No, but economists will tell you that a tax cut that is temporary will not be as effective as a stimulus as one that is permanent. Bush settled for a 10 year compromise on the theory that that was far enough out that it would make the stimulative effect of the cut stronger, while not completely blowing out the budget. Much like Obama’s bills, Bush’s were the result of compromise between the two houses of Congress and the executive branch.
No, they went with a 10-year sunset because that’s the longest they could jam one through the Senate using reconciliation without having to find a way to pay for it.
And you know what? The Bush tax cuts didn’t help me from 2001 to 2005, when I was in college and filing taxes on my meager income of a few thousand a year as a dependent, or from 2006 to 2008, when I was in grad school and what helped me out much more was the FICA exemption on grad student stipends and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Nor was I helped by the stagnation of wages during the Bush administration when I finally did get a real job, nor the fact that I was lucky to actually get a job in late 2008 and had no real options, as already companies were slowing or stopping hiring.
When wages are stagnant and no net growth in hiring has taken place and we’ve seen a massive expansion of the debt and deficit, how can you possibly claim that those tax cuts stimulated anything?
Nice balanced metric for economic health, there.
Did you know that smoking is healthy? My great grandma smoked two packs a day and lived to 100!
////////
Note that I’m not saying that the Bush tax cuts were effective at anything, just that your post has precisely zero relevance to the topic.
Hey, the way I see it, the OP was looking in part for why the Democrats might be using this tactic. As far as I see it, Bush economic policies did not help me at all and have pretty much hurt my earnings potential both short and long-term. It doesn’t hurt to try to get voters to think about how they personally did in the last decade and see if a connection can be made between personal circumstances and economic policies.
It is called the Ronald Reagan 'Are You Better Off Now Than You Were 4 Years Ago" metric. Asterion’s answer was “No, I am not.”
Ronald Reagan and the incumbent Bush I were elected based on this thing called an Election. An Election is very much like a National Poll. An election works very much like a poll asking, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” If most people say “Yes”, then the incumbent gets to come back and do the same thing for another 4 years.
Anecdote: Useless
National Poll: Data
“Useless” is a good word for the above analysis. IMHO, Asterion’s response is one data point in the national poll, no more, no less. QED.
Look, my larger point to Sam Stone was that I don’t agree with a claim that the Bush tax cuts were stimulus. First, I personally didn’t feel any real stimulus from them for many years, if it all. I didn’t get that first $400, my parents did. My parents couldn’t take advantage of the child tax credit, because while as a full-time student I was still filing taxes as dependent status, I was over 17. A three percent difference in the tax bracket when I was no longer filing as a dependent meant less to me than saving seven percent by not having to pay FICA taxes 9 months out of the year. I was under the impression that that exemption predated Bush; if I am wrong, please correct me.
But Sage Rat is right in that how the Bush tax cuts affected me personally isn’t really data. What is data, on the other hand, is just how little those policies did to increase employment or increase real wages. And that’s the kind of thing the Democrats want to hammer on for the next two months.
Unregulated banking, punishing the whistle bloers, starting expesnive wars, tax cuts for the rich.
WHat could possibly go wrong?
I would agree with the majority of people in the thread here, the majority view seems to be that deregulation of the financial industry, huge tax cuts and general free market business-friendly policies didn’t work out too well. I’d also agree with people who say that the Democrats have some blame here, the Democrats who made decisions that helped cause the meltdown, like Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall, were all captured by the same free market ideology that has been the bedrock of conservative economic policy for the last thirty years.
However you have to look at what Obama said in the curent context. There is now general agreement that unregulated capital markets and letting whole sectors of the economy self-regulate is no longer an option, that tax cuts for the wealthy that give no economic benefit to the country as a whole are no longer a good idea – except in the Republican Party.
As soon as the financial reform bill was passed the GOP congressional leader, Boehner, immediately called for it to be repealed and likened the bill – a bill that has been heavily criticised for not really reforming the financial sector and that was heavily lobbied against by the GOP – to killing an ant with a nuclear weapon.
The GOP is also trying to keep tax cuts for the wealthy in spite of the fact that they’ll add trillions to the deficit over the next ten years. They want tax cuts for the wealthy but won’t agree to swap them for a payroll tax holiday, a tax cut that would put money in the hands of people who would actually spend it, creating actual economic growth.
So in spite of all the evidence over the past couple of years that their ideology is dead wrong they’re still, in Obama’s words, solidly behind the policies that got us into the mess in the first place.
Methinks the Dems might be a bit shy about asking that kind of question, because of the unfortunate follow-up questions that may follow.
Cite.
Contrast with the effects of the hugely more expensive stimulus a year or so after its enactment, and Democrats might think twice about raising those kinds of comparisons.
Regards,
Shodan
Banks were not unregulated.
Who was punished by whom?
Maybe
The tax cuts were for everyone who pays taxes.
They wern’t unregulated, but they wern’t regulated enough, the banks punished WHistle blowers, and Bush allowed this and the tax cuts benefitted the rich more than the poor
Of a poll that no one thinks very highly of anyway. Personal perception of how things have done is just as often not all that reliable, which is all the election is testing. And of course, there’s the problem that the competitor for the presidency might simply have seemed even worse. Thus the vote for the winner isn’t so much an endorsement as a necessary evil.
Dodd and Frank took over those committees in January of 2007, well after the housing bubble had been blown and just as it was starting to go pop.
Here’s when the spike in the subprime mortgage resets happened, you can see it started basically as Dodd and Frank took over the committees :
And a few months after the resets started to spike and the mortgages went bad the financial firms and banks holding those bad mortgage securites started getting into trouble and the meltdon began. So clearly Dodd and Frank arrived at the scene after the crime had been committed. Of course this has already been pointed out to you previously ad infinitum, also the fact that Fannie and Freddie were bit part players in the whole thing, that the bubble and meltdown were driven by a mortgage industry deregulated in the early 2000s by the Bush administration by acts like this one ;
and the mortgages had been created by deregulated firms like Ameriquest and then sold directly to Wall Street, bypassing Fannie and Freddie, to Wall Street where they were securitised. You know all this already yet you just can’t help yourself, can you? You just can’t bring yourself to blame the people actually responsible.
Posted 1/20/2004 1:31 AM
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownershipBy Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY
In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.
In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the “most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade.” It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.
Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush’s proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.
The FHA isn’t a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.
In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
I’m missing a couple of links from my previous post. Here they are.
*Here’s when the spike in the subprime mortgage resets happened, you can see it started basically as Dodd and Frank took over the committees :
*
Of course this has already been pointed out to you previously ad infinitum, also the fact that Fannie and Freddie were bit part players in the whole thing, that the bubble and meltdown were driven by a mortgage industry deregulated in the early 2000s by the Bush administration by acts like this one ;
Here’s Sam Stone quoting Sam Stone approvingly less than weeks ago:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12872810&postcount=227
Given that we know what the “totality of the economy did on [Bush’s] watch” it ought to be a pretty cut and dried assessment, no? I’m trying to reconcile the quoted position with Sam Stone’s contributions to this thread. Instead of a clear statement that the totality of the economy between 2002 and 2010 is an utter rebuke of Bush economic policies, it appears that we have an attempt at obfuscation as to whether or not Bush was a Keynesian all along. (A silly attempt at misdirection that has already been smacked down hard by others.)
Why don’t you try quoting the paragraph that immediately follows where he gives a reason why he can foresee Bush’s actions causing bad things? Or even further along where he says, “It’s actually quite interesting to read, to see what people were saying in the middle of the Bush years, not knowing the train wreck that was on the way. It’s interesting that I was the one pointing out the Keynesian stimulus of Bush’s deficit spending and tax cuts, and other people denying it.”
If you read his post as an endorsement of Bush, as you seem to be doing, then I’d have to say that your reading is way off.
I’m reading his post from 2005 as a clear statement that the pudding of the economy of 2002-2010 will be the proof of Bush’s economic policies. If he has the integrity to stick with that statement, made by him, then the only fair conclusion is that Bush’s policies were a complete disaster. There’s no more to be said than that.
However, he’s now claiming to have been observing all along that Bush’s policies were Keynesian (setting aside the clear misunderstanding of Keynes that this reflects). Was he doing that? Here’s a quote from his OP of that 2005 thread:
"Especially encouraging is the rapid decline in the deficit, far ahead of original White House estimates. It has been revised downwards by 100 billion dollars just this year alone, and is now forecast to be about $330 billion, which in terms of GDP is almost down to half of its peak a couple of years ago, and far lower than the large deficits in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s.
This last seems to be somewhat of a vindication of the supply-side nature of the tax cuts. Revenues are soaring, and tax rates are low."
So, a brief window of non-shit is vindication of the supply side nature of tax cuts. An overall 8 year period of complete shit is evidence that Bush was channeling Keynes.
I see.
Woops. I thought the top level was the old (2005) post. His 2005 text does specifically point out that Bush’s actions could be driving a bubble, “it could be something more due to his supply side tax cuts or through the stimulus of deficit financing. It could also be another bubble - this time a liquidity bubble created by the rise of real estate prices and low interest rates, which is causing people to spend money and leverage themselves more.”
But the rest of my post was off-base.
It is worth noting that Supply-Side economics is, by some, viewed as being a particular branch of Keynesian theory. Keynes essentially wanted to use government debt as a way of buying ones way out of a recession. Taxing below government need causes government debt and, according to the supply-siders, gets money to where it needs to be to stimulate the economy. That’s effectively a Keynesian stimulus. Of course, the theory is shot to hell when the Supply-Siders try to keep taxes at the “stimulating” rate regardless of anything.