[Lancaster Online]

[TheOtherSide]

"This positive economic growth (GDP), which began in early 2003 and was fueled by President Bush's various tax-reduction bills, resulted in 52 months of continuous economic growth, the longest such growth in our nation's history"

Positive for who? And I would argue that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have more to do with this "growth" than any tax-cuts. WHO got the tax-cuts? The same people who own the companies that get the defense contracts. Our tax money going straight to the top 1% of the country, both as income and these beloved tax cuts.

Is it just coincidence that at the same time as the longest continuous economic growth we've ever seen, we can also see the largest wealth gap since the depression?

[Harl Delos]

President Bush began in 2001 to push for a tax-relief package, which was to be phased in over several years. By early 2003, the results began to pay off.

Economic growth (GDP) during the first quarter rose at 1.2 percent. In the second quarter, it jumped to 3.5 percent, the fastest growth since the previous decade. In the third quarter, it jumped to an astounding 7.5 percent.

The dollar lost 19 percent of its value in 2003. In real dollars, the GDP actually dropped.

Employment also began to rise rapidly. In the fourth quarter of 2003, payroll employment rose by 311,000 jobs. This strong job growth continued hitting a peak growth in 2006 of nearly 2.4 million jobs.

Actually, it did better than that. Population grew 5.7% between 2001 and 2006, and the number of employed people grew 7.30%, with nearly 10 million more employed people.

However, because of the massive deficits run by the Bush administration, the dollar lost 24% of its value between January 2001 and December 2006. Additionally, although there were more people working, they worked, on average, fewer hours. The average $17.04/hr earned in December 2006 was worth 7.93% less than the average $14.02/hr earned in January 2001, the average weekly pay dropped 9.01% in value.

Consequently, although the weekly payroll increased 28.89%, it was worth 0.02 less - and it was split up among 146 million workers instead of 136 million workers.

This positive economic growth (GDP), which began in early 2003 and was fueled by President Bush's various tax-reduction bills, resulted in 52 months of continuous economic growth, the longest such growth in our nation's history.

This growth ended in the second quarter of 2007 after the Democrats took control of both houses of the Congress.

There wasn't any growth, only the illusion of growth. And while the illusion ended after the Democrats took over both houses of the Congress, they didn't do anything. Instead, they allowed the lunatic fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration to continue.

It is reasonable to point out that the American citizens "voted for change" in 2006. The change we obtained was not what the nation needed.

Especially since we didn't get any change.

Presently the Republicans are complaining that the $800-plus billion bailout bill needs to offer more tax relief. The data noted above certainly supports their position that tax relief is the best way to stimulate the economy.

Do you know anyone who is refusing raises because the tax rates are too high? Do you know anyone who would go out and get a job if only tax rates were lower?

It would make more sense to argue that we need to return to the tax rates of the Reagan administration, when we were doing better. It would make more sense to argue that we need to return to the tax rates of the Clinton administration, when we were doing a lot better. It would make sense to argue that we need to return to the tax rates of the Eisenhower administration, when we did really really well.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Let's go back to the 1954 tax code, which served us so well for so many years. The top tax rate then? It was 91%.

We've currently got the lowest tax rates since the Great Depression. Arguing that we need to lower them even more makes no sense at all.

[clanker]

All that trickle down stuff was a hoot, wasn't it? Give all the breaks to the obscenely rich so that hopefully a few crumbs will make their way all the way down to us, the little people. Instead, the rich got richer and feeling newly empowered, they gave themselves crazy big bonuses ... even with bailout money we paid for. Arrogance? Nah, we love it. It's just too bad that the show Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous isn't still in production so that we could at least vicariously enjoy the fruits of our labors.

[Artie See]

Reading the posts in this thread has been refreshing. It is encouraging to know that there are intelligent and thoughtful people on TalkBack who can see through the hype, and understand what has REALLY been happening to our country.

Thank you very much.

[mnepats52]

When President Bush took office in January 2001, he inherited from President Clinton a recession which began in late 2000. This financial problem was worsened by the attacks of Sept. 11.

when bush came in he inherited from clinton an unemployment rate of 4.0% and a budget surplus of $150-million.

bush leaves obama an unemployment rate of 7.2% and a budget DEFICIT of $1.2-TRILLION

the recession you say was worsened by 9-11...

ended in nov. 2001...

This growth ended in the second quarter of 2007 after the Democrats took control of both houses of the Congress.

Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years
Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 12, 2009; A01

The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago.

Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

and then there's the near doubling of the national debt...

in just 8-years...

It is reasonable to point out that the American citizens "voted for change" in 2006. The change we obtained was not what the nation needed.

that's correct...

bush went from 1-veto in his first 6-yars..to 8 in the following 22-months..

and the gop set a record for filibusters...

that's why democrats were given a veto-proof majority in the house..and a majority not seen in the senate in decades...

thanks gop and president bush!

tax relief is the best way to stimulate the economy.
Frank Fryburg
Manheim Township

GOP 2009: tax cuts and de-regulation got us to this point...

who wants some more!!

lol...

WHO got the tax-cuts? The same people who own the companies that get the defense contracts. Our tax money going straight to the top 1% of the country, both as income and these beloved tax cuts.

glad you asked...

Percent of all income gains during the Bush administration that have gone to the top 1-percent of earners:

75%

(Source: Harper's Index)

fyi...the top-1 % don't pay 75% of the taxes...

but they are...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mn4daYJzyls

Reading the posts in this thread has been refreshing. It is encouraging to know that there are intelligent and thoughtful people on TalkBack who can see through the hype, and understand what has REALLY been happening to our country.
Thank you very much.

amen...

[Freedom]

when bush came in he inherited from clinton an unemployment rate of 4.0% and a budget surplus of $150-million.

bush leaves obama an unemployment rate of 7.2% and a budget DEFICIT of $1.2-TRILLION

the recession you say was worsened by 9-11...

ended in nov. 2001...



I believe its fair to say Bush also inherited clinton's recession...fixed that...and had 5 good years of continuous growth...

amen..



Economy Made Few Gains in Bush Years
Eight-Year Period Is Weakest in Decades
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, January 12, 2009; A01

The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago.

Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans' incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush's father.

and then there's the near doubling of the national debt...

in just 8-years...




that's correct...

bush went from 1-veto in his first 6-yars..to 8 in the following 22-months..

and the gop set a record for filibusters...

that's why democrats were given a veto-proof majority in the house..and a majority not seen in the senate in decades...

thanks gop and president bush!





GOP 2009: tax cuts and de-regulation got us to this point...

who wants some more!!

lol...



glad you asked...

Percent of all income gains during the Bush administration that have gone to the top 1-percent of earners:

75%

(Source: Harper's Index)

fyi...the top-1 % don't pay 75% of the taxes...

but they are...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=mn4daYJzyls



amen...

[mnepats52]

freedom...

did you forget how to use the keyboard again?

[justplainjoe]

for those who claim there never was a surplus, this is from the mouth of gw bush in his first state of the union addres.. read it and weep.
http://www.c-span.or...t...n&year=2001

I hope you will join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged and, on their behalf, I am here asking for a refund. (Applause.)

[littledutchboy]

I started my business in the summer of 1999 a continuation of work I’ve been doing for a long time. For me, personally, Bush’s 8 years coincided with the best 8 years of my life.

The next year or 2 are going to be tough, but so were the late 70’s the early 80’s and early 90’s. Cycles come and cycles go, the current eco. situation was pretty predictable; 2 wars, lethal trade imbalance, too much government spending, too much private spending etc etc.



A president can influence the economy but can not fundamentally alter eco. cycles.



Faulty lending requirements and failure of regulatory agencies to understand how those risky mortgages were leverage beyond all reason is what collapsed our structurally weak economy.

[mnepats52]

Faulty lending requirements and failure of regulatory agencies to understand how those risky mortgages were leverage beyond all reason is what collapsed our structurally weak economy.

shorter ldc: no one could have imagined....


national sec. advisor condi rice 4/8/04: "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon"

bush in sept. 2005... "No one ever imagined the levy would break."

cheney 6/19/06: I don’t think anybody anticipated the level of violence that we have encountered.

cheney 1/9/09: “I don’t think anybody saw it coming.” (the financial crisis)..

..

LOL....

Faulty lending requirements and failure of regulatory agencies to understand how those risky mortgages were leverage beyond all reason is what collapsed our structurally weak economy.

Bush Admin. diluted loan rules before crash - AP 12/1/08
They warned us, but Bush eased loan rules

"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories." - California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators - January-2006

you don't say...

Freddie Secretly Hired Lobby Firm to Kill Regulation Bill in 2005 - AP 10/20/08

Experts Fault Bush's Mortgage Strategy - Roll Call 10/23/08

President Bush during his first term aggressively sought to loosen mortgage loan qualification standards for first-time homebuyers seeking to reduce or even eliminate down payments for those who might otherwise have trouble affording their loans.


"I've called on private sector mortgage banks and banks to be more aggressive about lending money to first-time home buyers." - President Bush 3/26/04

http://www.whitehous...0040326-15.html



Bush Administration Weakened Lending Rules Before Crash - AP 12/1/08

The Bush admin. backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed.

how'd that turn out?

US Treasury Secretary: Economic Fundamentals are Sound - Voice of America 7/20/08

"No one is asking themselves anymore, is there some major institution that might fail." - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on NPR 11/13/08