Final Report Card on Bush's Tax Cuts

ib1yysguy

ib1yysguy

Junior Member
Census numbers are in. We were told that Bush's massive deficits were alright because cutting taxes primarily for the super wealthy was "trickle down" economics that would make us all wealthier.

You want to guess what happened? The super wealthy got way wealthier, and guess what happened to the median income?

It dropped from about 52,000 at the end of Clinton's term to 50,000. That's a four percent drop for the math challenged (Republicans). That's not even including inflation, which makes it greater than four percent in real terms.

Congratulations. You have been proven to be tools AGAIN. You made the wealthy all the more wealthier having sacrificed your income to do it.
 
By the way, this makes Bush the first two-term president in American history as long as they've had recorded numbers to see the median income for Americans fall and not rise.

Thanks Republicans.
 
The drop in median income drop is due to Obama somehow it just has to be.

It just can't be that tax cuts do not work. Just look at all the jobs Bush added...
umm

Just look how Bush balanced the budget from all the extra taxes coming in...

umm

Well it has to be Obama's fault somehow.
 
your article does not at all prove bush's tax cuts were solely responsible....nice try....

Economists would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect frame for tracking economic trends. The business cycle doesn't always follow the electoral cycle. A president's economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.
Click to expand...

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now.
Click to expand...

perhaps you should read your own links more closely
 
Yurt said:
your article does not at all prove bush's tax cuts were solely responsible....nice try....





perhaps you should read your own links more closely
Click to expand...

I know you guys make a habit of arguing against facts every day, but seriously. If you're going to try to blame this on anything but Bush's management of the economy (the president's biggest hand in the economy is submitting budgets to congress and submitting tax cuts to congress - which Bush got approved by the Republicans in congress when they were there) then you're seriously stupid.

You know who else did tax cuts and saw a decrease in median income? Bush I.

Reagan saw an increase in median income because when he came into office the top tax bracket was 70 percent. SEVENTY PERCENT.
 
Yurt said:
your article does not at all prove bush's tax cuts were solely responsible....nice try....





perhaps you should read your own links more closely
Click to expand...

One thing is certain though it gives no backing to the claim that tax cuts are good for Americans.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I know you guys make a habit of arguing against facts every day, but seriously. If you're going to try to blame this on anything but Bush's management of the economy (the president's biggest hand in the economy is submitting budgets to congress and submitting tax cuts to congress - which Bush got approved by the Republicans in congress when they were there) then you're seriously stupid.

You know who else did tax cuts and saw a decrease in median income? Bush I.

Reagan saw an increase in median income because when he came into office the top tax bracket was 70 percent. SEVENTY PERCENT.
Click to expand...

you do not have the facts to back you up....nor does your article attempt to lay the blame solely at tax cuts.....you can infer all you want....but often timing and good fortune matter....

bush's first tax cuts worked....thats a fact, and the liberal media acknowledged it....you are trying to rewrite history and blame solely bush, as if his tax cuts alone caused the economy to lessen.....such claims are nothing but partisan nonsense and you of all people should know that

read your aticle again, it doesn't prove what you're saying or do you need to pull more quotes from your article?
 
I won't defend the fiscal policy of Bush.

I think the tax cuts kept off a total collapse for about 7 years after an attack on our financial center. However I think that Bush has the dubious "honor" of being the sole President who cut taxes while increasing spending because of a war. He was abysmal on economic issues, spent like a drunken democrat, and didn't fight hard enough to warn against the bubble that was coming (twice he addressed the issue, but speeches aren't enough when action is necessary).

Most of the loss of income will be due to the economic issues facing us like the "jobless recovery" (IMO, solely staving off the inevitable).
 
Bush did not give tax cuts that would encourage job growth. They just encouraged pumping more money into an already grossly inflated market.
 
Whomever said:
One thing is certain though it gives no backing to the claim that tax cuts are good for Americans.
Click to expand...

i'm so surpised a hit piece on bush would not do so....i suggest you read the article:

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions.
 
Yurt said:
i'm so surpised a hit piece on bush would not do so....i suggest you read the article:

The fact that the economy performed significantly better for average families under Clinton than under the elder or younger Bush or Ronald Reagan doesn't conclusively answer how the country should proceed now. Obama isn't replicating the Clinton economic strategy (which increased federal spending in areas like education and research much more modestly, and placed greater emphasis on deficit reduction-to the point of increasing taxes in his first term). Nor has anyone suggested that it would make sense to reprise that approach in today's conditions.
Click to expand...

I read the article and in no shape form or fashion did it lend and credibility to the claim that Bush's tax cuts worked.
It did lean in the opposite direction, but could not say conclusevily that tax cuts contributed to the problems.

What it did cleary show was that the Bush presidency was an abysmal failure.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
i'm not surprised you laugh at the fact they gave a boost to the economy.....you're partisan quack
Click to expand...

they gave a boost to a bloated inflated market.
Our economy is 70% consumer based and if median income does not go up neither does the real economy.
 
Whomever said:
I read the article and in no shape form or fashion did it lend and credibility to the claim that Bush's tax cuts worked.
It did lean in the opposite direction, but could not say conclusevily that tax cuts contributed to the problems.

What it did cleary show was that the Bush presidency was an abysmal failure.
Click to expand...

thanks....

as to the rest...of course i'm not surprised this hit piece showed what you claim and did not ever say they worked....yawn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top