Hi, Bob: the links you provided have some major intrinsic flaws, namely that they fail to provide a good solid example of MAJOR policy that negatively affected the Economy.
Let’s go thru these traditional Dem talking points and point out the weakness:
“For nearly three years, the president and the Republican Congress have failed to take decisive action on behalf of millions of Americans whose jobs, economic security and retirement savings have been ravaged.”
What?? the House and Congress with a Dem majority she means? Does she not know about the 2003 Republican oversight and financial correction law that was nixed by Dem’s? Selectively using a time period to make a weak pt.
New Overtime laws – not even in effect or passed! How could this influence our present economy?
“Miller's report notes that after the $1.35 trillion tax cut of 2001 virtually ignored lower- and middle-income Americans, the $330 billion giveaway of 2003 willfully disregarded some 12 million children, whose parents won't receive the same $400 per-child tax credit that wealthier households enjoyed.”
That statement really ticks me off: The 12 million children she’s talking about are people who pay NO TAXES and she’s mad that the household didn’t get a rebate. She uses the term: children instead of household to play the ‘child persecuted card.’ Snore. Why should we offer rebates or tax cuts for people who don’t pay taxes? I don’t get this insanely goofy logic I hear in Dem talking points.
The same tax cuts reduced ALL taxes for ALL taxpayers, and i’m sick of hearing the lie that they didn’t benefit them.
That’s just a lie, and the Dem leaders know it. Across the board, EVERY paying tax group benefited by 4-12% in less taxes.
“Bushies haven't stopped at wages. They're also targeting workers' pensions by refusing to help recover millions in lost retirement savings”
The term “Bushies” lets you know the poster is an immature writer. First of all, it is NOT the government’s job to recover private firm pensions! Again, what the h*ll! This writer must believe in true Socialist philosophies. Why would the government do something that controversial that the public isn’t even asking for yet?
I’m not going to discuss minimum wage issues. That’s indeed a labor issue, but I believe it’s up to the employer to set their wage schedules.
Truthor Dig post:
“Since George W. took office, corporate profits have soared, while workers’ wages and benefits have been flat. That shows just who is the object of Bush’s conservative compassion.”
gosh, i wonder why: Bush didn’t establish the huge CEO salaries: it was the board members that actively recruited these high price CEO’s and paid them like rock stars. Bush had ZERO to do with this. Consequently, if you overpay the CEO, to compensate the company will UNDERPAY their workers.
There is NO evidence that the deficit was caused by tax reductions. Actually, the amount of money the IRS collected WENT UP after the tax cuts. You won’t hear that stat quoted anywhere by the media. The deficit was caused by two things: 1) excessive spending and earmarks across the board for all politicians, and 2) the most expensive war ever waged in terms of money. Same war also has the lowest ‘casualty’ rates of any war fought in the past 200 years (compared in days/vs./casualty ratios.)
Again, the article offers commentary on trickle-down, claims to have evidence, but doesn’t present it. Besides, I can always get another econ professor to say just the opposite.
NYTimes was an op-ed with just supposition theories, no evidence, no facts.
“The approach that characterized the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy also aptly characterizes the Bush administration’s approach to the economy – creating or worsening the skyrocketing budget deficits and indebtedness, lax corporate oversight, credit and housing market crises that plague us today.”
Let’s look at that: Bush tried to pass legislation that would have created corp oversight, and the credit oversight, and housing oversight. Looks to me like the Dems dropped the ball on that one. They didn’t react until the crisis actually hit, then blamed it on the Republicans for not doing anything proactive (See Barney Frank.)
Foreign policy overreach: How is Bush’s office responsible for private firms selling and trading assets to China??
“Now, evidence is mounting that the Bush administration’s policies in both arenas are reckless and unsustainable”
uh.....where? Why didn’t the writer reference what he is talking about? Let’s throw out a claim, and if said often enough, people will believe it, huh?
“Turmoil on Wall Street”- excuse me: what part of the Government IS Wall street? exactly none
The real story is the European market has been in a tailspin AS WELL for the past 6 years, their own fault,
for consolidating power without letting competition drive the market. Europe is currently in an inflationary period with inflated Euro worth, no demand for goods, exports flat. No competition to even the playing field.
Let's talk plainly here: the Democrats have had 8 years to nail Bush specifically to Econ problems, but don't have any bullets in their guns to point to anything that had a direct effect on anything. The tax cuts WERE beneficial to all middle class, and the CEO overpayment is something the company themselves should be held accountable for, not Bush.