What did you expect? Serious tax cuts always improve the economy! Socialist/Dim tax increases have the opposite effect, reduce tax revenue, weaken the economy and increase unemployment.

But if W did it, the Dims will try to increase taxes if at all possible, regardless of the evidence, even if 1+1=2.

Honest answer Matt,

Is this better then the Clinton economy?
Explain how.

Honest answer, Geo,
You have the Republicans in Congess to thank for the "Clinton Economy"

So we have the Republicans in Congress now to thank for the giant deficit?

Sorry, I don’t suffer fools well,

SO Liar,
If you can’t keep up, take notes.

Bane,

I must have missed it....did the republican congress cut taxes? If not...specifically what did they do to improve the economy? And how come that Republican congress had a better economy then this republican congress with a republican prez to boot?

....the lowest level in six years,...

Gee, who was President six years ago????

Geo,
Not “better” but improving then, and improving still. The question to the point is what (if anything) did Clinton do that facilitated the “Clinton economy” that you constantly and continually link to this site.

I’m not aware of any Clinton fiscal plan, methodology or proposals that were put forward during the Clinton years except the tax increases that stagnated the economy from 1992 until 1996, and the attempt (thankfully thwarted) to take over 1/7th of the economy with Hilary-Care.

You threw down the gauntlet; show me why we should give credit to Clinton for being a care-taker President during an economic boom born of Reaganomics.

Barney,
the President six years ago was Clinton, are you really so limited in your attention span that you don't remember?
*snicker*

Duh Barney... the good things are attributed to Republicans, the bad are attributed to Democrats. It is all obvious now.

Bane, did you look at the link in muirgeo's post?

How do you explain those? I'm taking notes, believe me. Everything you say is incredibly enlightening.

All I can say is my gas bill and my health care bill are HUGE and really placing a big weight on my life. I don't have that great big stock portfolio that you do.

Barney,
Wait ... was that SARCASM?

sorry, buddy, I missed it, lol I get it now.

SO liar,
Here’s how it works, minimum wage is intended for entry level, trainee type positions. The problem in your case is that you are still working for minimum wage long after your high school buddies grew up and got careers.

Have I looked at Geo’s link? Sadly; repeatedly. Check out the DJIA when the Republicans took control of the Congress. That’s when I began investing, that’s when I began to have more disposable income.

And the financial news just keeps getting better, and better and better ...

I guess we should all ignore the deficit, the increase costs of healthcare and energy, the crumbling infrastructure and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.....

...all because we are back (barely) to where President Clinton had the economy at one point before it gained even more strength on his watch?

Oh. Now I see.

Wade

So in other words Bane you can't back up your statement about the Clinton economy being an effect of the Republican Congress. Just shooting your yap off blindly like Cheney on a Quail-tard hunt. And on top of it you laid down a blatant lie that claims Clinton's tax increases caused a stagnant economy between 1992-96. The charts show how loose with the facts you are. Anyone can look and see in the chart I posted that the tax increases were followed by a far greater economic boon then anything Bush's deficit spending has brought us.

The key point to all this is that tax cuts do not necessarily improve the economy and tax increases do not always stunt the economy.

Clinton's tax plan was followed by unprecedented growth, improved government services and a budget surplus. Bush's tax cuts have resulted in a massive re-distribution of wealth from the middle class to the upper elitist, caused massive deficits and the biggest trade imbalance ever. Meanwhile government services, our roads, our schools and our military are in shambles.

How's bout that chunky?

...Check out the DJIA when the Republicans took control of the Congress. That’s when I began investing..

Since the republicans did not take control of the Senate until '03 I will agree that since than the Dow has done great and the NAS is improving, but for us that invested and saw all our profits wiped out in '01 and '02 the gains since have not matched the losses.

Don't forget that Reagan raised taxes four times, and he is your god!

Now if it just wasn't for that pesky katrillion dollars we owe China............

Geo,
Sweet, simple Geo,

The Clinton tax increases did nothing of the kind, first, despite your pretty charts; there was no budget surplus, that’s an accounting myth.

Clinton’s tax hike was followed by unprecedented governmental spending and the only thing that benefited from those hikes was the Republican Party that gained control of the Congressional purse strings. This goes to Barney’s argument that I’ve already dispelled that the House, not the Senate is what sets the fiscal tone. And he already knows why the Clinton recession of 2001 wiped out a portion of his 401(k).

The military is in shambles? You are delusional, no sense in debating this point.

So where is the evidence that Clinton had anything to do with this unbridled capitalism?

---Crickets chirping---

From 1993 to 1996, the economy was lousy under Clintune. 2000 was also a bad year with no economic growth in the last six to nine months, big decline in the stock market, rising unemployment.

In all areas of the economy from gdp to employment to slow inflation to housing to construction spending are very solid. In at least four out of the five categories, this economy is better than Clintune.

Clinton's economy? Can'ya say "dot-com?" Paper surplus, projected over ten years. Now cut the talking points, laddies. Our economy is in good shape; everyone who is willing to work can find work. Except Barney, because noone wants to hire an adult with the mind of a third-grader...

Yes, the Bush economy is better than the Clinton economy. Why? Because unlike the Clinton economy, the Bush economy is actually built on substance, not hot air. The great Clinton boom is responsible for the poor economic times we had at the beginning of the Bush administration. (It began during Clinton's administration).

Bane, please stop abbreviating muirgeo’s name. Guilt by association you know. Thanks, Geo.

Well, whatever it is, our economy is getting stronger, and I am happy. I guess this [progress] is the reason why we have governments, and presidents, right? So, chill out people. Let's just enjoy the good news :-)

Bane,

Do you think you can just say what you want and you neocon Bush-bot buddies will believe everything you say because they are incapable of thinking for themselves....well actually...maybe you ARE right on that point, but for anyone who uses their brain I provide evidence from THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION that shows how pathetic you are.

You said, "Clinton’s tax hike was followed by unprecedented governmental spending... "

Every budget is unprecedented because of growth in the economy. The rate of spending increases was far lower under Clinton and far higher under Reagan, BushH and BushW.

Bane, does getting caught lying embarrass you?

Maybe if you're lucky everyone will have left this post and won't see what a lying miscreant you are.

I agree, corporations are doing just fine. Their already-rich CEOs and shareholders are getting even richer. Why don't Americans give Bush more credit for the roaring economy?

Because most Americans are not wealthy. And for the average American, real wage growth has been sluggest at best, and falling at worst. That, combined with rising energy and healthcare costs, equals, in most Americans' view, an unhealthy economy.

It's funny, there seems to be at least one post a week that touts Bush's economic prowess. But not one of these posts even tries to explain away the fact that wages are going down and the povery rate is going up.

Wyckyd,

Well, its hard to explain away what isn't happening...

And, long time no see...are you back on the Bush-bashing rotation for a bit?

Good one muirgeo

All right, but I warned you, it’s not as exciting as watching you liberals falling over one another trying to deny positives.

First, you fiscal neophytes need to understand that a budget is static, while the debt and the deficit are dynamic. Do I need to explain the difference between the debt and the deficit? Another time, perhaps.

When Clinton sent 1998 the budget up, he used a 15 year projection of economic data because that showed the rosiest picture, why? Because it avoided the Social Security explosion which should begin to kill the economy around 2012. The simple fact is the economy didn’t perform to expectations so the debt grew faster than the Clintonistas anticipated. Servicing the debt cost much more than he budgeted and he actually ran a deficitof five billion for the fiscal year that ended in October of 1999.
The “surplus” you are all bragging about was the Social Security trust fund, and although Gore made noises about putting it in a “lock-box” which, as a Government Accountant I find hilarious, the “surplus” was used to fund the outlandish promises in the budget and eventually was used to service the debt.

We heard Clinton, in his SOTU Address, “(We) can’t touch the Social Security Trust fund, it’s not the Government’s money!” almost the very next thing out of his mouth was, “We have a three trillion dollar surplus!” Nice trick; count the same money twice.

You did very well spelling "miscreant" did you get that from your "Word of the Day Calendar? Unfortunately you used it wrong; Poor pathetic boob.

Now, I’ll ask again, since you have trouble with facts, what, exactly did your boyfriend Clinton did to improve the economy?

Wyckyd Sceptre
What are you talking about?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean wages in the US in 1999 was $15.18, the last year accumulated was 2004 when it was $18.00.

The major complaint I hear from the right is that Bush gets no credit for the "great" economy. In order to change that, they constantly pick on whatever economic indicator seems favorable.

The bottom line is, however, that Bush doesn't get credit for the economy because most Americans don't think that the economy IS great. And for most working Americans -- it isn't.

The very fact that these guys feel the need to SELL this economy tells you all you really need to know -- high corporate profits and lackluster job creation combined with out-of-control energy costs debt as far as the eye can see plus skyrocketing heathcare -- these are how most people see the Bush economy -- and they're not happy.

My advice -- if you feel that this economy benefits you (and you don't have any moral or philosophical problems with this administration) -- by all means -- vote Republican.

Thanks for the endorsement Saliva.

(Talking to no one in particular)
I love it when these liberals can’t read financial data without having their eyes glaze over, so they claim that the economy is bad, Republicans want old people to starve and children should drink dirty water.

Way to add to the debate.

I love it more to see Democrats and Republicans hug each other in love. :-)