Will Liberals Ever Stop Lying About the Bush Tax Cuts?

[Dad2three]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

First Year: Bush 15.6% (2004) – Obama 14.6% (2009)
Second Year: Bush 16.7% (2005) – Obama 14.6% (2010)
Third Year: Bush 17.6% (2006) – Obama 15.0% (2011)
Fourth Year: Bush 17.9% (2007) – Obama 15.3% (2012)
Fifth Year: Bush 17.1% (2008) – Obama 16.7% (2013)

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


October 17, 2008



...Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

Now let's look at the update that James Kennedy posted last week to his numbers. While he does not have an update to the chart above, we do have the actual numbers for new mortgage equity withdrawals through the second quarter of this year. And what they show is MEWs simply withering on the vine. The engine of our GDP growth has essentially been turned off. Look at the fall in the numbers for yourself:

In 2005 there was almost $595 billion in mortgage extractions that went into some kind of consumer spending. Remember, according to the graph above, that translated into a 3% rise in GDP. In 2007, MEWs were down to $470 billion, for a boost of 2% to GDP.

The second quarter of 2008 saw an anemic $9.5 billion. At that run rate, we could see a drop-off of over 90% from 2005! Now, think what the second quarter would have been without the federal stimulus program of $150 billion. It might have looked and felt like this quarter!


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

You can duck and dodge and copy and paste all day, but you clearly have no substantive, relevant response to the following facts, facts that anyone can confirm by checking federal data sites on the federal budget and the GDP:

* Following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for 4 years in a row, and even in the recession year of 2008 revenue was higher than it was in 2005 and 2006.

* The federal revenue growth that occurred in the 4 years that followed the 2003 tax cuts exceeded the revenue growth of any 4-year period in the Clinton years.

* The federal revenue growth that followed the 2003 tax cuts came with a sizable reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate, an increase in median family income, and 52 consecutive months of economic growth.

* Obama's federal revenue growth has exceeded Bush's, but, oddly enough, revenue as a percentage of GDP is much lower than it was under Bush. So, according to you guys, that means the revenue growth really didn't happen and/or that it shoulda/coulda/woulda been larger if other policies had been followed.

* The rise in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama has come with a drop in median family income, a sizable increase in the U-6 unemployment rate, and the weakest recovery of the modern area (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth).

ANOTHER right winger who doesn't EVER get honest. Weird, almost like there's a cult or something

Hint you MUST start Dubya's tax revenues HIS first F/Y IF you want to ignore Dubya's great recession on Obama'a watch dumbass. I get it though, since Dubya had NOTHING until he pumped up his ponzi scheme that artificially inflated revenues although STILL WAY BELOW BJ BILL'S LAST 4 YEARS OF 19%+ GDP REVENUES, lol

Yep, you are correct though, Dubya/GOP dig WIDE and deep holes

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Chirp. Chirp. Chirp. Still waiting for a liberal reply, so here goes again:

Well. . . . Okay. . . . How about we apply the revenue-as-percentage-of-GDP comparison to Obama? Guess what happens when we do that? Obama looks terrible and Bush looks even better! Why? Because under Obama’s recovery, federal revenue has been a smaller percentage of GDP than it was under Bush’s recovery!

According to Obama apologists, the Obama recovery began in 2009. Ok, let’s compare federal revenue as a percentage of GDP under Obama’s recovery vs. Bush’s recovery:

First Year: Bush 15.6% (2004) – Obama 14.6% (2009)
Second Year: Bush 16.7% (2005) – Obama 14.6% (2010)
Third Year: Bush 17.6% (2006) – Obama 15.0% (2011)
Fourth Year: Bush 17.9% (2007) – Obama 15.3% (2012)
Fifth Year: Bush 17.1% (2008) – Obama 16.7% (2013)

I threw in 2008, even though the recession began that year, since the economy was in recession for part of 2009, just to make the comparison as apples-to-apples as possible.

In fact, under Obama federal revenue has *never* been as high a percentage of GDP as it was under Bush's best year or even under his second-best year. Bush’s best percentage was 17.9% (2007), and his second best was 17.6% (2006). Obama’s best percentage was 17.5% (2014).

So, liberals, if you insist on ignoring cold hard revenue numbers and instead want to resort to phony comparisons like revenue as a percentage of GDP, then I trust you will promptly concede that Obama has been even worse than we’ve been saying and that we can ignore the substantial increase in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama. Right? Right? Hello?

You see, under Obama federal revenue has gone up even more than it did under Bush. Under Bush, revenue rose by a whopping—and until then record-setting—$480 billion in the 4 years after the 2003 tax cuts. But, in the 4 years after Obama’s recovery began, revenue rose by $660 billion. Ah, but, sorry! That doesn’t matter! Because revenue as a percentage of GDP has been less than it was under Bush! So we can ignore the revenue numbers themselves because the percentage of GDP went down! Right? Right? (Uh-oh, having second thoughts about the validity of this comparison, are we?)

Now, of course, one could point out that this increase in revenue under Obama has been accompanied by a very weak recovery, by a record high level of U-6 unemployment (which is the real unemployment rate), by a drop in median family income, by a rise in minority unemployment, by a staggering increase in the national debt (Obama has made Bush look like a rookie in piling up debt), two quarters of negative GDP growth during a supposed "recovery" (first quarter 2014, first quarter 2015), one of the worst labor force participation rates in the modern era (and far below Bush-era levels), a huge increase in food stamps, etc., etc. That's what you get when you suck hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with a slew of higher taxes and piles of new burdensome regulations.

You have shifted the narrative your initial sub-premise of, "Comparing revenue to GDP is a meaningless exercise." Rather than standing up and admitting your error to everything you have been proselytizing previously, you now wish to compare two distinctly and dynamically different economic periods with different criteria! That's apples and cod fish!

Give it up. You and your supercilious argument FAILED, and shifting the subject to different parameters indicates how desperate you are to get the egg off your face!

HUH???? Did you READ my post before typing your response? If so, you must have a reading comprehension problem. I simply pointed out the consequences for Obama's economic record of using YOUR argument that we can dismiss the revenue increase that followed the 2003 tax cuts because revenue as a percentage GDP was lower than it was under Clinton. That was YOUR argument. I was just showing how meaningless that comparison is, and how dumb that argument is, since revenue has risen sharply under Obama but has been a lower percentage of GDP than it was under Bush.

As for the argument that we should start with 2001 to analyze Bush's record, how many times do I have to point out that we're talking about the Bush tax cuts and that the vast majority of those tax cuts came in 2003?

Following the 2003 tax cuts, revenue for the next 4 years rose more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency, AND that revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, a rise in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate. Under Obama revenue has risen even more than it did under Bush, but Obama's revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (including two quarters of negative GDP growth), a drop in median family income, and a much higher U-6 unemployment rate.

The Economic Blue Screen of Death


October 17, 2008



...Let's look at a graph I used two years ago, from work done by James Kennedy and Alan Greenspan, on the effect of mortgage equity withdrawals (MEWs) on the growth of the US economy.

Notice that in both 2001 and 2002, the US economy continued to grow on an annual basis (the "technical" recession was just a few quarters). Their work suggests that this growth was entirely due to MEWs. In fact, MEWs contributed over 3% to GDP growth in 2004 and 2005, and 2% in 2006. Without US homeowners using their homes as an ATM, the economy would have been very sluggish indeed, averaging much less than 1% for the six years of the Bush presidency. Indeed, as a side observation, without home equity withdrawals the economy would have been so bad it would have been almost impossible for Bush to have won a second term.

Now let's look at the update that James Kennedy posted last week to his numbers. While he does not have an update to the chart above, we do have the actual numbers for new mortgage equity withdrawals through the second quarter of this year. And what they show is MEWs simply withering on the vine. The engine of our GDP growth has essentially been turned off. Look at the fall in the numbers for yourself:

In 2005 there was almost $595 billion in mortgage extractions that went into some kind of consumer spending. Remember, according to the graph above, that translated into a 3% rise in GDP. In 2007, MEWs were down to $470 billion, for a boost of 2% to GDP.

The second quarter of 2008 saw an anemic $9.5 billion. At that run rate, we could see a drop-off of over 90% from 2005! Now, think what the second quarter would have been without the federal stimulus program of $150 billion. It might have looked and felt like this quarter!


The Economic Blue Screen of Death

You can duck and dodge and copy and paste all day, but you clearly have no substantive, relevant response to the following facts, facts that anyone can confirm by checking federal data sites on the federal budget and the GDP:

* Following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue rose for 4 years in a row, and even in the recession year of 2008 revenue was higher than it was in 2005 and 2006.

* The federal revenue growth that occurred in the 4 years that followed the 2003 tax cuts exceeded the revenue growth of any 4-year period in the Clinton years.

* The federal revenue growth that followed the 2003 tax cuts came with a sizable reduction in the U-6 unemployment rate, an increase in median family income, and 52 consecutive months of economic growth.

* Obama's federal revenue growth has exceeded Bush's, but, oddly enough, revenue as a percentage of GDP is much lower than it was under Bush. So, according to you guys, that means the revenue growth really didn't happen and/or that it shoulda/coulda/woulda been larger if other policies had been followed.

* The rise in federal revenue that has occurred under Obama has come with a drop in median family income, a sizable increase in the U-6 unemployment rate, and the weakest recovery of the modern area (a "recovery" that has included two quarters of negative GDP growth).

Its not necessarily the facts, in and of themselves, that are the center of your posts being dismissed as irrelevant and being outright mocked as foolish. It's the conclusions you draw from only two factors, period and change over period, worthy of ridicule and foolish without consideration of a multitude of other ECONOMIC FACTORS that you fail and refuse to consider which impact revenue! You turn logic on its head and expect everyone to go along with your misconceptions and lack of critical thinking!

Then you move your arguments to another playing field changing your "facts" to different criteria and periods, which are merely tangential to the OP at best, because your premise was shot full of holes. As I have already said in my post #235 above, you are the one dancing around trying to keep the truth form sticking to you. It's time for you to stop projecting your one talent!

One last thing...get a damn math tutor! Your math comprehension and logic skills really stink!

 

[TooTall]

OK, let me get this straight......GWB CUT taxes....nonetheless revenue INCREASED......

Following that line of logic then:

If I CUT my employees' salaries.....productivity may/will increase?

If I CUT my intake of calories per day.....my weight will increase?

If I CUT my daily viewing of news items.....my knowledge of what's going on in the world will increase?

(I won't even go into the Bush war spending that was underwritten by a credit card for China, India and Japan.)

Your analogies are ridiculous. Either revenues increased after the GWB tax cuts or they didn't. Do you even know? And the spending on the wars was authorized by the Congress in case you missed it.

 

[TooTall]

Every month or so we a liberal thread about how the Bush tax cuts led to huge deficits and an explosion in the national debt. We are also told that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Some liberals even still claim that somehow the Bush tax cuts contributed to the Great Recession (right, because letting people keep more of their money somehow, someway harms the economy!). Here are the facts:

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue. As anyone can confirm by looking at federal tax revenue data, here's what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

In other words, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. (See The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth for more info.)

So why did the deficit explode? Because Congress went on a spending spree and raised spending at an even faster rate than revenue was rising. It's that simple. If Congress had merely limited spending hikes to match inflation, we would have been operating well in the black.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. We have had nothing close to that since Bush left office.

* The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich. Some of the largest rate cuts went to the middle class/the poor. In fact, after the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share of federal tax revenue. (See Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? and Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts and George W. Bush, Middle Class Champion for more info.)

What happened to revenue after the Clinton tax increases in 1993?

The dot com boom.

 

[TooTall]

No one is 'lying' about the Bush tax cuts, as they in fact contributed to the growing deficit, having no positive impact on economic growth:

"The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

What was the average unemployment rate for the Bush Administration? To a working man or woman, that is usually all that matters.

 

[TooTall]

Every month or so we a liberal thread about how the Bush tax cuts led to huge deficits and an explosion in the national debt. We are also told that the Bush tax cuts mostly benefited the rich. Some liberals even still claim that somehow the Bush tax cuts contributed to the Great Recession (right, because letting people keep more of their money somehow, someway harms the economy!). Here are the facts:

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by huge increases in federal revenue. As anyone can confirm by looking at federal tax revenue data, here's what happened to federal revenue following the Bush tax cuts:

2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion

In other words, from 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.

Total federal revenue for 2008 dropped slightly, down to $2.52 trillion, because a recession started that year, but revenue was still substantially higher than it was in 2003 or 2004. (See The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth for more info.)

So why did the deficit explode? Because Congress went on a spending spree and raised spending at an even faster rate than revenue was rising. It's that simple. If Congress had merely limited spending hikes to match inflation, we would have been operating well in the black.

* The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. We have had nothing close to that since Bush left office.

* The Bush tax cuts benefited everyone, not just the rich. Some of the largest rate cuts went to the middle class/the poor. In fact, after the Bush tax cuts, the rich paid a larger share of federal tax revenue. (See Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? and Why America Is Going To Miss The Bush Tax Cuts and George W. Bush, Middle Class Champion for more info.)

Bush had rising deficits from a balanced budget that not cutting taxes might have prevented.

Look at a chart that actually means something:

Nope...wrong answer.......the tax revenue went up with the tax cuts......and then they spent even more than that.....

It is never a tax revenue problem...it is always a government spending problem.......

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Deficit spending....your kidding right....then why don't we just confiscate everyones money...have the government spend it and just watch all the tax revenue roll in.....you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous...

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Obama is a Democrat and he seems to have continued the deficit spending.

 

[TooTall]

Higher taxes = less transactions = Less revenues

Lower taxes = more transactions = More revenues

Written by a brain dead right winger......When was the last time you saw Trump using his "lower taxes" to buy a battery at Pep Boys?

Your scenario ONLY works if those lower taxes are for the lower and middle class.....
BUT, these latter people (including your sorry ass) do not BRIBE congress to lower their taxes......the real "lower taxes" benefits go to those who BOUGHT the congressional seat.

I read somewhere that 47% of the folks don't pay any federal income tax. That means the other 53% have to pay all of the federal income taxes.

you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

Defense spending benefits everyone in this country.
Social spending doesnt benefit anyone except politicians.

What benefit did I get from the Iraq War?

What benefit am I getting from the US military presence in Korea and Japan?

Obama has had almost 7 years to pull the troops out of Korea and Japan. He must think it is of some benefit.

 

[Dad2three]

Higher taxes = less transactions = Less revenues

Lower taxes = more transactions = More revenues

Written by a brain dead right winger......When was the last time you saw Trump using his "lower taxes" to buy a battery at Pep Boys?

Your scenario ONLY works if those lower taxes are for the lower and middle class.....
BUT, these latter people (including your sorry ass) do not BRIBE congress to lower their taxes......the real "lower taxes" benefits go to those who BOUGHT the congressional seat.

I read somewhere that 47% of the folks don't pay any federal income tax. That means the other 53% have to pay all of the federal income taxes.

you guys want to give more money to politicians who are irresponsible with everyone else's money...and you think that is a smart thing to do.....

There are always TWO issues in this debate: TAX REVENUE...and Gov. SPENDING.

Since by "you guys" you may mean left leaning posters on here, the premise you state is all wrong since we are not the rich and huge donors to a corrupt congress....Many of us have advocated for increasing taxes on those that have ridiculously of skewed the income inequalities and on those corporations that pay virtually NO taxes.........

Secondly, I for one agree that spending is out of control and waste is unconscionable.
However, right wingers want to cut the spending (social issues and entitlements) that benefit MILLIONS of Americans, while increasing "defense" (an euphemism since we are not really talking defense but Offense) spending which benefits mostly the same corporate donors who repeatedly and openly bribe congress.

Defense spending benefits everyone in this country.
Social spending doesnt benefit anyone except politicians.

What benefit did I get from the Iraq War?

What benefit am I getting from the US military presence in Korea and Japan?

Obama has had almost 7 years to pull the troops out of Korea and Japan. He must think it is of some benefit.

Fed income taxes? Oh right that 46% of federal revenues, near post WW2 lows as share of revenues. And?

 

[Dad2three]

Bush had rising deficits from a balanced budget that not cutting taxes might have prevented.

Look at a chart that actually means something:

Nope...wrong answer.......the tax revenue went up with the tax cuts......and then they spent even more than that.....

It is never a tax revenue problem...it is always a government spending problem.......

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Deficit spending....your kidding right....then why don't we just confiscate everyones money...have the government spend it and just watch all the tax revenue roll in.....you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous...

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Obama is a Democrat and he seems to have continued the deficit spending.

 

[Dad2three]

No one is 'lying' about the Bush tax cuts, as they in fact contributed to the growing deficit, having no positive impact on economic growth:

"The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

What was the average unemployment rate for the Bush Administration? To a working man or woman, that is usually all that matters.

Average under Dubya? Why not the 4% he inherited OR the 7.8% he handed off (not including the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to HIS policies)?

Guess an economy built on a ponzi scheme CAN seem to be OK, until it pops right?

 

[2aguy]

Nope...wrong answer.......the tax revenue went up with the tax cuts......and then they spent even more than that.....

It is never a tax revenue problem...it is always a government spending problem.......

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Deficit spending....your kidding right....then why don't we just confiscate everyones money...have the government spend it and just watch all the tax revenue roll in.....you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous...

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Obama is a Democrat and he seems to have continued the deficit spending.

yeah...and the fact that they have had Republican Congresses that made them lower the deficit when they fought to increase it? Yeah, don't mention that...and the fact that Republican Presidents have always had democrat controlled House of Representatives to deal with except for Bush.....and he still had to deal with democrats.....

 

[2aguy]

No one is 'lying' about the Bush tax cuts, as they in fact contributed to the growing deficit, having no positive impact on economic growth:

"The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

What was the average unemployment rate for the Bush Administration? To a working man or woman, that is usually all that matters.

Average under Dubya? Why not the 4% he inherited OR the 7.8% he handed off (not including the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to HIS policies)?

Guess an economy built on a ponzi scheme CAN seem to be OK, until it pops right?

yeah....that whole recession he inherited from clinton and then the massive hit by the attack on 9/11, because clinton didnt' deal with muslim terrorism...and then the housing problem created by clinton and the democrats........yeah...don't mention that....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Deficit spending....your kidding right....then why don't we just confiscate everyones money...have the government spend it and just watch all the tax revenue roll in.....you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous...

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Obama is a Democrat and he seems to have continued the deficit spending.

yeah...and the fact that they have had Republican Congresses that made them lower the deficit when they fought to increase it? Yeah, don't mention that...and the fact that Republican Presidents have always had democrat controlled House of Representatives to deal with except for Bush.....and he still had to deal with democrats.....

That's funny. I seem to recall Republicans attacking Clinton for 'gutting' the military.

 

[nat4900]

and then the massive hit by the attack on 9/11

Now, now.....I have it right from Jeb's rhetoric that his brother "kept us safe'....Was 9/11/2001 NOT in GWB's watch then?'

 

[Dad2three]

No one is 'lying' about the Bush tax cuts, as they in fact contributed to the growing deficit, having no positive impact on economic growth:

"The 2001 tax cut did nothing to stimulate the economy, yet Republicans pushed for additional tax cuts in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2008. The economy continued to languish even as the Treasury hemorrhaged revenue, which fell to 17.5 percent of the gross domestic product in 2008 from 20.6 percent in 2000. Republicans abolished Paygo in 2002, and spending rose to 20.7 percent of G.D.P. in 2008 from 18.2 percent in 2001.

According to the C.B.O., by the end of the Bush administration, legislated tax cuts reduced revenues and increased the national debt by $1.6 trillion. Slower-than-expected growth further reduced revenues by $1.4 trillion."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/12/the-fiscal-legacy-of-george-w-bush/

What was the average unemployment rate for the Bush Administration? To a working man or woman, that is usually all that matters.

Average under Dubya? Why not the 4% he inherited OR the 7.8% he handed off (not including the 4+ million lost in 2009 thanks to HIS policies)?

Guess an economy built on a ponzi scheme CAN seem to be OK, until it pops right?

yeah....that whole recession he inherited from clinton and then the massive hit by the attack on 9/11, because clinton didnt' deal with muslim terrorism...and then the housing problem created by clinton and the democrats........yeah...don't mention that....

9/11? Oh right where Dubya ignored DOZENS of warnings in his 9 months in office, instead focusing on Iraq

Housing by Dems? LMAOROG



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."

FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

Deficit spending produces tax revenue. You can't credit tax cuts with increases in revenue that are actually being caused by deficit spending.

Deficit spending....your kidding right....then why don't we just confiscate everyones money...have the government spend it and just watch all the tax revenue roll in.....you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous...

Every GOP president in the past 30 years has generated revenue from deficit spending.

Obama is a Democrat and he seems to have continued the deficit spending.

yeah...and the fact that they have had Republican Congresses that made them lower the deficit when they fought to increase it? Yeah, don't mention that...and the fact that Republican Presidents have always had democrat controlled House of Representatives to deal with except for Bush.....and he still had to deal with democrats.....

SO WHICH IS IT TODAY, PREZ #1 OR CONGRESS DUMBASS? Is it GOP Congress inflicting the pain today or Obama???




Hint BJ Bill had 4 surpluses, 3 AFTER vetoing the GOP's $712 Billion tax cut LOL


'HINT, LEARN FROM HISTORY, GOP DOESN'T CARE ABOUT DEBT/DEFICITS UNTIL A DEM PREZ GETS IN OFFICE!!!

 

[mikegriffith1]

This thread is a prime example of liberals avoiding facts, citing errant or misleading data, and then pronouncing themselves the winners. A few facts, taken from federal budget data and from Federal Reserve reports (the federal budget data are carried on the Tax Policy Center's website; the Federal Reserve reports are cited with separate links):

* In the 4 years following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue grew more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency. After 2003, revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $780 billion (I mistakenly typed $480 billion in previous replies, but I have the correct number in my article). During the best 4 revenue years of Clinton's tenure, revenue rose from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000, an increase of $557 billion. That's $780 billion under Bush vs. $557 billion under Clinton.

* Even though liberals here seem to assume that Clinton did nothing but raise taxes, in point of fact Clinton raised some taxes but substantially cut other taxes. Clinton created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%, the largest reduction in the capital gains tax up to that point in history.

* In Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue went from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion. (My earlier comparison was based on 3-year periods, not 4-year.) So Bush's revenue growth came close to Obama's revenue growth, even though he slashed taxes across the board, whereas Obama has raised taxes on the top two brackets and has imposed a host of other tax hikes. And, of course, under Obama, taxpayers have less money in their pockets than they did under Bush, since Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with his tax hikes. Liberals gauge success by how much money the government has, whereas conservatives gauge success by how much money people get to keep of their own money.

* Bush's federal revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the real unemployment rate (the U-6).

* Obama's federal revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (which has included two quarters of negative GDP growth--1Q 2014 and 1Q 2015), a decline in median family income, a weakened labor force participation rate, and a historically high real unemployment rate (U-6). Indeed, the average U-6 rate under Obama has been much higher than it was under Bush, as anyone can confirm by checking the U-6 rate for Bush's and Obama's presidencies.

* The 2008 recession was not "Bush's recession." That is ridiculous. The major cause of the recession was Freddie and Fannie's disastrous intervention in the housing market, which led to Freddie and Fannie securing or financing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky home loans. As a Federal Reserve report notes, "By 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for 52.3% of all residential mortgage loans outstanding" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf.). In addition," during 2001-2003, the GSEs [i.e., Freddie and Fannie] funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated; from 2004-2006, the GSE share of new mortgages was 47%, 41%, and 40%, respectively" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf).

As a result of this massive federal intervention, the number of higher-risk home loans (sub-prime and Alt-A) exploded, starting in 2003. I quote from another Federal Reserve report:

Despite these concerns, lending to risky borrowers grew rapidly in the 2000s, as shown in Table 1. The number of subprime mortgages originated nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2003 to 1.9 million in 2005. Near-prime Alt-A originations grew at an even faster rate, from 304,000 in 2003 to 1.1 million in 2005. In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier (Inside Mortgage Finance, 2008). (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

And, as the Republicans had repeatedly warned, this explosion in high-risk loans led to disaster. I again quote the Federal Reserve report:

The share of subprime mortgages that were seriously delinquent increased from about 5.6 percent in mid-2005 to over 21 percent in July 2008. Alt-A mortgages saw an even greater proportional increase from a low of 0.6 to over 9 percent over the same time period. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

These failed high-risk home loans were then bundled into the "toxic assets" that did so much damage to the financial sector and the economy.

Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine.

So we can place most of the blame for the recession squarely on those who refused to stop Freddie and Fannie's fatal intervention that greatly accelerated the increase in high-risk home loans. If there had not been so many bad home loans, there would have been far fewer such loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

 

[Dad2three]

This thread is a prime example of liberals avoiding facts, citing errant or misleading data, and then pronouncing themselves the winners. A few facts, taken from federal budget data and from Federal Reserve reports (the federal budget data are carried on the Tax Policy Center's website; the Federal Reserve reports are cited with separate links):

* In the 4 years following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue grew more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency. After 2003, revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $780 billion (I mistakenly typed $480 billion in previous replies, but I have the correct number in my article). During the best 4 revenue years of Clinton's tenure, revenue rose from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000, an increase of $557 billion. That's $780 billion under Bush vs. $557 billion under Clinton.

* Even though liberals here seem to assume that Clinton did nothing but raise taxes, in point of fact Clinton raised some taxes but substantially cut other taxes. Clinton created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%, the largest reduction in the capital gains tax up to that point in history.

* In Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue went from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion. (My earlier comparison was based on 3-year periods, not 4-year.) So Bush's revenue growth came close to Obama's revenue growth, even though he slashed taxes across the board, whereas Obama has raised taxes on the top two brackets and has imposed a host of other tax hikes. And, of course, under Obama, taxpayers have less money in their pockets than they did under Bush, since Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with his tax hikes. Liberals gauge success by how much money the government has, whereas conservatives gauge success by how much money people get to keep of their own money.

* Bush's federal revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the real unemployment rate (the U-6).

* Obama's federal revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (which has included two quarters of negative GDP growth--1Q 2014 and 1Q 2015), a decline in median family income, a weakened labor force participation rate, and a historically high real unemployment rate (U-6). Indeed, the average U-6 rate under Obama has been much higher than it was under Bush, as anyone can confirm by checking the U-6 rate for Bush's and Obama's presidencies.

* The 2008 recession was not "Bush's recession." That is ridiculous. The major cause of the recession was Freddie and Fannie's disastrous intervention in the housing market, which led to Freddie and Fannie securing or financing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky home loans. As a Federal Reserve report notes, "By 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for 52.3% of all residential mortgage loans outstanding" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf.). In addition," during 2001-2003, the GSEs [i.e., Freddie and Fannie] funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated; from 2004-2006, the GSE share of new mortgages was 47%, 41%, and 40%, respectively" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf).

As a result of this massive federal intervention, the number of higher-risk home loans (sub-prime and Alt-A) exploded, starting in 2003. I quote from another Federal Reserve report:

Despite these concerns, lending to risky borrowers grew rapidly in the 2000s, as shown in Table 1. The number of subprime mortgages originated nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2003 to 1.9 million in 2005. Near-prime Alt-A originations grew at an even faster rate, from 304,000 in 2003 to 1.1 million in 2005. In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier (Inside Mortgage Finance, 2008). (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

And, as the Republicans had repeatedly warned, this explosion in high-risk loans led to disaster. I again quote the Federal Reserve report:

The share of subprime mortgages that were seriously delinquent increased from about 5.6 percent in mid-2005 to over 21 percent in July 2008. Alt-A mortgages saw an even greater proportional increase from a low of 0.6 to over 9 percent over the same time period. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

These failed high-risk home loans were then bundled into the "toxic assets" that did so much damage to the financial sector and the economy.

Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine.

So we can place most of the blame for the recession squarely on those who refused to stop Freddie and Fannie's fatal intervention that greatly accelerated the increase in high-risk home loans. If there had not been so many bad home loans, there would have been far fewer such loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."

Bush Economic Adviser Samwick: "Tax Cuts Have Not Fueled Record Revenues." In a January 2007 blog post titled, "New Year's Plea," Andrew Samwick, former chief economist for George W. Bush's Council on Economic Advisers, wrote:

You [in the Bush administration] are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.

Vox Baby: A New Year's Plea
Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."

October 2006

"Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There's really no dispute among economists about that," said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. "It's logically possible" that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. "But there's no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that."






Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role


NO SERIOUS ECONOMIST THINKS ANY TAX CUT FOR OVER 50 YEARS HAS BROUGHT IN MORE REVENUES, THAN IF THERE WERE NO TAX CUTS. NONE!

 

[Dad2three]

This thread is a prime example of liberals avoiding facts, citing errant or misleading data, and then pronouncing themselves the winners. A few facts, taken from federal budget data and from Federal Reserve reports (the federal budget data are carried on the Tax Policy Center's website; the Federal Reserve reports are cited with separate links):

* In the 4 years following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue grew more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency. After 2003, revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $780 billion (I mistakenly typed $480 billion in previous replies, but I have the correct number in my article). During the best 4 revenue years of Clinton's tenure, revenue rose from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000, an increase of $557 billion. That's $780 billion under Bush vs. $557 billion under Clinton.

* Even though liberals here seem to assume that Clinton did nothing but raise taxes, in point of fact Clinton raised some taxes but substantially cut other taxes. Clinton created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%, the largest reduction in the capital gains tax up to that point in history.

* In Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue went from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion. (My earlier comparison was based on 3-year periods, not 4-year.) So Bush's revenue growth came close to Obama's revenue growth, even though he slashed taxes across the board, whereas Obama has raised taxes on the top two brackets and has imposed a host of other tax hikes. And, of course, under Obama, taxpayers have less money in their pockets than they did under Bush, since Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with his tax hikes. Liberals gauge success by how much money the government has, whereas conservatives gauge success by how much money people get to keep of their own money.

* Bush's federal revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the real unemployment rate (the U-6).

* Obama's federal revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (which has included two quarters of negative GDP growth--1Q 2014 and 1Q 2015), a decline in median family income, a weakened labor force participation rate, and a historically high real unemployment rate (U-6). Indeed, the average U-6 rate under Obama has been much higher than it was under Bush, as anyone can confirm by checking the U-6 rate for Bush's and Obama's presidencies.

* The 2008 recession was not "Bush's recession." That is ridiculous. The major cause of the recession was Freddie and Fannie's disastrous intervention in the housing market, which led to Freddie and Fannie securing or financing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky home loans. As a Federal Reserve report notes, "By 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for 52.3% of all residential mortgage loans outstanding" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf.). In addition," during 2001-2003, the GSEs [i.e., Freddie and Fannie] funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated; from 2004-2006, the GSE share of new mortgages was 47%, 41%, and 40%, respectively" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf).

As a result of this massive federal intervention, the number of higher-risk home loans (sub-prime and Alt-A) exploded, starting in 2003. I quote from another Federal Reserve report:

Despite these concerns, lending to risky borrowers grew rapidly in the 2000s, as shown in Table 1. The number of subprime mortgages originated nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2003 to 1.9 million in 2005. Near-prime Alt-A originations grew at an even faster rate, from 304,000 in 2003 to 1.1 million in 2005. In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier (Inside Mortgage Finance, 2008). (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

And, as the Republicans had repeatedly warned, this explosion in high-risk loans led to disaster. I again quote the Federal Reserve report:

The share of subprime mortgages that were seriously delinquent increased from about 5.6 percent in mid-2005 to over 21 percent in July 2008. Alt-A mortgages saw an even greater proportional increase from a low of 0.6 to over 9 percent over the same time period. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

These failed high-risk home loans were then bundled into the "toxic assets" that did so much damage to the financial sector and the economy.

Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine.

So we can place most of the blame for the recession squarely on those who refused to stop Freddie and Fannie's fatal intervention that greatly accelerated the increase in high-risk home loans. If there had not been so many bad home loans, there would have been far fewer such loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

"Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine."



Oh right, we forget about the OUT OF CONTEXT 2003-2004 ACCOUNTING SCANDALS WHEN DEMS SAID F/F WERE OK


WHAT HAPPENED?

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”




Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse


2004 Republican Convention:

Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.
...

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home."


June 17, 2004


Builders to fight Bush's low-income plan


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Home builders, realtors and others are preparing to fight a Bush administration plan that would require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase financing of homes for low-income people, a home builder group said Thursday.


Home builders fight Bush's low-income housing - Jun. 17, 2004



Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Talk radio and the blogosphere are pushing the idea that the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit was triggered by finance giants Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's lending money to poor and minority Americans. But federal housing data reveal that that charge isn't true. Instead, it was the private sector that was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis






Bush's documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals (2004)
Lowering Investment banks capital requirements, Net Capital rule (2004)
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans (2004)
Lowering down payment requirements to 0% (2004)
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets (2004)
Giving away 40,000 free down payments PER YEAR (2004-2007)
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING (2003)


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

This thread is a prime example of liberals avoiding facts, citing errant or misleading data, and then pronouncing themselves the winners. A few facts, taken from federal budget data and from Federal Reserve reports (the federal budget data are carried on the Tax Policy Center's website; the Federal Reserve reports are cited with separate links):

* In the 4 years following the 2003 tax cuts, federal revenue grew more than it did during any 4-year period of Clinton's presidency. After 2003, revenue rose from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007, an increase of $780 billion (I mistakenly typed $480 billion in previous replies, but I have the correct number in my article). During the best 4 revenue years of Clinton's tenure, revenue rose from $1.45 trillion in 1996 to $2.02 trillion in 2000, an increase of $557 billion. That's $780 billion under Bush vs. $557 billion under Clinton.

* Even though liberals here seem to assume that Clinton did nothing but raise taxes, in point of fact Clinton raised some taxes but substantially cut other taxes. Clinton created a new $500 child tax credit, raised the income limit for deductible IRAs, nearly doubled the estate tax exemption, and slashed the capital gains tax rate by a whopping 28%, the largest reduction in the capital gains tax up to that point in history.

* In Obama's 4 best years of revenue, revenue went from $2.16 trillion in 2010 to $3.02 trillion in 2014, an increase of $846 billion. (My earlier comparison was based on 3-year periods, not 4-year.) So Bush's revenue growth came close to Obama's revenue growth, even though he slashed taxes across the board, whereas Obama has raised taxes on the top two brackets and has imposed a host of other tax hikes. And, of course, under Obama, taxpayers have less money in their pockets than they did under Bush, since Obama has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy with his tax hikes. Liberals gauge success by how much money the government has, whereas conservatives gauge success by how much money people get to keep of their own money.

* Bush's federal revenue increase came with 52 consecutive months of economic growth, an increase in median family income, and a substantial reduction in the real unemployment rate (the U-6).

* Obama's federal revenue increase has come with the weakest recovery in modern history (which has included two quarters of negative GDP growth--1Q 2014 and 1Q 2015), a decline in median family income, a weakened labor force participation rate, and a historically high real unemployment rate (U-6). Indeed, the average U-6 rate under Obama has been much higher than it was under Bush, as anyone can confirm by checking the U-6 rate for Bush's and Obama's presidencies.

* The 2008 recession was not "Bush's recession." That is ridiculous. The major cause of the recession was Freddie and Fannie's disastrous intervention in the housing market, which led to Freddie and Fannie securing or financing hundreds of billions of dollars in risky home loans. As a Federal Reserve report notes, "By 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for 52.3% of all residential mortgage loans outstanding" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf.). In addition," during 2001-2003, the GSEs [i.e., Freddie and Fannie] funded nearly 70% of all mortgages originated; from 2004-2006, the GSE share of new mortgages was 47%, 41%, and 40%, respectively" (https://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Van_Order.pdf).

As a result of this massive federal intervention, the number of higher-risk home loans (sub-prime and Alt-A) exploded, starting in 2003. I quote from another Federal Reserve report:

Despite these concerns, lending to risky borrowers grew rapidly in the 2000s, as shown in Table 1. The number of subprime mortgages originated nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2003 to 1.9 million in 2005. Near-prime Alt-A originations grew at an even faster rate, from 304,000 in 2003 to 1.1 million in 2005. In dollar terms, nonprime mortgages represented 32 percent of all mortgage originations in 2005, more than triple their 10 percent share only two years earlier (Inside Mortgage Finance, 2008). (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

And, as the Republicans had repeatedly warned, this explosion in high-risk loans led to disaster. I again quote the Federal Reserve report:

The share of subprime mortgages that were seriously delinquent increased from about 5.6 percent in mid-2005 to over 21 percent in July 2008. Alt-A mortgages saw an even greater proportional increase from a low of 0.6 to over 9 percent over the same time period. (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf)​

These failed high-risk home loans were then bundled into the "toxic assets" that did so much damage to the financial sector and the economy.

Now, as is documented on YouTube and in the Congressional Record, Bush and the Republicans tried repeatedly to halt the explosion in high-risk home loans by trying to prevent Freddie and Fannie from backing and financing so many of them. But the Democrats blocked every one of these efforts and even insisted Freddie and Fannie were totally solvent and doing just fine.

So we can place most of the blame for the recession squarely on those who refused to stop Freddie and Fannie's fatal intervention that greatly accelerated the increase in high-risk home loans. If there had not been so many bad home loans, there would have been far fewer such loans to bundle into toxic assets in the first place.

GSE (FANNIE/FREDDIE) Critics Ignore Loan Performance

There is no data anywhere to cast doubt on the vastly superior loan performance of the GSEs. Year after year, decade after decade, before, during and after the housing crash, GSE loan performance has consistently been two-to-six times better than that of any other segment of the market. The numbers are irrefutable, and they show that the entire case against GSE underwriting standards, and their role in the financial crisis, is based on social stereotyping, smoke and mirrors, and little else.

Consider Fannie Mae's historical loan performance, reported each year by the Federal Housing Finance Agency in its Annual Report to Congress. Over a span of 37 years, from 1971 through 2007, Fannie's average annual loss rate on its mortgage book was about four basis points. Losses were disproportionately worse during the crisis years, 2008 through 2011, when Fannie's average annual loss rate was 52 basis points. Freddie Mac's results are comparable.

By way of contrast, during the 1991–2007 period, commercial banks' average annual loss rate on single family mortgages was about 15 basis points. During the 2008-2011 period, annual losses were 184 basis points.

Or check out the FHFA study that compares, on an apples-to-apples basis, GSEs loan originations with those for private label securitizations. The study segments loans four ways, by ARMs-versus-fixed-rate, as well as by vintage, by FICO score and by loan-to-value ratio. In almost every one of 1800 different comparisons covering years 2001 through 2008, GSE loan performance was exponentially better. On average, GSE fixed-rate loans performed four times better, and GSE ARMs performed five times better.

Mortgage analyst Laurie Goodman estimated that private label securitizations issued during 2005-2007 incurred a loss rate of 24%, whereas the GSE loss rate for 2005-2007 vintage loans was closer to 4%.

And yet, large numbers of people remain convinced that Fannie and Freddie's underwriting standards caused the mortgage crisis. Why is that? The only plausible answer is that people are besotted by social stereotypes. Words like "government" and "affordable housing goals" make them jump to the unsupported conclusion that underwriting standards were compromised.


http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/gse-critics-ignore-loan-performance-1059187-1.html

YEP, DUBYA HOSED F/F HOWEVER AS REGULATOR

Through the Republican Congress in 2003 and the Bush Administration's work through HUD and the FHA, the Bush Administration forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to, for the first time, make available riskier loan products to minority and low income buyers.

The Federal Housing Administration Mortgage Program.In 2002, the President issued America’s Homeownership Challenge to increase first-time minority homeowners by 5.5 million through 2010. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage program is an important tool for reaching that goal. In 2006, 31 percent of those using FHA mortgages were minorities purchasing their first home. The 2008 Budget continues Administration efforts to modernize FHA by improving its ability to reach traditionally underserved homebuyers (aka those who do not normally qualify for loans), such as low- and moderate-income families, individuals with blemished credit, and families who have little savings for a down payment.

(From Bush Administration’s White House Press Release entitled, "Focusing on the Nation’s Priorities – Meeting America’s Housing Needs").

The Bush Administration through HUD, also required Fannie and Fredde to give a higher percentage of their loans to loan-income and minorities that otherwise would not qualify for the loans.




DUBYA:

That's why I've challenged the industry leaders all across the country to get after it for this goal, to stay focused, to make sure that we achieve a more secure America, by achieving the goal of 5.5 million new minority home owners. I call it America's home ownership challenge.

And let me talk about some of the progress which we have made to date, as an example for others to follow. First of all, government sponsored corporations that help create our mortgage system -- I introduced two of the leaders here today -- they call those people Fannie May and Freddie Mac, as well as the federal home loan banks, will increase their commitment to minority markets by more than $440 billion. (Applause.) I want to thank Leland and Franklin for that commitment. It's a commitment that conforms to their charters, as well, and also conforms to their hearts.

(From White House Speech archives – "President calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeowners" at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia).



Then, the following press release was sent out:

Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO, Franklin D. Raines today joined President Bush and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Mel Martinez, and other industry leaders and non-profit organizations, for a housing summit to promote the Administration's proposal to expand minority homeownership.
* * *
Fannie Mae's ten-point plan to help advance the Bush Administration's homeownership proposals was included in the Blueprint for the American Dream document released by HUD today.

The Blueprint for the American Dream that we unveiled today is the response to the `homeownership challenge' President Bush issued in June to increase minority homeownership," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. "Our partners, representing every segment of the affordable housing industry, are committed to working together to achieve the President's goal of adding 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade."

In his February State of the Union address President Bush called for "broader homeownership, especially among minorities."


In June, President Bush challenged both the public and private sector to be a partner in his crusade to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade.

Fannie Mae responded by committing $700 billion in home financing to 4.6 million minority households through 2009. This increases by 66 percent the specific pledge Fannie Mae made in 2000 to minority families through it's American Dream Commitment plan to provide $420 billion for three million minority families.

(quotes from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Business Wire "President Bush’s Nationwide Effort to Increase Minority Homeownership" – October 15, 2002).


The Administration and Republican Congress also passed the "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 to allow low income and minorities with blemished credit and no ability to come up with a downpayment to have the government cover their downpayment and closing costs. The Act gave 161.5 million dollars in taxpayer money to cover the downpayment and closing costs of minorities and low income individuals that would not be able to afford a downpayment and/or had "blemished credit."



On December 16, 2003, President Bush signed into law the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003, which will help approximately 40,000 families a year with their down payment and closing costs, and further strengthen America’s housing market. This legislation complements the President’s aggressive housing agenda announced in 2002 to dismantle the barriers to homeownership.

(From White House Press Release "American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 – Expanding Homeownership Opportunities for All).

Bush also pushed and passed a "Zero-down Payment" initiative.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership

LAS VEGAS - As part of President Bush's ongoing effort to help American families achieve the dream of homeownership, Federal Housing Commissioner John C. Weicher today announced that HUD is proposing to offer a "zero down payment" mortgage, the most significant initiative by the Federal Housing Administration in over a decade. This action would help remove the greatest barrier facing first-time homebuyers - the lack of funds for a down payment on a mortgage.
Speaking at the National Association of Home Builders' annual convention, Commissioner Weicher indicated that the proposal, part of HUD's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request, would eliminate the statutory requirement of a minimum three percent down payment for FHA-insured single-family mortgages for first-time homebuyers.

"Offering FHA mortgages with no down payment will unlock the door to homeownership for hundreds of thousands of American families, particularly minorities," said HUD's Acting Secretary Alphonso Jackson. "President Bush has pledged to create 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade, and this historic initiative will help meet this goal."

Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone.
"This initiative would not only address a major hurdle to homeownership and allow many renters to afford their own home, it would help these families build wealth and become true stakeholders in their communities," said Commissioner Weicher. "In addition, it would help spur the production of new housing in this country."

The Administration, through HUD, further forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer riskier 3, 5, and 7 year arm loan products to low income and minorities.

BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW ADJUSTABLE-RATE MORTGAGE PRODUCTS TO ENHANCE HOMEBUYING OPPORTUNITIES

40,000 More Families (A YEAR) Expected To Benefit From New Offerings


WASHINGTON – The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing to enhance homebuying opportunities by expanding its offerings of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products on FHA-insured mortgages. Potential homebuyers would be able to choose mortgages with periods of three, five, seven or ten years, depending on their needs, during which time the interest rate would be fixed. "By offering additional types of FHA-insured ARMs tailored to the financial conditions and desires of the borrowers, we are creating more homeownership opportunities," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez today in a speech to America’s Community Bankers. "We estimate that as many as 40,000 families a year will choose these new adjustable-rate mortgages as their way of financing their home purchase."

(HUD Press Release).

Bush and the Republican Congress forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make zero-down loans and adjustable rate 3, 5, and 7 year arms to the riskiest buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were forced to effectively finance 103 percent of the mortgage (including closing costs).


EVEN WITH HOW DUBYA HOSED F/F


FACTS on Dubya's great recession | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum




Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis


Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis