Go to An Unfortunate Outburst of Intense Patriotism
- Add a comment
- Go to Bush’s Economic Policies Destroyed Clinton Budget Surplus?
FW, you actually have it right!
Given the economic cycles versus presidential terms, Bubba did indeed inherit the end of what is properly the Reagan economic boom. Bush 41's tax increases contributed to its end, and Bubba's tax increases in 1993 hastened it conisderably.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 17, 2006 at 8:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Welcome, delintinis!
Thanks for all that hard work, but do you realize how petty it ends up sounding? It boils down to this:
Bush underestimated the deficit.
Bush overestimated the deficit.
And what is the point of that? As Aaron pointed out, tax revenues were also greatly underestimated because the economy grow so solidly from the tax cuts.
You also fail to factor in the entirely unforeseeable economic impact of the September 11 attacks. And your citation of the al Qaeda Times for July 9 ("Bush's Phantom Deficit Reductions Due To Exploding Profits For Corporations And The Wealthy, Which Have Increased Tax Receipts. "The rising tide in tax payments has been building for several months...The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.") is priceless, because it absolutely destroys the liberal cliche about the rich not paying taxes.
And it really takes a lot of spinning to make hard facts about the Gross Domestic Product produce 18 straight quarters of economic growth.
Nice try, pal.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 17, 2006 at 8:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Good catch, Aaron!
Coherent writing while staytng up all hours on a house painting and carpeting job is not an easy thing to do.
Correction made, once I remembered what I was trying to express.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 17, 2006 at 8:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Welcome, mandalee!
Disagreement always welcome. Reasons why also always welcome.
posted by
WriterofLight
on July 17, 2006 at 8:08 PM
| link to this | reply
What you two seem to have missed
is that income (revenues) went
up. Dramatically. There's way too much government spending, but that's a separate issue.
posted by
AaronB
on July 16, 2006 at 2:36 PM
| link to this | reply
lets' see
lets say you have a household
you decrease your income
and increase your spending
what happens?
posted by
Xeno-x
on July 15, 2006 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
I, too, no longer believe the Bush PR machine ...
I suppose the "Clinton surplus" was the result of GHWB's policies eight years before, right? To imply that yours is the party of "fiscal responsibility" is a flat out lie. The reason there's a massive deficiet is because the President started TWO wars and gave tax breaks to all his friends. How hard is that to understand?
posted by
fwmystic
on July 14, 2006 at 8:35 AM
| link to this | reply
The Bush PR campaign is at it again, they are trying to spin the "good news" that the Administration that inherited record surpluses has turned them into record deficits. And, again, the Bush Administration used misleading and inflated deficit estimates to obscure its horrible fiscal policies. Its original, intentionally gloomy deficit estimate for the 2006 fiscal year was $423 billion. This misleading rhetoric attempts to obscure the fact that the White House's reckless fiscal policies, aided and abetted by the rubber stamp Republican Congress, have produced an economy that is not working for America's working families.
"Here they go again cherry-picking the facts to hide the truth from the American people," said Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Stacie Paxton. "The simple fact is that we simply cannot trust the Bush Administration with our tax dollars, nor can we trust them to tell the truth about how much of it they are spending.
"Only the Bush Administration and the rubber stamp Republican Congress would think that an economy with the fourth largest deficit in history, millions of hard working Americans facing stagnating wages while their costs skyrocket with no relief in sight, is something to celebrate. Then again, the Bush economic boom was not designed to benefit hard working Americans. In keeping with Republican policies, it was designed to help the big corporations, once again putting what's good for them ahead of what's good for the American people. Democrats offer a new direction for America that includes sound fiscal policies and an economy that works America's families."
AMERICA'S WORKING FAMILIES GETTING BUSHWHACKED
Bush's Phantom Deficit Reductions Due To Exploding Profits For Corporations And The Wealthy, Which Have Increased Tax Receipts. "The rising tide in tax payments has been building for several months...The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big rise in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses." [New York Times, 7/9/06]
- Long-Term Fiscal Outlook Still "Bleak." "...the favorable news about the money rolling into the Treasury stems largely from shifts in the economy, including fatter corporate profits, executive bonuses and stock market gains, that reflect growing inequality, the administration's critics contend. And even the White House acknowledges that in the long run, the nation's fiscal outlook remains bleak." [Washington Post, 7/11/06]
Wages For America's Working Families Have Stagnated Under Bush. Middle-class families are working harder and earning less today than they were at the start of the Bush Administration. Average household income has declined each year during the Bush presidency. Median weekly earnings have fallen 0.9 percent since 2001 compared with 7.3 percent growth in the last five years of the Clinton Administration. [Bureau of Labor Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau, 8/05]
Poll: Majority Of Americans Disapprove Of Bush's Economic Policies. "More than six in 10 Americans say the country is on the wrong track, according to a new Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. More than half disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy, and 36 percent strongly disapprove. Almost half, 48 percent, say his policies have made the economy worse than it was when he became president; 19 percent say it's better." [Bloomberg, 6/29/06]
BUSH'S BUDGET TRICKERY
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth, and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [President Bush, 3/27/01]
"Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short-term." [President Bush, 2002 State of the Union]
2001: Bush Deliberately Underestimated Future Deficits. In 2001, President Bush predicted massive budget surpluses over the following four years, in order to make the case that America could afford his tax cut plan. Instead, each of those years Bush's policies led to huge deficits. In 2001, Bush predicted a $231 billion surplus in 2002, $246 billion surplus in 2003, $268 billion surplus in 2004, and $273 billion surplus in 2005. [Washington Post, 2/24/04; Office of Management and Budget, 1/01; Congressional Budget Office, 3/04, 9/04]
2002: Bush Continued To Underestimate Deficits. President Bush has said that his optimism about budget deficits was based on the assumption that the economy would not hit a "trifecta" of trouble: recession, national emergency and war. But in February 2002 - after the recession was declared, the terrorist attacks had occurred, and war had begun in Afghanistan - his Administration continued to have upbeat predictions. Although it forecast a $106 billion deficit in 2002 (reality: $158 billion), it saw the deficit shrinking to $80 billion in 2003, $14 billion in 2004, and becoming a surplus of $61 billion in 2005. [Washington Post, 2/24/04; Office of Management and Budget, 1/02; Congressional Budget Office, 3/04, 9/04]
- Bush Administration's 2002 Deficit Projections Were Worst In 21 Years. Figures released by the White House show that Bush's 2002 underestimate of the deficit was the largest miscalculation in at least 21 years. [Washington Post, 2/24/04]
2003: Bush Tried A Different Tack: Overestimating Deficits. In the July 2003 OMB budget forecast, President Bush projected a considerably larger 2003 deficit than any other analysts were projecting at that time. When the actual deficit for 2003 turned out to be $81 billion lower than Bush's July estimate, the White House trumpeted the difference as good economic news and evidence that Bush's policies were working. Yet, most of the difference was unrelated to the economy: two-thirds of the $81 billion difference occurred because spending in 2003 was lower than Bush's OMB predicted in July. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/2/04, 2/3/04; Office of Management and Budget, 7/03]
2004: Bush Continued To Overestimate The Deficit. In February 2004, Bush projected a 2004 deficit of $521 billion, whereas the CBO projected a deficit of $477 billion - $44 billion less. Then, in July 2004, the White House revised the number down from the unrealistic $521 billion to $445 billion; in September 2004 the CBO issued more realistic projections of $422 billion. The final deficit number for 2004 was $412 billion. [Office of Management and Budget, 2/04, 7/30/04; New York Times, 7/31/04; Washington Post, 7/31/04; CBO, The Budget And Economic Outlook: An Update, 9/04; Los Angeles Times, 7/11/06]
2004, 2005, 2006: For The Last Three Years, Bush Has Overestimated The Deficit. "This will be the third year in a row that the administration put forth relatively gloomy deficit forecasts early on, only to announce months later that things had turned out better than expected. To some skeptics, it's beginning to look like an economic version of the old 'expectations' game." [Los Angeles Times, 7/11/06]
posted by
DeIntinis
on July 13, 2006 at 9:22 PM
| link to this | reply
How very liberal
respond to a solid argument backed by indisputible evidence with "I disagree."
Anyway, Writer, great post, but your paragraph starting with "Now" ends abruptly. It looks like something you meant to finish later.
posted by
AaronB
on July 13, 2006 at 9:21 PM
| link to this | reply
I disagree.
posted by
Amanda__
on July 13, 2006 at 6:11 PM
| link to this | reply