# How's the 'Bush Economy' doing now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 30, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834 "2005-07-30T01:27:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/41 "2005-07-30T23:50:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > A few years ago, there were plenty of threads criticising the economic performance of the Bush administration. Lots of threads decrying the loss of jobs, the deficits, the tax cuts, benefiting the rich against the poor, etc. > > My position at the time was that it was too early to tell. Two years into an administration isn’t enough time to see its effect on the economy. The tax cuts hadn’t been fully implemented. I said at the time that if Bush was elected to a second term, a true measure of his economic policy would be the performance of the economy in his ‘out years’. > > Well, here we are in the 5th year of the Bush administration. I’ve been looking at the latest economic indicators, and they look pretty darned good. Specifically: > > [ul] > [li]GDP growth close to 4% per annum[/li][li]Unemployment at 5%[/li][li]3.7 million jobs created in the last two years[/li][li]A rapidly shrinking deficit[/li][li]Tax receipts up **15%** last year, mostly from the rich. This is the biggest annual rise in tax receipts since the early 1980s.[/li][li]Business investment up 11% this year[/li][li]Low inflation, low interest rates[/li][/ul] > > This despite rapidly rising energy costs which generally act as a brake on the economy. > > 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, what do you think? Does the Bush administration deserve credit for maintaining a good economy in difficult times? Have the tax cuts turned out to be not quite the disaster that some predicted? If the GDP goes up, the deficit goes down. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/42 "2005-07-31T01:11:48Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > It’s been pointed out by many in this thread, using all sorts of impartial governmental cites, that the numbers aren’t looking great. The economy is still bleeding pretty badly, but at least we’ve slowed the hemorrhaging somewhat. No it hasn’t been pointed out that ‘the numbers aren’t great’. Some opposing cites have been offered, and some contrary data. This does not end the discussion. The fact is, by the standard indices by which the economy is generally measured, it IS doing great. These were the same measures that were used to beat on Bush when the economy wasn’t doing so great. You can always dig beneath the numbers and come up with a rationale that fits your predisposed beliefs for how the economy works. If the rich are paying more taxes, well, it’s because the rich are getting wealthy on the backs of the poor! Unless you want to claim that it shows that we’re getting more progressive. Then it’s a good thing. If the housing market is booming, well, it’s a dangerous bubble and a bad thing. Unless it’s the computer industry under Clinton, then it’s a sign of genius. Both sides are going to try to spin the numbers to make their guys look better and the other guys worse. It’s up to everyone else to decide whether the spin makes any sense. But when you’ve already accepted things like “2 million jobs lost!” as a valid reason to hammer Bush, then you don’t get to claim that 3.7 million jobs created over a similar time span is an irrelevant measure. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/43 "2005-07-31T01:13:51Z")
> [@ouryL](#): > > If the GDP goes up, the deficit goes down. :smack: Thanks, smacky. It’s all so clear now. In fact, the deficit has gone up plenty of times when the country was not in a recession. Under many presidents. When come back, bring better argument. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/44 "2005-07-31T01:26:20Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The fact is, by the standard indices by which the economy is generally measured, it IS doing great. Well, that settles it then. > [@](#): > > You can always dig beneath the numbers and come up with a rationale that fits your predisposed beliefs for how the economy works. And anyone who disagrees is being biased. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/45 "2005-07-31T02:33:01Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > This is true of any economy. And besides, the ephemeral nature of leading indicators didn’t stop anti-bush types from posting dire threads every time an economic indicator declined before, did it? Actually, Sam, with this sort of statement you effectively render your OP a partisan post (not unlike the folks on the other side). By agreeing that the nature of the things tracked can lead to wrong beliefs and actions due to the very nature of uncertainty you reveal your own bias. Just because someone used the same irrelevant arguments on the other side doesn’t mean you should. That just indicates that your OP was nothing more than a partisan jab at opposing partisans and not a true invitation to debate. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/46 "2005-07-31T04:48:43Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > That just indicates that your OP was nothing more than a partisan jab at opposing partisans and not a true invitation to debate. Not at all what one would expect in a thread titled “How’s the ‘Bush Economy’ doing now?”. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/47 "2005-07-31T06:44:48Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Actually, Sam, with this sort of statement you effectively render your OP a partisan post (not unlike the folks on the other side). > > By agreeing that the nature of the things tracked can lead to wrong beliefs and actions due to the very nature of uncertainty you reveal your own bias. Just because someone used the same irrelevant arguments on the other side doesn’t mean you should. That just indicates that your OP was nothing more than a partisan jab at opposing partisans and not a true invitation to debate. I suppose it was, but I intended it more as a rebuttal to the numerous anti-Bush posts about the economy that we had in the first four years. When people keep repeating these statistics over and over as examples of the ‘failure’ of the Bush economic policy, I think it’s only fair to revisit them when the numbers look different. I don’t mind turning this into a non-partisan discussion of the economy in general, and I’m personally not happy with all kinds of things the Bush administration has done. The deficit should be a lot lower than it is (by at least 100 and maybe 200 billion dollars) through spending cuts alone, or rather if he’d have been able to holding spending increases to a reasonable level. It just seems to me that the economy is actually in remarkably good shape, especially if you consider the whammys it has endured over the last few years (energy prices, the WTC attack with the subsequent trillion dollar economic loss, the war, collapse of the tech bubble). Certainly Bush doesn’t deserve credit for all the good news - a lot of this is just the normal business cycle asserting itself. But since he was hammered mercilessly on this board when the numbers didn’t look as good, I think it’s only fair that the issue be revisited. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/48 "2005-07-31T06:55:37Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > GDP growth close to 4% per annum The Real GDP averaged annual growth of 4.2% from 1950-1973, 3.0% from 1973-1995, and 4.0% from 1995-2000 ([source](http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=EM412)). It dropped to .8 in 2001, 1.6 in 2002, 2.7 in 2003, and 4.2 in 2004, for an average of 2.33% during Bush’s term so far ([source](http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm)). Going to need a lot of 4.0% years to make up for that. For the record, current estimates put the second quarter at only 3.4%, which is a drop from the first quarter ([source](http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm)). > [@](#): > > Unemployment at 5% This might look good compared to the rest of the years of this presidency, it’s not a great number historically speaking. > [@](#): > > 3.7 million jobs created in the last two years You don’t mention the jobs lost in the first 3 years. While it’s finally starting to reach normal monthly levels (not this month, but recently), job growth has a lot of catching up to do. We had negative job growth for way too long. From 2001 through 2005, a total of 2,501,000 of new jobs were created. For a comparison, from 1996 through 2000, a total of 11,786,000 were created. > [@](#): > > A rapidly shrinking deficit I think we covered this quite well above. The deficit is horrible. It’s slightly less horrible than it was last year, but it’s still horrible. > [@](#): > > Tax receipts up **15%** last year, mostly from the rich. This is the biggest annual rise in tax receipts since the early 1980s. That’s because wages are up for the rich. I’m not sure what this has to do with the economy as a whole. > [@](#): > > Business investment up 11% this year How much is it up over 2000 levels? That’s what I thought. > [@](#): > > Low inflation, low interest rates Which is typical of a recession. We’re still not out of it yet, although it does appear we’re making progress. As we do come out, interest rates are likely to go up in tandem, and in fact, we’re at the highest level since 2001, and expected to continue to rise ([source](http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/news/economy/fed_rates/?cnn=yes). If you want me to say that we seem to be moving in the right direction, I’ll be happy to. If you want to paint a picture that’s rosy by any standards other than relative to the recession, it’s not going to happen, yet. Give it a few years, and we might be back to normal. > [@](#): > > 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 is silly, as was demonstrated above. Are you sure you’re a conservative? A true conservative would be crying over the money we’re throwing away. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/49 "2005-07-31T11:22:38Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I suppose it was, but I intended it more as a rebuttal to the numerous anti-Bush posts about the economy that we had in the first four years. When people keep repeating these statistics over and over as examples of the ‘failure’ of the Bush economic policy, I think it’s only fair to revisit them when the numbers look different. > > I don’t mind turning this into a non-partisan discussion of the economy in general, and I’m personally not happy with all kinds of things the Bush administration has done. The deficit should be a lot lower than it is (by at least 100 and maybe 200 billion dollars) through spending cuts alone, or rather if he’d have been able to holding spending increases to a reasonable level. > > It just seems to me that the economy is actually in remarkably good shape, especially if you consider the whammys it has endured over the last few years (energy prices, the WTC attack with the subsequent trillion dollar economic loss, the war, collapse of the tech bubble). Certainly Bush doesn’t deserve credit for all the good news - a lot of this is just the normal business cycle asserting itself. But since he was hammered mercilessly on this board when the numbers didn’t look as good, I think it’s only fair that the issue be revisited. Well, I understand all that, Sam. But an actual debate is far better (which this is turning into, voila!) than more partisan skullduggery from either side. Certainly **I** far more enjoy a ‘let’s see if things are really so bad’ thread than one specifically designed to poke fun. Oh, and someone upthread made the point that regardless of the situation or timing the president gets the credit or blame when he’s in charge…even if it’s something completely out of his control. And that’s the honest truth. If something occurs on Jan 21 immediately following inauguration then American people will associate the new president with it regardless of circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/50 "2005-07-31T16:41:52Z")
Fun with statistics! Whee! It’s beyond the pale to say that the economy is doing “great”. Poor-to-middling would be the best description. Re unemployment and employment, which for some reason our OP feels the need to boast about, let’s compare what’s been happening to what happened at exactly this economic moment in the past: the last employment figure on [St Louis Fed’s page for this](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CE16OV.txt) for this comes from June, which, if we take the [NBER’s](http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html) word for it, is exactly 3 years and 7 months after the trough of the cycle. Comparing it to the two most recent cycles, both of which were as elongated as this one is turning out to be, we get the following: ```auto Month of trough total employment difference pct change Nov-82 99112 Jun-86 109576 10464 10.56% Mar-91 117652 Oct-94 124112 6460 5.49% Nov-01 136232 Jun-05 141638 5406 3.97% ``` So, by recent standards, not such a hot performance. Not deserving of the moniker “great”. It gets worse, though. Not content with the above, I did the same for the four cycles previous to this. This recovery is at the absolute bottom, even when compared to what happened after the trough of July 1980: one year later, on July, 1981, the economy again slipped into recession, coming out only in November, 1981. Even with that sharp falloff coming in the middle of the 3 year 7 month measured period, it still comes out ahead of this one in percentage terms, and only very slightly behind it in absolute terms. So “great” is not a good description of this recovery at all; indeed, given that no recovery produced less than a 5% gain in employment during this period, the correct description is that this one is an outlier to the down side. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, pathetic: ```auto Month of trough total employment difference pct change Feb-61 65588 Sep-64 69578 3990 6.08% Nov-70 78650 Jun-74 89641 10991 13.97% Mar-75 85187 Oct-78 97133 11946 14.02% Jul-80 98796 Feb-84 103824 5028 5.09% ``` This of course comes during a period of complete Republican dominance of all three branches of government, so I suppose I won’t be hearing about how the Dems screwed things up. They couldn’t even if they wanted to. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/51 "2005-07-31T18:23:45Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Studies done by left-wing economists like DeLong and Krugman who have serious axes to grind. Somehow I think I’d get criticized if I posted studies by Larry Kudlow and Cato… Attacking the source is not a valid rebuttal. By the way, do you have any cites of your own to offer? You’ve been throwing around a lot of assertions, and asking other people for cites, but you haven’t linked to any evidence to back up your own assertions. Where are you getting your data? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/52 "2005-07-31T20:07:01Z")
Since I’ve spent so much time using cites to contradict the conclusions from the data that were reached in the OP, I’ve actually forgotten to answer the main question. Regarding the subject of this thread: We’re still digging the hole, even if we’ve slowed the speed at which we dig somewhat. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Highwayman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@The\_Highwayman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Highwayman)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/53 "2005-07-31T22:29:11Z")
So let me get this straight: George Bush has two wars going on at the same time along with massive deficit-spending and tax-cuts but the economy is barely above lackluster. Seems like something for you Republicans to celebrate giving your economic performance historically. I mean, a few good days for the stock market, and you want to break into strains of “happy days are here again.” [Opps, looks like you spoke to soon](http://money.cnn.com/markets/data/index.html). (This information will change, but the market was down the day I linked it.) Maybe in 10 years under a repub the Dow will reach the level it was at when Clinton was president. That will be a real reason to celebrate won’t it? Or was his success because of the [dot.com](http://dot.com) boom? When I inform you that more or less all sectors of the economy boomed, you will say it was the **Contract on America**? Will you then admit that Reagan’s economic growth was due to the democratic controlled Congress? Honestly, I think that it is going to be a disaster for your party when either: A. The real estate bubble bursts B. The price of fuel starts going up again C. All of the above. Come what may but I think it is a shame that the supposed “pro-business” party cannot run an economy like the the supposed “anti-business” party. Check the BEA to see what I mean. _Rise so high with so far to fall, A plan with dignity and balance for all. Political breakthrough, euphoria’s high, More borrowed money, more borrowed time…_ **Megadeth** : Foreclosure of a Dream ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/54 "2005-07-31T23:55:07Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Then the economy turned around, and under Reagan the largest peacetime expansion of the economy in history began. So far under Bush, we’re seeing a similar thing, but it remains to be seen if it will last. Peacetime expansion? So, you’re ignoring the Cold War and the War on Drugs? Are we in peacetime now, **Sam**? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/55 "2005-08-01T00:49:50Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Peacetime expansion? > > So, you’re ignoring the Cold War and the War on Drugs? His also ignoring Bill Clinton: [PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE: THE LONGEST PEACETIME EXPANSION IN AMERICAN HISTORY – MORE THAN 18 MILLION NEW JOBS CREATED SINCE 1993](http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Work/030599.html) ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/56 "2005-08-01T08:58:57Z")
Who started this thread? Was it \*\*Sam \*\*_“Beirut Spring”_ **Stone**? Wherever has that person got to? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/57 "2005-08-01T09:15:41Z")
Another point I think it’s worth making here is that very few, if any, opponents of Bush’s economic policies have actually blamed them for the **major** economic woes of the past few years. Everybody recognizes that the tech bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks were not Bush’s fault, and that there are lots of other factors affecting unemployment and wages, fuel prices, etc. What **can** be blamed on Bush, though, is the failure of his policies to meet his Administration’s **own predictions** of economic improvement. The job growth predictions offered by the Administration have generally been far rosier than the actual numbers, as have their deficit and debt predictions (often arrived at by fiddling with the figures: for example, assuming the future “sunset” of tax cuts that they actually want to make permanent, or not counting the costs of entitlement programs). By comparison with the Administration’s own predictions, the performance of their economic policies has been pretty lousy. And their basic strategy of massive deficit spending has been almost universally condemned, even by **Sam Stone** in this thread. So color me skeptical about claims that modest and ambiguous recent upticks in a couple of indicators actually constitute a valid justification of “Bushonomics” in general. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/58 "2005-08-01T15:34:25Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > So “great” is not a good description of this recovery at all; indeed, given that no recovery produced less than a 5% gain in employment during this period, the correct description is that this one is an outlier to the down side. Or, not to put too fine a point on it, pathetic: No, it would suggest that not too many people were laid off in the first place. The proverbal “soft landing” which is the ideal circumstance for a recession. A large gain would also indicate a large loss or a “hard landing”. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/59 "2005-08-01T16:01:11Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > No, it would suggest that not too many people were laid off in the first place. In which universe did that happen? Do you not remember 2002? I posted a link to it back on page one of this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834/60 "2005-08-01T17:30:57Z")
Apparently one reason why tax increases are up may be increased effort on the part of the IRS to collect taxes and fines that the wealthy have been trying to dodge. This is a step that I heartily endorse and applaud. [http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005\_08/006824.php](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006824.php) > [@](#): > > Last year the IRS audited nearly 200,000 high earners (people earning $100,000 or more a year), double the number audited four years earlier. Since 2004, the IRS has collected nearly $4 billion under a settlement initiative that required the full payment of taxes plus penalties. All told, collections from increased enforcement measures rose 15% last year to a record $43.1 billion from the year before. Rather than reducing the resources of the IRS to go after tax cheats, and directing those resources towards targeting the working poor, it only makes sense that increasing the IRS’ resources and going after the biggest earners will net the greatest revenues. So, on this one matter, I stand with **Sam Stone** in applause for the present administration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hows-the-bush-economy-doing-now/314834.md?page=4)