- AnonymousFebruary 17, 2014 at 12:56 AMIs that why Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating? Higher than Reagan's 62%. Your president GW Bush was at 34% when left.ReplyDelete
-
And Bush won both of his elections. Go figure, moron. Besides, bith Clinton and Bush administered the best economies in our history. Obama has even taken a class on economics, and that fact is all too obvioujs.ReplyDelete
-
AnonymousFebruary 17, 2014 at 3:36 AMWhat planet are you living on? Bush destroyed the economy and it will take longer than Obama to clean up the mess.ReplyDelete
-
Your knowledge of history - in this case "recent" history - is laughable. Because Bush was the president when the bottom fell out of the housing/finance "Affordable Housing" market does not mean he is or was the cause of the collapse. Name one specific that makes Bush responsible for said collapse. I ask knowing that you will not be able to come up with anything. Go ahead, genius, prove me wrong.
Under Bush, our nations GDP increased every month for 52 months, the longest expansion of economic growth in our history, and that includes the great economy we had under Clinton. Under Bush, 66% of the workforce was employed, with the average unemployment rate being 4.8% excluding 2008; including that year, the unemployment rate was 5.5% and the "U6" rate averaged 8% .
But Bush was a Big Government politician and supported the Affordable Housing policies along with the Marxist Dems, who opposed everything he tried to do. You forget that he tried to reel in excessive lending, during his Administration, but the Dems turned his efforts at restraint into a "Bush hates poor people" theme and morons such as yourself, took up those talking points.
It was Barney Frank, head of the House Finance Committee, who told the nation that the banking industry was just fine, six freaking weeks before the collapse. You conveniently forget that the collapse happened near the end of the second year of a Democrat controlled congress in both houses --- that includes Democrat control of both banking/finance committees in the House and the Senate. So why not blame the Democrats since they had control of the legislature and both banking committee? Go ahead and answer that question.
In 2006, Bush tried to make fix the issues that brought on the collapse. When he tried, the Dems told him to go hell. So drop dead on your nonsensical rendition of "it was Bush's fault." Don't forget that Hussein was a member of the Senate, at the time, yet offered no suggestions on how to deal with the growing crisis except to continue offering more and more high risk loans to the poor, folks who could not make their payments. Oh, I forget, Hussein had no training whatsoever in finance, so, of course, he had no working ideas on the economy -- kind of like his current fiscal policies.
BTW, contrast Bush’s economy with Obama’s jobless recovery: a GDP that averages 2.1% per year; a U6 unemployment rate (that is folks who are out of work but looking, whether they are receiving benefits or not) that averages 15% and a current rate of 13.1% while that rate averaged 8% under the Bush Administration. The net jobs total (I know, Democrats have no clue what a “net total” is) finds our country with 3 million fewer job positions than before Obama. Your guy thought the solution to the job vacuum was to found in weather stripping our homes, giving away electric golf carts, fixing potholes and the silliness of the “shovel ready” fantasy.
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bush. Show all posts
Over the weekend, I had this exchange with a know-nothing Marxist who attends this blog. Theme: Bush was not to blame for the 2008 collapse.
White House Data Debunk Myth Bush Cuts Built Deficit
Posted 11/30/2012 06:24 PM ET
While President Obama insists the Bush tax cuts caused the recession and record deficits, his own economists say otherwise.
He might want to consult their data for the truth.
Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: "What I'm not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."
During the White House press conference, he added, "If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction, we've got to do it in a balanced way."
Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don't want to go back to Republican policies that "cost" the Treasury revenues and "blew up the deficit," as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.
The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they're driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire.
But the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers — including ones certified by Obama's own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House.
Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that "the math," as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.
After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.
Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. The budget gap plunged to $160.7 billion from $377.6 billion, according to the president's report.
Perhaps the most impressive statistic appears on Page 412, one that undercuts Obama's core argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts.
The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.
Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.
He might want to consult their data for the truth.
Kicking off fiscal cliff negotiations last month, Obama said: "What I'm not going to do is extend Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% that we can't afford and, according to economists, will have the least positive impact on our economy."
During the White House press conference, he added, "If we're going to be serious about deficit reduction, we've got to do it in a balanced way."
Obama argued voters made it clear in the election that they don't want to go back to Republican policies that "cost" the Treasury revenues and "blew up the deficit," as he told them repeatedly during the campaign.
The Washington media by and large share these assumptions. And they're driving the debate over what to do about the federal budget crisis before Jan. 1, when the tax cuts and spending programs are set to expire.
But the assumptions are faulty, based largely on political demagoguery rather than hard numbers — including ones certified by Obama's own fiscal policy advisers and bean counters in the White House.
Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that "the math," as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.
After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.
Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. The budget gap plunged to $160.7 billion from $377.6 billion, according to the president's report.
Perhaps the most impressive statistic appears on Page 412, one that undercuts Obama's core argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts.
The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.
Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/113012-635352-bush-tax-cuts-did-not-cause-deficits.htm#ixzz2DxV2pIQk
Clinton, Bush and Obama economics in context
Editor's notes: what we have here is a graph picturing both unemployment benefit applications - often mistakenly called "unemployment" and the simultaneous state of the economy unemployment numbers represent. Look at 1990 and the first year of the Clinton Administration. When Bubba came to office, he had to face an increasing [mild] recession. He cut corporate taxes, among other aggressive actions and escorted the nation into a time of prosperity -- primarily fueled by a bubble we know as the Dot Com years. 22 million jobs were "created" by Clinton, or so "they" say. Few remind the reader that this Dot Com bubble burst at the end of the Clinton years and the economy watched 14 million jobs disappear. Understand that Clinton's course of corrective action at the beginning of his time in office took approximately two years to bring about the changes he had in mind. Ditto for Bush but for very different reasons. I.e. -- 9/11 and the bursting Dot Com bubble. Unemployment began to increase immediately and a mild recession, again, manifested itself. Bush cut taxes, both individual and corporate and the recession was defeated. Then ----------- we come to the Obama years. His response to "recession" is completely different for that of his predecessors, be they Democrat or Republican. All previous recession responses have been about stimulating the private sector and the private sector, in each and every case, responded. With Obama, the private sector be damned. It is all about Big Government and Obama is left scratching his head will the nation wallows in the stew of monumental debt, increased taxation without representation, the death of Constitutional governance and economic hard times which rival the Great Depression. Understand that the economy will pull itself out of this circumstance if and when it is allowed to.
Source: BLS Table A-1
Source: BLS Table A-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)