The Bush Economic Record

[red states rule]

Did you read what I wrote? I said I was happy about Wall Street..... can you ever debate what I say instead of just blasting "libs" in general with no specifics?

I am glad to see you are doing well

Did you keep your tax cut or did you send in back to Washington DC?

 

[maineman]

will you quit trying to change the subject?

I only suggest that your crowing about budget surpluses is disingenuous given the fact that the cost of the war is off-budget and the net effect is red ink for America.

WHy do you run away from that point? This discussion is about budgets and surpluses, not about what I did with a tax cut check.

 

[red states rule]

will you quit trying to change the subject?

I only suggest that your crowing about budget surpluses is disingenuous given the fact that the cost of the war is off-budget and the net effect is red ink for America.

WHy do you run away from that point? This discussion is about budgets and surpluses, not about what I did with a tax cut check.

As I thought - libs who oppose tax cuts KEEP their tax cut

 

[red states rule]

Any discussion of the Bush economic record that completely ignores the cost of the war in Iraq and its long term effects on our economy is too limited in its scope to be of any value other than for republicans to congratulate themselves about something good they have done while ignoring something very very very bad that they have done. To say we have a "budget surplus" when the cost of the war is not considered part of the budget is insulting.

Another record of the Dow yesterday MM

Can you say Dow 14,000?

 

[boedicca]

Dems in Congress are now making a push to tax venture capital and private equity return (long term investment gains) as ordinary income. Considering that VC money is one of the inputs for job creation in this country, more than doubling the taxes on high risk long term profits (the average VC investment takes seven years to pay off) will kill of quite a bit of job creation.

Oh goody.

 

[Bern80]

Well since Maineman only wants to talk about the budget lets talk about that for a second.

Lets assume the war was figured into the budget and we now have a deficit. For that matter lets' use any deficit. Your premise Maineman is that a deficit is a problem. Well at least one econ professor I had thinks otherwise. I haven't come up with a good reason to disagree with him yet, maybe you can.

His belief is the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime.

But his theory was essentially that federal budget deficit really is not a problem mainly because the gov't has an awful lot of power when it comes to fiscal policy. Let's say for kicks the deficit is $100,000. How is the gov't gonna get rid of that deficit? Well one thing the gov't has the ability to do, and does do is issue bonds, which are still the safest bond in the country. This is really the only true form of revenue the gov't has. In order to create revenue an entity must have that ability unto itslef by selling a product or service. The government has no other means by which to produce its own money. Except for bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money.

 

[maineman]

Well since Maineman only wants to talk about the budget lets talk about that for a second.

Lets assume the war was figured into the budget and we now have a deficit. For that matter lets' use any deficit. Your premise Maineman is that a deficit is a problem. Well at least one econ professor I had thinks otherwise. I haven't come up with a good reason to disagree with him yet, maybe you can.

His belief is the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. (see below)
But his theory was essentially that federal budget deficit really is not a problem mainly because the gov't has an awful lot of power when it comes to fiscal policy. Let's say for kicks the deficit is $100,000. How is the gov't gonna get rid of that deficit? Well one thing the gov't has the ability to do, and does do is issue bonds, which are still the safest bond in the country. This is really the only true form of revenue the gov't has. In order to create revenue an entity must have that ability unto itslef by selling a product or service. The government has no other means by which to produce its own money. Except for bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money....(who IS this "you"?).

government bonds, eh?

now why didn't I think of that?

Oh wait....I did:

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

 

[Bern80]

government bonds, eh?

now why didn't I think of that?

Oh wait....I did:

http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Originally your point was that the war is going to pass the bill onto someone, which I argued under this theory would not really happen. What exactley is your point now?

That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. (see below)

That isn't trade deficit though.

it has your money....(who IS this "you"?).

I thought it would be obvious, but the you would be John Q. Taxpayer.

 

[maineman]

Originally your point was that the war is going to pass the bill onto someone, which I argued under this theory would not really happen. What exactley is your point now?

you don't think that the interest and principal paid on treasury bonds to foreign countries is a bill passed on to the American people? How NUMB are you???????



That isn't trade deficit though.

What is so magical about a "trade" deficit? It most certainly IS "real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime". Or do you just imagine we would default on the zillions of dollars in our treasury bonds held by foreign countries?

I thought it would be obvious, but the you would be John Q. Taxpayer

Economics is not your strong suit, is it Denny? You said, "Except for bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money". In the case of the bonds in question, it is NOT the money of John Q. Taxpayer that we have in the form of capital from the sale of those bonds...but rather Hans and Pierre and Moshe and Abdul and Jing and Pedro. Jophn Q. Taxpaer is going to have to PAY those assholes for the bonds we sold them...with interest...John Q. Public isn't making a penny from the sale of treasury bonds to foreigners. Now...what exactly was YOUR point professor????

 

[Bern80]

Originally your point was that the war is going to pass the bill onto someone, which I argued under this theory would not really happen. What exactley is your point now?

you don't think that the interest and principal paid on treasury bonds to foreign countries is a bill passed on to the American people? How NUMB are you???????[

No. Answer the following question: When the bond held by some Japanese guys matures how do you suppose he will get that money?

That isn't trade deficit though.

What is so magical about a "trade" deficit? It most certainly IS "real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime". Or do you just imagine we would default on the zillions of dollars in our treasury bonds held by foreign countries?

Clearly you are the one who doesn't understand economics. A trade defcit is importing more than you export. A budget deficit is the govt spending more money than it takes in. they are completely different.

I thought it would be obvious, but the you would be John Q. Taxpayer

Economics is not your strong suit, is it Denny? You said, "Except for bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money". In the case of the bonds in question, it is NOT the money of John Q. Taxpayer that we have in the form of capital from the sale of those bonds...but rather Hans and Pierre and Moshe and Abdul and Jing and Pedro.

I'm thinking you just plain read this wrong unless there's some part of the word 'except' you just don't get. When I say the government has your money, meaning they didn't earn it in any way, I mean the money taken out of your check by the government. When I am speaking of the purchase of bonds I mean anyone who cares to buy them. So to reiterate with the exception of bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money.

Jophn Q. Taxpaer is going to have to PAY those assholes for the bonds we sold them...with interest...John Q. Public isn't making a penny from the sale of treasury bonds to foreigners. Now...what exactly was YOUR point professor????

How exactley? What is more likely is the gov't will simply issue more bonds keeping the cycle going imperpetuity.

My point was that a budget deficit probably isn't something that is going to get passed on to anybody.

 

[maineman]

No. Answer the following question: When the bond held by some Japanese guys matures how do you suppose he will get that money?

the US treasury will pay him

Clearly you are the one who doesn't understand economics. A trade defcit is importing more than you export. A budget deficit is the govt spending more money than it takes in. they are completely different.

I never said they were not completely different. Treasury bonds owned by foreigners mean that "country X is gonna get paid sometime"

I'm thinking you just plain read this wrong unless there's some part of the word 'except' you just don't get. When I say the government has your money, meaning they didn't earn it in any way, I mean the money taken out of your check by the government. When I am speaking of the purchase of bonds I mean anyone who cares to buy them. So to reiterate with the exception of bonds the gov't does not have it's own money, it has your money.

in all cases they do not have their OWN money. They take your money away from you via taxes, or they take your money in exchange for a bond, or they take the money of "country X" in exchange for a bond. In the latter two cases, they gotta pay it back, and in the last case "country X is gonna get paied sometime" which goes to your assertion the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. And as I said, the "deficit" of bonds sold to finance an {the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. The deficit created by bonds sold to finance an off budget war and owned by foreign entities is just as damaging as a trade deficit.

My point was that a budget deficit probably isn't something that is going to get passed on to anybody.

the debt incurred selling bonds to finance a war that is off budget will most certainly get passed on to everybody

 

[red states rule]

New jobless claims hit a three year low - and another record on the Dow yesterday

How much more bad news can the left take?

 

[Bern80]

No. Answer the following question: When the bond held by some Japanese guys matures how do you suppose he will get that money?

the US treasury will pay him

Correct but needs to be taken a step further:

If the country is running a deficit how is the U.S. treasury going come up with the money?

I never said they were not completely different. Treasury bonds owned by foreigners mean that "country X is gonna get paid sometime"

Yes, but I beleiver tehre is a difference in how they will be repaid. If we purchase a bushel of wheat of from country X. We owe them for that bushel.

The same would be true of a bond but most likely to repay that the gov't would just issue more bonds.

in all cases they do not have their OWN money. They take your money away from you via taxes, or they take your money in exchange for a bond, or they take the money of "country X" in exchange for a bond.

Umm no. the transaction here is the important part. If I give you a dollar for a slice of bread that dollar is no longer mine it belongs to you because I entered into a contract aggreeing to pay it.

There is no such contract as far as taxes are concerned because I never agreed to give it to you, I just have to give it to you. Maybe you will disagree but in order for you to rightfully acquire ownership if something (for it to be called 'yours') you need to enter into some type of contract of exchange with anoher.

In the latter two cases, they gotta pay it back, and in the last case "country X is gonna get paied sometime" which goes to your assertion the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. And as I said, the "deficit" of bonds sold to finance an {the only deficit that really matters to this country that can reallly hurt people is the foreign trade deficit. That's real as country X is gonna have to get paid sometime. The deficit created by bonds sold to finance an off budget war and owned by foreign entities is just as damaging as a trade deficit.

Okay try forgetting we're talking about a country for a minute. I see your trying to say whether its a trade deficit or bond repayment it doesn't matter in the end cause both have to be paid. But the end result really isn't the same. Forget its country and just pretend it is you that has the trade deficit (you spend more then you take in essentially) obviously that is gonna catch up with you at some point and there is now way around it.

Now pretend you want some money so you sell someone bond worth $50 and tell them you'll pay them $55 in a yr. for it. What do you do when you owe the $55 if you still are in a deficit? Simple you sell someone a bond for $55 and tell them you'll pay them $60 in a year.

See the difference?

the debt incurred selling bonds to finance a war that is off budget will most certainly get passed on to everybody

Ans again I ask specifacally how that is going to manifest itself?

 

[red states rule]

Jobless Claims Sink to 4-Month Low; Leading Indicators Signal Slow Growth
Thursday, May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — A surprise drop in new claims for U.S. jobless benefits hinted at a healthier labor market, but a fall in a gauge of future economic activity pointed to slower economic growth this summer, data released Thursday showed.

Initial filings for state unemployment insurance aid fell for the fifth straight week to the lowest level since mid-January, while a less-volatile measure of the labor market fell to its lowest in more than a year.

The number of new claims filed dropped 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 293,000 in the week ended May 12 from a revised 298,000 for the prior week, the Labor Department said.

The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths weekly volatility to provide a better sense of underlying job-market trends, fell for the third consecutive week, dropping to 305,500 from 317,500 in the prior week and to its lowest since April, 2006.

The New York-based Conference Board's measure of leading economic indicators declined a greater-than-expected 0.5 percent in April after a 0.6 percent increase in March. Economists had forecast a 0.1 percent drop.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273214,00.html

 

[Psychoblues]

I don't know about you, but as soon as I saw the article quoted was from FoxNews I realized it had a political, economic and otherwise profit rendering purpose.

Jobless Claims Sink to 4-Month Low; Leading Indicators Signal Slow Growth
Thursday, May 17, 2007

WASHINGTON — A surprise drop in new claims for U.S. jobless benefits hinted at a healthier labor market, but a fall in a gauge of future economic activity pointed to slower economic growth this summer, data released Thursday showed.

Initial filings for state unemployment insurance aid fell for the fifth straight week to the lowest level since mid-January, while a less-volatile measure of the labor market fell to its lowest in more than a year.

The number of new claims filed dropped 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 293,000 in the week ended May 12 from a revised 298,000 for the prior week, the Labor Department said.

The four-week moving average of claims, which smooths weekly volatility to provide a better sense of underlying job-market trends, fell for the third consecutive week, dropping to 305,500 from 317,500 in the prior week and to its lowest since April, 2006.

The New York-based Conference Board's measure of leading economic indicators declined a greater-than-expected 0.5 percent in April after a 0.6 percent increase in March. Economists had forecast a 0.1 percent drop.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273214,00.html

But, I'm just another idiot Democrat with more sense than most idiot rEpublicans.

 

[red states rule]

I don't know about you, but as soon as I saw the article quoted was from FoxNews I realized it had a political, economic and otherwise profit rendering purpose.




But, I'm just another idiot Democrat with more sense than most idiot rEpublicans.

As I said, there is only so much good news libs can take

 

[sealybobo]

Yesterday, I went to a Cinco de Mayo party at which the majority of attendees were typical Bay Area liberals. I listed to several long whinging litanies about how we are in a depression, that our economy sucks, that we live in a dictatorship, yada yada yada.

I did enjoy the reaction when I informed the group that I voted for Bush and quoted a few of the facts listed below. The one closet Republican in the crowd revealed hereself, and we enjoyed playing counterpoint to the rest.

Anyone who thinks we shoud raise taxes now is nuts.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in lost GDP — not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing — though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more — $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

• Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

• Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

• Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

• Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

• Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence — an unprecedented surge.

• About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

• The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

• Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point to slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263171464758919

They were right and you were wrong.

 

[boedicca]

Yesterday, I went to a Cinco de Mayo party at which the majority of attendees were typical Bay Area liberals. I listed to several long whinging litanies about how we are in a depression, that our economy sucks, that we live in a dictatorship, yada yada yada.

I did enjoy the reaction when I informed the group that I voted for Bush and quoted a few of the facts listed below. The one closet Republican in the crowd revealed hereself, and we enjoyed playing counterpoint to the rest.

Anyone who thinks we shoud raise taxes now is nuts.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in lost GDP — not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing — though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more — $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

• Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

• Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

• Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

• Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

• Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence — an unprecedented surge.

• About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

• The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

• Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point to slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263171464758919

They were right and you were wrong.

Only in the AntiMatter Universe where you and your bearded moonbats hang.

 

[Faun]

Yesterday, I went to a Cinco de Mayo party at which the majority of attendees were typical Bay Area liberals. I listed to several long whinging litanies about how we are in a depression, that our economy sucks, that we live in a dictatorship, yada yada yada.

I did enjoy the reaction when I informed the group that I voted for Bush and quoted a few of the facts listed below. The one closet Republican in the crowd revealed hereself, and we enjoyed playing counterpoint to the rest.

Anyone who thinks we shoud raise taxes now is nuts.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in lost GDP — not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing — though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more — $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

• Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

• Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

• Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

• Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

• Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence — an unprecedented surge.

• About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

• The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

• Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point to slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263171464758919

They were right and you were wrong.

This may have set a forum record for the longest gap between posts.

 

[sealybobo]

Yesterday, I went to a Cinco de Mayo party at which the majority of attendees were typical Bay Area liberals. I listed to several long whinging litanies about how we are in a depression, that our economy sucks, that we live in a dictatorship, yada yada yada.

I did enjoy the reaction when I informed the group that I voted for Bush and quoted a few of the facts listed below. The one closet Republican in the crowd revealed hereself, and we enjoyed playing counterpoint to the rest.

Anyone who thinks we shoud raise taxes now is nuts.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75 billion in lost GDP — not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing — though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more — $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

• Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

• Disposable personal income — what's left after taxes — has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

• Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

• Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

• Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence — an unprecedented surge.

• About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

• The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

• Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point to slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=263171464758919

They were right and you were wrong.

This may have set a forum record for the longest gap between posts.

I want people to remember when the economy was bad or only working well for the rich, Republicans were saying things were great. Right up to the Great Recession.

Well today the rich are doing great and the middle class are pretty much right where they were in 2007 when the economy wasn't really all that great for the middle class. We told them the gap between the rich and poor was hurting the middle class. Buying from China was bad, they loved the cheap stuff. They said illegals were just doing jobs Americans wouldn't do. They were sending 700,000 jobs a month overseas. They caused the great recession that hurt the middle class and while trump talks a good game, so far all he's doing is a lot of what Bush did right before he caused a recession.