Did the Bush tax cuts really cause our economic recovery?

Question

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml

Supporters are fond of claiming that the Bush tax cuts turned around the economy and that the cuts were "in the spirit of Ronald Reagan." In fact, Reagan increased taxes twice, after his '81 tax cut, resulting in a net increase in taxes, particularly on the middle class. Note that the recession in the early '80s ended AFTER the tax increases. Clinton's major tax INCREASE in 1993 was followed by the longest economic expansion in our history, with creation of over 20 million jobs. Whatever our party, let's start dealing with some semblance of fact versus myth

Just to clarify, "TruthWill" did not include one "fact" in his answer that is accurate. He apparently skipped the Econ 101 course

Answer 1

They didn't cause it at all. They perhaps helped move it along, but it would have occured no matter what government did or didn't do. Government can only take advantage of a good economy and try and mitigate the effects of a bad one. The government can't really create the economy. Not in a capitalistic system. All they can do is stay out of the way.

For the education of some others in this thread.... the bush tax cuts resulted in a net loss of government income. Even the most conservative economist out there would agree that the tax cuts probably spurred enough growth to pay for perhaps 9% of the lost revenue.

Answer 2

Clinton's economy was driven by the enormous increase in the tech industry, which had nothing to do with Clinton. The stock market soared from private investors. If anything, when the market tanked around the end of his presidency, his tax increases did not help once the country floundered toward recession. We pay way too much now even with the tax cuts. There is an enormous amount of waste and corruption in government and that has gone on with either party. Why the Left believes government will solve anything is a joke.
The tax cuts have lead to huge state surpluses due to an increase in sales tax revenues, but for some reason that is ignored. We have low unemployment, cheap goods, and an increase in salaries. There is a downside to everything in life, and leave it to the Liberals to find them.

Answer 3

Yes.

The Reagan "net increase in taxes" argument is complete crap. And the whole "class" thing - most households who were in one income class at the beginning of the 1980s weren't in the same income class at the end of the 1980s - if you started out in the bottom 20% you were more likely to have made it to the top 20% by 1989 than to still be in the bottom.


And again, analyzing the question without discussing the Fed is like analyzing ocean water levels without discussing the tide.

The Fed helped Clinton throughout his Presidency, raising rates only in '99-'00, causing the recession that Bush inherited.

The Fed tightened in mid-04 yet the economy keeps growing at a steady pace and unemployment is low. And tax REVENUE is growing at 3 x CPI.

That would be because of the cut in tax rates.

There's no other source of stimulus - it's not Keynesianism - the deficit is $200BN but interest on foreign-held debt is a lot more than that.

And the 'flat wages' guy below me - did your subscription to the WSJ end 2.5 years ago?

Answer 4

no person is arguing that it helped, human beings are only declaring the actuality that the financial equipment became solid and taxes have been severe. this is an argument that taxes on the wealthy won't harm the financial equipment like Republicans are attempting to argue. additionally the argument is going extra through fact it factors out the actuality that under Clinton we had a balanced funds with a surplus coming in; issues that Bush ruined by way of reducing taxes mutually as spending. yet our cutting-edge issue is fairly diverse. In a bad financial equipment you for sure are unlikely to take an an identical approach as in a solid one. Clinton would not believe the tax cuts no longer expiring specially, through fact he might agree raising them on 250,000 would not harm, and likewise he might maximum probable disagree with the valuables tax area of it. he's even with the undeniable fact that clever sufficient to attain, there is no longer time to diminish a extra advantageous deal and the Republicans already voted off letting the cuts expire. He is conscious that it truly is the wonderful deal for the placement we are presently in. we will not enable taxes bypass up on the middle classification, we will not enable unemployment to run out, we will not no longer grant incentives to companies to take a position, so we could desire to bypass with what we've on the table. even however we are letting countless money bypass in the process the cracks unnecessarily, we could desire to be prepared to sacrifice the funds immediately with the intention to grant actuality to companies and center classification persons and not enable them to down by way of blowing off this bill.

Answer 5

Tax cuts stimulate the economy, not tax increases. ECON 101 The economy is in great shape! Give credit where credit is due.
+
http://www.speakeasy.org/~dervish/recession.pdf

+

Answer 6

The economy was in decline at the end of Billybob's term and his great economic bubble had burst. The result of the Bush tax cuts is that the government has actually collected more in tax revenue than before the cuts because the economy was spurred. Even you can't deny that.

Answer 7

Yes. Because wages have been flat the only thing that has brought more money to the private sector of the economy has been the tax cuts

Answer 8

A Trillion dollars in combined defense spending. Is an economic success to both the attacker and the attacked.

Go Team Bush Go

Answer 9

Nope! And how are we, as a nation, going to pay for the record breaking debt that we are now facing put in place by Bush?

Answer 10

We would all be better off if BUSH had DIED in his sleep of natural causes Ten(10*) years ago...