stock market performance during the 2001 recession, and it was not going up. nice try, though.
 
Last edited:
NO. We lost everything it only needs to be clicked and sent! No need for the best and the brightest in America when you have the most sincere and romantic dreamy eyed capitalist's voting to sell our economic strength for the LOVE of an idea awe inspiring and sensual it seduces well meaning people by appealing to their notion of trade as a mutual balance or it aides in their romantic feelings about commerce. Reducing it to an exchange between- lovers who are caught off guard by the world around them and feel the fire of their passion so strongly that embers from the flames lite on everything around them until the whole of the electorate feels the heat that rages from the blissful embrace of capitalism's muted chorus of delight. Man it's trade between nations. Not a courtship between two people," caught up in the storm of a moment livid with a singular notion of togertherness". China dont care about us- and you think for one moment if not for our military they would be workin for our stuff thru half baked agreements that mostly favor them? No. They would come and take it. Free trade doesnt work. November may prove to be what Newt Gingrich , Refered to as PEROT VOTERS If we are those voters who were hoodwinked into believing false rhetoric about free trade then the next several cycles will start emboldening pro-national manufacturing candidates to run for office. They get my vote.
 
How about addressing the article in the OP:

Is there something preventing Liberals understanding cause and effect, or is just that whole reading comprehension hangup raising it's ugly head again.

The threats of Obama's policies along with spending policies killed any chance of improvement for years to come.

Some of you people need a play book that includes a course in basic economics, and doesn't have G.W. Bush as your only excuse for everything from the sinking of the Lusitania to the Earth Quakes around the world. I know you lack imagination past the talking points Obamaniacs all use but it's getting old.

Besides, just because some of us are Conservatives didn't make us big Bush or McCain supporters. Neither one is a Conservative in my book. In fact Bush was a damn progressive idiot, just not as far left or radical as Obama.
 
Last edited:
You seem to forget that the unemployed rate was over 25 percent, worst in history, when Roosevelt took over.

It's counter productive, even dumb, to judge what he did or didn't do when you weren't there to witness it.

ricksfolly

lame-the threatened packing of the court in 1937 meant that precedent and stare decisis was ignored and clearly unconstitutional laws were allowed to remain-laws that have created a massive expansion of the federal government and a rape of the tenth amendment and the boundaries placed on the federal government
 
The GOP can't ride a one trick pony to the WH, especially if it is no longer a pony, and now is just an old horse that they keep beating, and beating, and beating. It's dead, already, get a new pony....

Tax cuts isn't THE answer, there is no such thing as THE answer.
When I get GOP propaganda in the mail asking for donations, and it says nothing but how badly Obama is doing, with no GOP ideas to counter what the DEMS are doing, it doesn't inspire me to donate to the GOP, or vote GOP.
 
PPS. I just checked the stock market performance during the 2001 recession, and it was not going up. nice try, though.

I didn't say the stock market was going up during the 2001 recession, I said that the stock market was still sky high at the end of 2000. I didn't even imply that, I overtly said it. So if Bush inherited Clinton's recession in 2001, then surely Obama inherited Bush's recession in 2009?

And if Bush's tax cuts shortened the length of the recession that started in 2001, why did everything continue to get worse and worse during the last years of his administration? Bush did absolutely nothing to prevent the housing crisis. Clinton's administration started that mess by using the executive branch to force sub-prime loans and Bush kept it going throughout his years.

All this "cause and effect" is grossly oversimplifying the matter. The economy is extremely complex. So I'd say to the OP -- it's very possible that Bush's tax cuts had limited effect on the economy. But it's hard to compare the results to a hypothetical scenario that assumes the simplest possible set of circumstances. And I'd say to those attacking the OP -- it seems like you don't actually care about whether or not tax cuts work. It seems like your stance is that the big bad government wants to take your money away and whatever is best for you in the short term is what they should do. And I think that stance is a lousy one.
 
I didn't say the stock market was going up during the 2001 recession, I said that the stock market was still sky high at the end of 2000. I didn't even imply that, I overtly said it.

You said the stock market was soaring and remained there until 9/11. That's not true. The stock market dropped during the March 2001 recession, which was before 9.11. I assume that you are at least conceding that the tax cuts were in response to the coming recession? That's a start. :)

So if Bush inherited Clinton's recession in 2001, then surely Obama inherited Bush's recession in 2009?

Umm. Of course. Was there a question on this? Is there someone, anywhere, that claims Obama didn't inherit a recession from Bush? If so, simply point them to the NBER data on recessions. You can make an argument that Obama's policies have kept us in this mess a bit longer then it should have been (by creating uncertainty and with his policies). In fact, I recall that there were many green shoots coming up. The economy was starting to look up. Then, blam. But to make an argument that the recession wasn't inherited from Bush? Crazy!

And if Bush's tax cuts shortened the length of the recession that started in 2001, why did everything continue to get worse and worse during the last years of his administration?

Many reasons. But, since we are discussing this topic, are you suggesting that the economy fell apart due to tax cuts?

Bush did absolutely nothing to prevent the housing crisis. Clinton's administration started that mess by using the executive branch to force sub-prime loans and Bush kept it going throughout his years.

The Bush admin did call attention to the coming housing crisis in 2007, I believe. However, wether he did anything to prevent the housing crisis isn't the topic of the op. The topic was that the tax cuts caused X, Y, and Z. However, the tax cuts didn't cause those things. Those things were caused by an inherited recession, made worse by 9.11 and a housing bubble that was neither inflated nor deflated by tax cuts.
 
Last edited:
The GOP can't ride a one trick pony to the WH, especially if it is no longer a pony, and now is just an old horse that they keep beating, and beating, and beating. It's dead, already, get a new pony....

Tax cuts isn't THE answer, there is no such thing as THE answer.
When I get GOP propaganda in the mail asking for donations, and it says nothing but how badly Obama is doing, with no GOP ideas to counter what the DEMS are doing, it doesn't inspire me to donate to the GOP, or vote GOP.

When the dead horse is better than anything the Democrats call "new ideas", the dead horse is obviously better. What the Dems are doing is killing this country --- call me crazy but when a choice is a dead horse or a dead country, I'll pick the horse every time.
 
When the dead horse is better than anything the Democrats call "new ideas", the dead horse is obviously better. What the Dems are doing is killing this country --- call me crazy but when a choice is a dead horse or a dead country, I'll pick the horse every time.

So you'd be fine with voting for a Party that will actually cut jobs? Or more likely go back to spend and borrow? How is the dead horse of spend and borrow and loosen regulation to the point where Dracula is watching the blood bank better?

Neither the GOP nor the Dems have the answers. Stop pretending one is better then the other.

People have this asinine notion that the GOP will actually make cuts (especially with Boehner and McConnell at the helm). Too bad that the GOP has shown it will fight tooth and nail to stop Obama and Democrats from making spending cuts that cause job losses in their districts. The idea that the GOP in power will actually cut their own voters' jobs is ludicrous. It's all fun and games until it's my district.
 
When the dead horse is better than anything the Democrats call "new ideas", the dead horse is obviously better. What the Dems are doing is killing this country --- call me crazy but when a choice is a dead horse or a dead country, I'll pick the horse every time.

The country is sick, perhaps, but not dying. Well, maybe New Jersey is dying, we can't tell. It has smelled dead for decades.:2razz:
and what the DEMS are doing is pretty much what the GOP would have done, fail....proving that govt is not all powerful and has no magic wands.
The economy has always recovered before, this recession may last longer but it will be over.
When that happens, we can all go back to living beyond our means at home, in govt, everywhere, til another Wall Street debacle occurs, proving that we haven't learned anything.
We need a pack of wild dog lawyers rooting out the criminals on Wall Street, and in congress, and then MAYBE we will have a few decades of prosperity...
 
Last edited:
The country is sick, perhaps, but not dying. Well, maybe New Jersey is dying, we can't tell. It has smelled dead for decades.:2razz:
and what the DEMS are doing is pretty much what the GOP would have done, fail....proving that govt is not all powerful and has no magic wands.
The economy has always recovered before, this recession may last longer but it will be over.
When that happens, we can all go back to living beyond our means at home, in govt, everywhere, til another Wall Street debacle occurs, proving that we haven't learned anything.
We need a pack of wild dog lawyers rooting out the criminals on Wall Street, and in congress, and then MAYBE we will have a few decades of prosperity...

I love the populist hatred of wall street. sure, some of the big wheels on wall street are crooks, just like some of the politicians are.

but the biggest problem in this country are those who think others have a duty to take care of them.
 
But... Clinton also pushed (with Cuomo) the financial disaster of the last half-century. Forcing banks to provide loans for houses to people that couldn't afford them. These are Clinton's coattails... a wee bit different from Reagan's..
Baloney! If you talking about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) that's been law since 1977 and is there to prevent redling and it didn't force banks to take risky loans. And it didn't involve the large commercial banks; only the small community ones.
 
"The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt. And at the nexus of tax and healthcare, Republican ideas perpetuate a cruel and immoral system that rations healthcare -- while consuming every sixth dollar in the economy and making businesses, especially small businesses, less efficient and less profitable."

Obama's fault what?

I have to agree. The Bush tax cuts didnt do much to help anyone but the wealthy. I would like to see FACTUAL evidence that it was a positive move by Bush.
 
I love the populist hatred of wall street. sure, some of the big wheels on wall street are crooks, just like some of the politicians are.

but the biggest problem in this country are those who think others have a duty to take care of them.

You mean wall street then?
 
Back
Top Bottom