first, what reports? If you got them, link them...
Second, president Bush wasn't fully responsible for the decline, the economy is cyclical, the 90s was a great run-up combined with a technology boom...what Bush did wrong was to talk down the economy in order to get his first series of 2001 tax cuts through...that was stupid...
Third, in fairness, we must credit the FED, who had 11 rate cuts (which is nearly unheard of) for getting any movement back in the economy, combined with (again) the fact that the economy is cyclical...interest rates lower, increases the money supply, puts more money into circulation...helps the economy (think about Volcker and the upturn in 1983 for a good comparison which had nothing to do with Reaganomics)...
Foruth, for all the buck we put towards "so-called" supply side economicas...we must be very concerned with the long-term crisis that these tax cuts put America in...because of the deficits that they bring with them...
The Economist, which in general is pretty darn conservative had a great article last week about what was going on...you really should read it!!
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2189237America's fiscal position has deteriorated fast during George Bush's presidency. It will not be easy to reverse
LAST week's figures looked, at first, like vindication. The news that America's output grew at an extraordinary 7.2% annual rate between July and September, the fastest rate since 1984, was proof, said the White House, that the president's tax-cutting strategy was working. The economy was growing strongly, George Bush crowed, because “we left more money in the hands of the American people.”
Tax cuts are the central pillar of Mr Bush's economic strategy. He has chopped taxes in every year of his presidency, in all by as much as Ronald Reagan did in the early 1980s. His first tax package, signed into law in June 2001 and worth $1.35 trillion over ten years, was a campaign promise. It cut marginal income tax rates, gradually eliminated the estate tax and raised the child tax credit, ostensibly to make sure that the budget surplus was returned to Americans and not frittered away in Washington.
A year later, the emphasis was on stimulating the sluggish economy by giving firms tax incentives to invest. In May 2003 came another big tax plan, again sold as a stimulus, but designed mostly to shift the tax burden away from investment income by cutting taxes on dividends.
(much more if you click on the link)
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
