Obama Tells Tall Tales About The Bush Years

[Stephanie]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

 

[Full-Auto]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

Name one issue, just one where democrats were not lying through their teeth.

The lefties run from the question. Cowards all of them.

 

[8537]

Tax revenues under Reagan fell from 19.6% to 18.4%. Not sure how that equals a 6% drop.

Real GDP growth averaged 3.1% during the same period. Playing fast and loose with the numbers makes the author look pretty stupid.

Speaking of lies.

 

[onecut39]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

This is a real hoot! One thing at a time.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

Would you like to discuss what happened after 2007, or would that be too painful?

 

[Stephanie]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

This is a real hoot! One thing at a time.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

Would you like to discuss what happened after 2007, or would that be too painful?

well what the hell is stopping you?

 

[8537]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

This is a real hoot! One thing at a time.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

Would you like to discuss what happened after 2007, or would that be too painful?

December, 2007 sure is a convenient date to chose...considering the recession started that month. It's almost as if the author was cherry picking.

...and income started even before that.

 

[SniperFire]

Tax revenues under Reagan fell from 19.6% to 18.4%. Not sure how that equals a 6% drop.

Real GDP growth averaged 3.1% during the same period. Playing fast and loose with the numbers makes the author look pretty stupid.

Speaking of lies.

Of course, when a POTUS doubles GDP, a POTUS can nearly double Federal tax receipts with a lower tax rate.

Which is exactly what happened under Reagan.

If somebody didn't understand that, they would perhaps fall for your deception.

 

[francoHFW]

2003 was also when the Pub cronyism/corruption real estate bubble started inflating...how'd that work out? I'dprefer a solid recovery based on the rebirth of the nonrich. Stop the obstruction!!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

 

[Luissa]

This hilarious.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You have no idea how happy I get when FrancoWTF chimes in with his analysis

 

[Full-Auto]

2003 was also when the Pub cronyism/corruption real estate bubble started inflating...how'd that work out? I'dprefer a solid recovery based on the rebirth of the nonrich. Stop the obstruction!!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Are we talking about the same bubble where democrats were suing banks for not giving out underprivileged loans.

Damn you are stupid.........

 

[VaYank5150]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

So....Bush's tax cuts were only going to work for a specific period of time? If so, why did Cantor and Boehner force Obama to extend them?

 

[Full-Auto]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

So....Bush's tax cuts were only going to work for a specific period of time? If so, why did Cantor and Boehner force Obama to extend them?

They didnt.. The extension was passed before the mid term winners took office.

Yes you still suck at this.

 

[8537]

Tax revenues under Reagan fell from 19.6% to 18.4%. Not sure how that equals a 6% drop.

Real GDP growth averaged 3.1% during the same period. Playing fast and loose with the numbers makes the author look pretty stupid.

Speaking of lies.

Of course, when a POTUS doubles GDP, a POTUS can nearly double Federal tax receipts with a lower tax rate.

Which is exactly what happened under Reagan.

Real GDP did not "nearly double"

Real GDP increased by about 35% between 1981 and 1989, from 47.4 to 62.4 where 2005 is a base year 100.

If somebody didn't understand that, they would perhaps fall for your deception.

 

[VaYank5150]

links in article at site

SNIP:
By JOHN MERLINE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted 08:05 AM ET
Nor were the Bush tax cuts a big failure as Obama claims.

Obama and other critics of Bush's tax cuts argue that they did little to boost economic growth or jobs. But they tend to start their count when Bush signed the first tax cut bill into law in mid-2001.

The problem is that much of that tax plan — including reductions to most of the income tax brackets — wasn't scheduled to take full effect until 2006.

Bush's second tax cut, signed in May 2003, accelerated those tax cuts, letting them kick in retroactively to the beginning of that year. The 2003 law also cut taxes on capital gains and dividends.

It turns out that the month after Bush signed that 2003 law, jobs and the economy finally started growing again.

From June 2003 to December 2007, the economy added 8.1 million jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate fell to 5% from 6.3%. Real GDP growth averaged close to 3% in the four-plus years after that, and the budget deficit fell steadily from 2004 to 2007.

And despite Obama's claim, Bush's policies did not increase income inequality. In fact, inequality was the same when Bush left office as when he came in, according to the Census Bureau. A study by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez found that inequality has climbed much faster under Obama.

What's more, the rich ended up paying a larger chunk of the federal income tax burden after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, with the share paid by the top 1% rising to 40% by 2007, up from 37% the year before Bush took office, according to IRS data.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, found that the federal income tax was more progressive in 2007 than it was back in 1979.

Obama is correct that the country has tried a combination of deregulation and tax cuts before. That took place under President Reagan.

Reagan aggressively deregulated entire industries, while putting the brakes on new federal rules. As a result, regulatory compliance costs fell 8% during his time in office, and staffing dropped almost 7%.

At the same time, Reagan's tax cuts knocked taxes as a share of GDP down by 6%.

The result was an almost eight-year economic boom in which real quarterly GDP growth averaged 4.3%.

That's nearly double the average growth rate Obama's economic policies produced during the 3-year-old recovery.

all of it here/
Obama Tells Tall Tales About Bush Years To Attack Romney - Investors.com

So....Bush's tax cuts were only going to work for a specific period of time? If so, why did Cantor and Boehner force Obama to extend them?

They didnt.. The extension was passed before the mid term winners took office.

Yes you still suck at this.

Comprehension still escapese you, I see. IF the Bush tax cuts weren't working after 2007, why did Boehner and Cantor force Obama to extend them?

 

[Full-Auto]

So....Bush's tax cuts were only going to work for a specific period of time? If so, why did Cantor and Boehner force Obama to extend them?

They didnt.. The extension was passed before the mid term winners took office.

Yes you still suck at this.

Comprehension still escapese you, I see. IF the Bush tax cuts weren't working after 2007, why did Boehner and Cantor force Obama to extend them?

They didnt. Democrats with the majority passed it before the midterms.

Now try and pay attention. IDIOT..........

 

[francoHFW]

2003 was also when the Pub cronyism/corruption real estate bubble started inflating...how'd that work out? I'dprefer a solid recovery based on the rebirth of the nonrich. Stop the obstruction!!

Romney's ACTUAL plan- Cut taxes on rich, destroy Medicare/aid, Health Reform, raise pentagon spending, cut regs on Wall St, worry about debt in 2035...BRILLIANT

Are we talking about the same bubble where democrats were suing banks for not giving out underprivileged loans.

Damn you are stupid.........

Link, brainwashed Pubtroll? Actlly, the banks were giving houses to people with no jobs, rating them A+and selling them around the world. Brilliant!

 

[VaYank5150]

They didnt.. The extension was passed before the mid term winners took office.

Yes you still suck at this.

Comprehension still escapese you, I see. IF the Bush tax cuts weren't working after 2007, why did Boehner and Cantor force Obama to extend them?

They didnt. Democrats with the majority passed it before the midterms.

Now try and pay attention. IDIOT..........

And back in January?

 

[francoHFW]

Raising taxes in the middle of a Pub bubble meltdown is not a good idea...

 

[healthmyths]

Tax revenues under Reagan fell from 19.6% to 18.4%. Not sure how that equals a 6% drop.

Real GDP growth averaged 3.1% during the same period. Playing fast and loose with the numbers makes the author look pretty stupid.

Speaking of lies.

The following are NOT LIES but FACTS..
Because of the dot.com bust, 9/11 and worst hurricane SEASONS in history all events that had NEVER occurred in one Presidency the United States tax revenue was reduced by $166 billion a year in 2002, increased to $232 billion in 2003 and through 2008 due to hurricane losses total in 2008 and out for next 25 years.. $266 billion!

Do you and others understand? These are REAL tax dollars that would have been collected from 2002 up to 2010 this would be over $1.6 trillion in REVENUE!

Dot com losses in 2000 $5 trillion
9/11 cost businesses lost revenue, airlines,etc. $2 trillion.
Worst hurricane SEASONS in history cost $1 trillion in what the IRS calls Net Operating Losses!

So you CPAs, you tax experts ... PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong but the IRS clearly states:


Eligible losses, farming losses, qualified disaster losses, and specified liability losses, defined next, qualify for longer carryback periods.
Publication 536 (2011), Net Operating Losses (NOLs) for Individuals, Estates, and Trusts
Wouldn't you say dot.com/ 9/11/hurricanes considered a "qualified disaster"???

MY whole point is NOWHERE has this $266 billion a year in lost revenue been accounted.
All we do is call Bush a drunken sailor in spending... running up huge deficits..
YET no one seems to comprehend that NO ONE could have foreseen these events!
Yet we are blaming Bush who BECAUSE there was a recession that officially started 3/2001 put the tax cuts into play ... in 2006!

But NO one in this country foresaw $266 billion in lost tax revenue starting with the dot.com bust in 2002 tax payments!