Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some of the worst comedy ever written. Job and economic growth was mediocre even before it all collapsed in 2008. How were we prospering?
Bush was a decively horrible president on every level.
You have your preconceived ideals about Bush, and you have every right to form your opinions about Bush. Fact remains Bush had a very Good Economy and we hade records highs for unemployment and lower taxes.
There is a post on this Tread that had done a excellent job on The Bush Administrations Records.
It was because of Democrats polices that caused the bubble with Fannie Mae and Mac. Not mention the host of Dem's that painted a lie to the country about the Bubble. (Maxine Waters, Dodd and Frank)
Because of Obama my income has dropped and my taxes are about 2K higher now.
" Job and economic growth was mediocre even before it all collapsed in 2008."
I disagree with your assessment of the Bush years prior to the dems taking control of congress.
"Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent.
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”
Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.
From 2002 to 2006, the housing boom generated about 600,000 to 800,000 jobs that otherwise would not have been created -- about 10 percent of total job growth in that span, according to the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Such data, expert say, suggest the economy was not as fundamentally strong as it seemed.
"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."
Bush's economy, even during the "good times", was a mirage destined to collapse. Might as well brag about the smooth and steady annual returns Bernie Madoff got his clients year after year.
Bush and his aides are quick to point out that they oversaw 52 straight months of job growth in the middle of this decade, and that the economy expanded at a steady clip from 2003 to 2007. But economists, including some former advisers to Bush, say it increasingly looks as if the nation's economic expansion was driven to a large degree by the interrelated booms in the housing market, consumer spending and financial markets. Those booms, which the Bush administration encouraged with the idea of an "ownership society," have proved unsustainable.
From 2002 to 2006, the housing boom generated about 600,000 to 800,000 jobs that otherwise would not have been created -- about 10 percent of total job growth in that span, according to the consulting firm IHS Global Insight. Such data, expert say, suggest the economy was not as fundamentally strong as it seemed.
"It's sad to say, but we really went nowhere for almost ten years, after you extract the boost provided by the housing and mortgage boom," said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com, and an informal adviser to McCain's campaign. "It's almost a lost economic decade."
Bush's economy, even during the "good times", was a mirage destined to collapse. Might as well brag about the smooth and steady annual returns Bernie Madoff got his clients year after year.
I don't disagree with your post.
However, I would like to point out that likewise Clinton's presidency was an economic mirage.
He benefited from the internet boom and the bulk of the baby boomers in their peak spending years - both were sheer coincidence to happen on his watch.
Meanwhile, Clinton was creating economic problems that Bush and Obama are unable to resolve. Deregulation of Glass Stegall, China in the WTO, permanent trade deal with China leading to more outsourcing and more trade deficit, Social Security left to continue on its insolvency path, housing market bubble, NASDAQ collapse, etc...
According to the BEA, GDP grew by .01% in 2001, with no consecutive quarters of negative growth, which means there technically was no recession. The United States stayed at full employment levels all year until September, when it rose to a whopping 5.0%. Compare this to what Clinton (7.3%) and Obama (7.8% and plunging) inherited, and you'll quickly see there is no comparison. 2001 was easily the mildest economic slump on record, and hardly warrants labeling the monstrous Clinton economy "a mirage". You're reaching.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
