Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (768620)	2/18/2009 12:31:25 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Plus he had a congress that was implementing the Contract with America.

To: Wayners who wrote (768620)	2/18/2009 12:42:52 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

Re: "Clinton benefitted from greatly increased tax revenue" EXACTLY CORRECT. And the vast amount of that higher government revenue came from the STRONGER ECONOMY! (Higher GNP = higher revenue.) Re: "...and passed a very very large tax increase." Correct. (And so, too, did Presidents Reagan and Bush I.)

To: Wayners who wrote (768620)	2/18/2009 1:25:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration: During his first term, George W. Bush sought and obtained.... National Debt Increases under President Bush Spending President Bush expanded federal spending by 70 percent, more than two times the increase under President Clinton. [edit] Regulation Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is quoted as the biggest regulator since President Nixon.[4] Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation.[4] Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%.[4] Spending on regulation increased by 62% from $26.4 billion to $42.7 billion.[4] Whereas President Clinton cut the federal government's regulatory staff, President Bush expanded it by 91,196 workers between 2001 and 2007.[4] [edit] Tax policy [edit] Initial passage Facing opposition in Congress for an initially proposed $1.6 trillion tax cut (over ten years) [5], Bush held town hall-style public meetings across the nation in 2001 to increase public support for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent government funds should be returned to taxpayers. With reports of the threat of recession, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said tax cuts could work but must be offset with spending cuts.[6] Bush argued that such a tax cut would stimulate the economy and create jobs. In the end, five Senate Democrats crossed party lines to join Republicans in approving a $1.35 trillion[7] tax cut program — one of the largest in U.S. history. [edit] 2003 cuts and later Economists, including the Treasury Secretary at the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, opposed the 2003 tax cuts on the grounds that they would fail as a growth stimulus, increase inequality and worsen the budget outlook considerably (see Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts) [8]. Some argued the effects of the tax cuts have been as promised as revenues actually increased, the recession of 2000 ended, and the economy flourished. [9]Critics indicate that the tax revenues would have been considerably higher if the tax cuts had not been made.[10][11]Income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006.[12]The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) has estimated that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (which are scheduled to expire in 2010) would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically increasing federal deficits.[13] See Income inequality: Tax cuts Economic growth for the 2001 to 2005 business cycle compared to the average for business cycles between 1949 to 2000.[19][20] Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005.[30][31] Revenue and Expense as % GDP Federal budget deficit and national debt Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006.[58] Recent additions to U.S. public debt Fiscal year (begins 10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP 2001 $144.5 billion 1.4% 2002 $409.5 billion 3.9% 2003 $589.0 billion 5.5% 2004 $605.0 billion 5.3% 2005 $523.0 billion 4.3% 2006 $536.5 billion 4.1% 2007 $459.5 billion 3.4% 2008 $962.0 billion (proj.) 6.8% The cumulative debt of the United States in the past seven completed fiscal years was approximately $4.08 trillion, or about 40.8% of the total national debt at the time of that completion of approximately $10.0 trillion.[59][60] The total surplus in FY 2001 was $128 billion. A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007). It should be noted that yearly debt accumulation often exceeds the yearly budget deficit, because, for example, paying the interest on the debt is not planned in the budget to be paid off or because Social Security receipts run a surplus (see Fiscal policy of the United States). The total budget deficit for FY 2007 was $162 billion. [61] From the end of Fiscal Year 2001 (ending Oct. 1, 2001) to the fourth quarter of 2007, the economy has produced $6.5 trillion (in constant 2000 dollars) over and above third quarter 2001 GDP levels of $9.87 trillion per year. [62] In the same period the federal government accumulated $3.0 trillion in gross debt (in constant 2000 dollars) or a debt load of 46.5¢ per dollar of the increased production (for comparison purposes in expressing the size of the debt; that is, new debt didn't exceed new production, but growing economies of growing populations are dependent for their vitality to certain consumption levels, so the increased production isn't necessarily immediately usable in its entirety to pay for the debt). [63][64] Most debt was accumulated as a result of tax cuts and increased national security spending. According to economists Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — $1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security — primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — also was quite costly, amounting to almost $800 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period."[58] Lawrence Kudlow, however, noted "The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that’s a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It’s miniscule." He also reported that "during the five years of the Iraq war,. . .household net worth has increased by $20 trillion", [65]indicating that tax cuts, while increasing the deficit in the short term, has produced a larger tax base from which to draw in the future.... Etc... en.wikipedia.org