GDP growth bounced up and down after the stock market tech bubble (speculation), it was not caused by previous tax rates, it was not "fixed" by different tax rates. It was in recovery by 2002, before the 2001 rates had any effect (they didn't go into effect until 2002) and before 2003 rates were passed.
No one was investing after the dot-com bubble burst -- in part because a lot of the dot-coms which burst were the day-trade oriented online stock sites. It was also a lot of first time investors. Under the Clinton economy there was a greater number of first time investors in the marketplace than ever before. This lead to a lot of unwise stock decisions, and a lot of people got burned quickly when things went south... so the idea of trading soured quickly in a lot of people's minds.
It was the stimulus checks that got people investing again. Then the economy recovered from the recession in 2002, but true growth didn't occur until 2003. However, the adjustment to the marginal tax rates was not the lone tax policy change under Bush. He made several tax changes created incentives for business in 2001 which effected the business in 2002. So, don't falsely attribute my argument to the 2002 recovery. I said stimulus checks spurred initial spending, other tax incentives helped create growth, and the lowering of the marginal tax rates allowed that growth to continue over a duration.
Shirking deficit? By what measure? Bush kept the costs of Iraq/AFPAK off the budget, they were funded through supplementals. Med D did "boost" the deficit (which again was a GOP measure, not a "lib" measure as you previously claimed) and this weird notion that the incoming Dem majority caused the housing bubble is just another example of a discombobulated view of the US economy.
Yes, he did keep them "off-budget", and they were added in the "appropriations bills". Even with that consideration, Bush's budget deficit was shrinking from 2005-2007, and their budget projections had a surplus. The following article does a great job of illustrating how the Iraq War was not the huge reason we are in debt right now, or any significant portion of the deficit. The chart on it also demonstrates the shrinking deficit from 2004-2007, up until the economic collapse in 2008.
Archived-Articles: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not
As far as Medicare Part D, it significantly boosted the deficit, as any $100B spending program would. It was a GOP measure, but that doesn't make it not liberal... Something I think you continue to fail at grasping... both the Democratic and Republican parties are just that, parties... that has nothing to do with the political ideology of an action taken by members of either party... As I've said hundreds of times, both Republicans and Democrats stupidly added liberal spending programs during Bush's tenure, when they should've been controlling costs to off-set the tax cuts... Medicare Part D is a liberal spending program, that was pushed through by some moron Republican from MS or something like that... but its still liberal at the heart of the plan... and a poorly constructed adjustment to entitlement programs, which we need to cut costs of, or we will be bankrupt quite shortly...
Again, you think that Bush's increasing debt levels during a mediocre economy where lower rates of revenue came in with tax cuts during a time of war...is comparable to....an economy crashing (in the last Bush year) with unemployment at levels not seen since 1929 with the subsequent lower levels of revenue due to massive GDP declines. Again, it is such a disconnect from any level of responsible commentary, but that is the MO for neocons.
Unemployment levels not seen since 1929? Are ya stupid, or just brainwashed by Obama? The unemployment rates spike and drop periodically... They were highest under Reagan in 1982. They were almost as high under Bush, Carter, and Ford. It's the deficit spending which is at its highest, and the Debt to GDP ratio hasn't been seen since 1945... don't go throwing 1929 at me again, until you know wtf you are talking about... In 1929, the economy died in 1 day. The economic slowdown of 2007-2009 is in no way comparable.
Um, the rates haven't changed....and.....your "10%" increase shows that you are clueless on the concept of marginal increases. You just produced nothing with a big fat error on top.
Wow... reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? I never said the rates changed. I said when rates are steady it creats consumer confidence. What would have happened if the Bush Tax cuts expired, is that people in the 10% range wouldve gone up to 15%, and people in the top half of the 15% bracket would've gone up to 25%... that's a tax hike of 10% as I indicated... That would cause huge issues with the household budgets of the average Americans, who are worried about finances and living often week to week. So Bush extended them, to keep money in people's pockets, and not challenge a slowly growing economy. Obama made the same decision when he extended them as well. What would be economic suicide is to keep raising and lowering the tax rates on people so they cant plan long term purchases, such as homes and automobiles, since they couldnt be guaranteed to have the amount to pay it, after taxes... If you don't get that, then it's useless discussing things with you...
I say "tax rates do not control or effect economic activity", you answer "lower tax rates decreased the deficits, create confidence fairies". This is a perfect example of a non-sequitur. Demand is not determined by marginal tax rate changes, the investment in business decreased through thru Bush years. The decreased marginal rates spurred more speculative and commodity investment, it caused greater levels of income inequality, it decreased the percentage of revenue from this economy and it allowed the debt grow every year, never "paying for themselves" as all of the neocons and their brethren claimed.
WTF are you on? Seriously, I never said any of the things you keep trying to attribute to me. Either you dont read what I say, purposely misstate what I say, or need to repeat third grade...
I said lower tax rates keep money in people's pockets, so they have confidence in spending it. That spending creates growth, and increases revenue.
And... something you have trouble with... because you say something, DOESNT MAKE IT TRUE... nor does it require a response from me... get over yourself, kid... IDGAF what you said... tax rates are one of few ways the President can effect the economy, so when judging the presidential handling of the economy it's one of the key elements.
However, in regard to Bush vs. Obama... THEY HAVE THE SAME RATES SO THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EM!!! So anytime you want to make a Bush vs. Obama comparison, they have the same exact tax rates... it's useless to talk about it...
If you're against Bush in this regard, you should also be against Obama...
