Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Ok I'll start by stating something I'm sure you already know, a recession generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending often following an adverse supply shock or the bursting of an economic bubble. Along with the Housing bubble that burst the Bush Tax cuts were directly responsible for the slow economy.. I'll tell you why...

1: BUSH TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE RICH DID NOT CREATE ECONOMIC GROWTH;
Growth averaged 2.3 percent a year from the end of the 2001 recession through December 2007.

2: BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT CREATE JOBS: FROM 2001-JUNE 2007 JOBS GREW AT 4.8 PERCENT COMPARED TO 16.2 PERCENT UNDER THE SAME TIME PERIOD UNDER CLINTON.
“The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.

3: BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT PRODUCE INCREASE IN REAL INCOME (1.6 PERCENT) COMPARED TO CLINTON POLICIES (14.7 PERCENT). “Real income for the median American household went from $51,356 in 2001 to $52,163 six years later—an increase of just 1.6 percent. Under President Clinton’s tax rates, real median household income went from $45,839 in 1993 to $52,587 in 1999—an increase of 14.7 percent.”

4: “The ‘Bush tax cuts,’ passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit.

So in conclusion.. you take the severe economic slowdown due to the Tax cuts, and add two un-paid for wars + the housing bubble and we have a recession.

Interesting and all, but unsourced.

If you would care to reference the imapact on government revenue following the Bush tax Cuts you may o'er glance the following table. Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 2000-2010 - Federal State Local You will note that revenue to the Federal Government was shrinking prior to the Bush Tax Cuts. Following the cuts federal revenue rose until the recession of 2008.

Facts can be such stubborn things...

Also, it is incorrect to suggest that when the people retain a greater portion of their own money it is tantamount to deficit spending. If you note the revenue graph you willnote that revenue was increasing following the Bush tax cuts. What was also increasing was government spending - at a rate that increased revenue could not abate.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Ok I'll start by stating something I'm sure you already know, a recession generally occur when there is a widespread drop in spending often following an adverse supply shock or the bursting of an economic bubble. Along with the Housing bubble that burst the Bush Tax cuts were directly responsible for the slow economy.. I'll tell you why...

I'm going to hold you to the bolded text.

1: BUSH TAX GIVEAWAYS FOR THE RICH DID NOT CREATE ECONOMIC GROWTH;
Growth averaged 2.3 percent a year from the end of the 2001 recession through December 2007.

And averaged 3% under clinton...so what.

2: BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT CREATE JOBS: FROM 2001-JUNE 2007 JOBS GREW AT 4.8 PERCENT COMPARED TO 16.2 PERCENT UNDER THE SAME TIME PERIOD UNDER CLINTON.
“The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts.

Average unemployment rate under Bush is basically the same as Clinton.

3: BUSH TAX CUTS DID NOT PRODUCE INCREASE IN REAL INCOME (1.6 PERCENT) COMPARED TO CLINTON POLICIES (14.7 PERCENT). “Real income for the median American household went from $51,356 in 2001 to $52,163 six years later—an increase of just 1.6 percent. Under President Clinton’s tax rates, real median household income went from $45,839 in 1993 to $52,587 in 1999—an increase of 14.7 percent.”[/QUOTE]So you do a bunch of comparisons to Clinton and what didn't happen. You also fail to show any link between your two numbers. What if I said we had a larger increase in illegal aliens between 2001 and 2007 as opposed to Clinton thus the recession hit. There is no correlation so my statement would be wrong.

4: “The ‘Bush tax cuts,’ passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit.

Umm, we already proved this not true.

So in conclusion.. you take the severe economic slowdown due to the Tax cuts, and add two un-paid for wars + the housing bubble and we have a recession.

so from 3% GDP growth per year to 2.3% of which you are including two recessions for Bush (at the start and in 2007) while not for Clinton and you conclude that since the bush tax cuts didn't create jobs that no jobs was the cause of the recession????


Now, remember the bolded text. You stated "widespread drop in spending". I disagree with this but for the sake of argument lets assume you're correct. If so than under Bush personal consumption changed 138% vs 60% under Clinton. Furthermore, Bush definitely spent a lot in the federal budget. So I don't think you have any point there.

So in my conclusion, you have a lot of nonsensical data here which doesn't correlate to a recession. Please try again.

Conservative denial..

When Clinton Left Office we were running a Budget Surplus projected to pay off the National debt in roughly ten years..

Bushes Tax Cuts almost Immediately turned us from a Surplus to a Deficit ..

( Regardless of what you or anyone says cutting taxes by 22% does not increase Revenues. )

The Slow Economy was bad enough but when Bush entered us into two wars that were Unfunded because he had just gutted the revenues then we ended up with bigger deficits and more borrowing. Our National debt doubled under Bush 2.

The Housing bubble burst which drove us into a recession. If unemployment hadn't been so bad and/or working people had experienced actual increases in income the housing bubble may not have been so bad, but Considering Bush had the worst Jobs growth record in history and unemployment hovering around 7% , with lower revenues and more spending and bigger deficits, well when the housing market collapsed we where already in so deep from the effects of the tax cuts that a recession was the only option.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

If unemployment hadn't been so bad and/or working people had experienced actual increases in income the housing bubble may not have been so bad,

Out of every respectable article I've seen, not one mentions the bush tax cuts as a serious cause. Unemployment wasn't high at the time just before the recession. Large increases in personal income do not correlate with economic strength. We had HUGE increases in personal income in the 70s yet had a recession.

Seems you are delusional.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Out of every respectable article I've seen, not one mentions the bush tax cuts as a serious cause. Unemployment wasn't high at the time just before the recession. Large increases in personal income do not correlate with economic strength. We had HUGE increases in personal income in the 70s yet had a recession.

Seems you are delusional.

And by "Respectable article" I assume you mean any article that fits your view or doesn't come from a Liberal source. I've seen plenty of Articles that make the same claim.. Google is only a fingertip away.

The Fact is under Bush we had a stagnant economy for almost the entire time he took office and a recession just before he left office. His tax cuts played a huge part in driving the economy backwards and to the point of going into a recession. Anyone who thinks Bush did anything good for the economy is delusional.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Conservative denial..

When Clinton Left Office we were running a Budget Surplus projected to pay off the National debt in roughly ten years..

Bushes Tax Cuts almost Immediately turned us from a Surplus to a Deficit ..

( Regardless of what you or anyone says cutting taxes by 22% does not increase Revenues. )

And yet we see from the previously referenced graph that revenue increased following the BushTax Cuts. Clearly increased revenue did not cause the deficit. It was INCREASED SPENDING.

If you feel that cutting taxes does not increase revenue you should support that notion with sources. At present it is your unsupported opinion vs the cited sources that contradict what you are saying.

Originally Posted by E Mutz

And yet we see from the previously referenced graph that revenue increased following the BushTax Cuts. Clearly increased revenue did not cause the deficit. It was INCREASED SPENDING.

If you feel that cutting taxes does not increase revenue you should support that notion with sources. At present it is your unsupported opinion vs the cited sources that contradict what you are saying.

If the revenue is there then increased spending will never cause a deficit. If you reduce revenue you have to reduce spending, until and if the reduction causes an increase in revenue. To say it was because of spending alone is just wrong.

Bush cut taxes reducing revenue increased spending and then when revenue picked up increased it more. Bush knew his policies were going to fail. He thought it would be a little later when he was pretty sure a Democrat would be in office and the booby trapped economy would put Republicans back in power. Look at the budget projections in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and you will see what I mean.

Cutting taxes can raise revenue short term, under certain conditions, but they also increase deficits which last longer than the revenue. Also since tax cuts are not the only legislation that can increase revenues and cuts always have other legislation around them it becomes difficult to say with any confidence that increases in revenue are a direct result of cuts especially once the cost of the deficit is factored in.

As for evidence

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

Tax Cuts Raise Revenue COMPLETELY DEBUNKED

Do tax cuts ever "pay for themselves"? Rarely. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

Do tax cuts ever raise revenues? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

And by "Respectable article" I assume you mean any article that fits your view or doesn't come from a Liberal source.

I mean one that doesn't come from a opinion column of a liberal or conservative source. In other words I trust an economic journal.

I've seen plenty of Articles that make the same claim.. Google is only a fingertip away.

And I'm sure you'd be happy to post some.

His tax cuts played a huge part in driving the economy backwards and to the point of going into a recession.

Because the difference between global recession and prosperity was only 3% on the US income marginal tax rate. This is simply idiotic.

Now, from real experts...

Originally Posted by CEPR

There is almost universal agreement that the fundamental cause of the crisis
was the combination of a credit boom and a housing bubble

http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1716/papers/prol.pdf

Originally Posted by pappillion001

If the revenue is there then increased spending will never cause a deficit. If you reduce revenue you have to reduce spending, until and if the reduction causes an increase in revenue. To say it was because of spending alone is just wrong.

Bush cut taxes reducing revenue increased spending and then when revenue picked up increased it more. Bush knew his policies were going to fail. He thought it would be a little later when he was pretty sure a Democrat would be in office and the booby trapped economy would put Republicans back in power. Look at the budget projections in 2004, 2005 and 2006 and you will see what I mean.

Cutting taxes can raise revenue short term, under certain conditions, but they also increase deficits which last longer than the revenue. Also since tax cuts are not the only legislation that can increase revenues and cuts always have other legislation around them it becomes difficult to say with any confidence that increases in revenue are a direct result of cuts especially once the cost of the deficit is factored in.

As for evidence

Do Tax Cuts Increase Revenue

Tax Cuts Raise Revenue COMPLETELY DEBUNKED

Do tax cuts ever "pay for themselves"? Rarely. - By Annie Lowrey - Slate Magazine

Do tax cuts ever raise revenues? - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Just to be clear and distinguish between this argument and mine. You are arguing that the bush tax cuts didn't increase revenues to the government. I 100% agree with this. My argument with xcaliber is that the tax cuts didn't cause our current recession.

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

I mean one that doesn't come from a opinion column of a liberal or conservative source. In other words I trust an economic journal.
And I'm sure you'd be happy to post some.
Because the difference between global recession and prosperity was only 3% on the US income marginal tax rate. This is simply idiotic.
Now, from real experts...
http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/1/1716/papers/prol.pdf

I've never denied the fact that the Housing bubble had it's roll in the recession. What I am claiming is that the Bush tax cuts set the ball rolling.

We already know that the Tax Cuts are the biggest reason we went into Deficits.. Those Deficits and the subsequent slow economy led us into the recession.

Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America’s top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation’s average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower – ranging between 35 and 39 percent – the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

"Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans would widen that gap further."

I doubt you will think this a "respectable" source, but I do so I'm posting it .
Why we should let the Bush tax cuts expire - CSMonitor.com

This is the point I was making, The inequality in income caused the Middle class to stop spending. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not the truth is that it is the Middle Class in this country who drives our economy. When they stop spending the economy fails. The Bush tax Cuts benefited the wealthiest 5% of the country the most. The Middle class only recieved about 7% of the benefits from the tax cuts, not enough to get them spending. With the slow economy rolling along from 2001 to 2007 we were unable to slow down or stop the recession that started after the housing bubble burst.

Originally Posted by E Mutz

Interesting and all, but unsourced.

If you would care to reference the imapact on government revenue following the Bush tax Cuts you may o'er glance the following table. Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 2000-2010 - Federal State Local You will note that revenue to the Federal Government was shrinking prior to the Bush Tax Cuts. Following the cuts federal revenue rose until the recession of 2008.

Facts can be such stubborn things...

Also, it is incorrect to suggest that when the people retain a greater portion of their own money it is tantamount to deficit spending. If you note the revenue graph you willnote that revenue was increasing following the Bush tax cuts. What was also increasing was government spending - at a rate that increased revenue could not abate.

Yes indeed those facts can be a tricky thing. My chart compares Income tax, business tax and deficit for the Federal Government as opposed to yours which was all revenue not adjusted and included states without showing the deficit.

My results were a little different

Government Taxes and Revenue Chart in United States 2000-2010 - Federal State Local

Originally Posted by Steeeeve

Just to be clear and distinguish between this argument and mine. You are arguing that the bush tax cuts didn't increase revenues to the government. I 100% agree with this. My argument with xcaliber is that the tax cuts didn't cause our current recession.

The cause no. I think Bush policy was the straw that broke the camels back. We can go back to Reagan and Clinton who set up the pieces and then Banks and then Bush all played their parts. Now this is pure hypothetical there is support for most of it, but that support isn't necessarily conclusive.

After Reagan increased the deficit and raised taxes and eased restrictions on financial markets, Clinton comes in raises taxes further eases banking regulations with the condition that housing be made more accessible. People start investing heavily in stocks, bank deposits decline there is a push to further ease regulations. Stocks crumble, people lose their investments, deposits continue to decline. As people regain capital housing becomes preferred over stocks. Banks see problems on the horizon in being able to fund loans. Deregulation hits, banks gain access to capital through financial markets. Oversupply and demand for performance drives banks to ease credit requirements further appeasing Fed. Housing market is booming. Prices are rising to fast. Banks again foresee cash supply problem in future. Start selling loans for discount to financial markets. They perform. Banks start buying into derivatives and MBS to offset short sell on notes. Derivatives and MBS continue to perform. Banks start making stupid loans like stated income or no SSN to feed performance goals and financial markets demands. Deposits still not increasing consumer debt on the rise. ARMS start to adjust as prices start to peak. People begin to default, Derivatives and MBS returns begin to see effects, banks revenue starts to decline as market slows. Expense increases as houses go REO and assets decline. ARMS keep adjusting, prices begin to fall as BK, REO and panic sales flood the market. Banks still are not seeing any deposits, REO property is increasing rapidly, increasing expense and Derivatives and MBS are not performing.

That keeps going until banks can't lend anymore freezing credit and consumer confidence to shrivel. Spending comes to a halt causing layoffs, which only makes the problems worse. We all know the rest of the story, but that is my take on what happened.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

I've never denied the fact that the Housing bubble had it's roll in the recession. What I am claiming is that the Bush tax cuts set the ball rolling.

And you're wrong.

We already know that the Tax Cuts are the biggest reason we went into Deficits.. Those Deficits and the subsequent slow economy led us into the recession.

This was already proven wrong.

Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America’s top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation’s average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower – ranging between 35 and 39 percent – the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

Correlation/Causation fallacy? Either way, no relation here to the economic downturn being caused by Bush tax cuts.

"Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality. Extending the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans would widen that gap further."

I doubt you will think this a "respectable" source, but I do so I'm posting it .
Why we should let the Bush tax cuts expire - CSMonitor.com

This is an argument of income inequality causing the recession. Assuming this is true you'd have to show the Bush tax cuts were the major cause of income inequality in the US.

http://media.washingtonindependent.c...equality-2.png

You'll notice that it grew the fastest under Clinton, not Bush.

Seems you might have to further revise your position. Once again, the Bush tax cuts were not a major cause of the recession.

This is the point I was making, The inequality in income caused the Middle class to stop spending. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not the truth is that it is the Middle Class in this country who drives our economy. When they stop spending the economy fails.

And yet you really have no proof for this. While you'd never admit this, the truth is you have a bigoted view of Bush and republicans so you naturally wish to blame them for everything and anything and try to work the "facts" around that. The Bush tax cuts were a big part of our current debt problems, but not the biggest. They were also not a major cause of the current recession...in fact, probably not even a significant enough contributor to even mention.

You keep saying the middle class stopped spending but if you'd bother to do your research than you'd see the middle class spending too much is probably more likely.

The Bush tax Cuts benefited the wealthiest 5% of the country the most.

Go cry about it.

The Middle class only received about 7% of the benefits from the tax cuts, not enough to get them spending.

Yet they were spending...

This is what I'm talking about. You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. You can't bullsh*t me by typing what you think has happened and hoping I won't notice. Look up consumption here: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)



With the slow economy rolling along from 2001 to 2007 we were unable to slow down or stop the recession that started after the housing bubble burst.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by pappillion001

The cause no. I think Bush policy was the straw that broke the camels back. We can go back to Reagan and Clinton who set up the pieces and then Banks and then Bush all played their parts. Now this is pure hypothetical there is support for most of it, but that support isn't necessarily conclusive.

Well this is a different question. Did some of the Bush policies "break the camels back", as you put it? Undoubtedly. Was it the tax cuts...no.