$1.3 trillion later, economic disaster; supporters of Bush's tax cuts call the stimulus "too big."

[ProSense]

Supporters Of $1.3 Trillion Bush Tax Cuts In 2001 Now Call $900 Billion Recovery Plan Billion ‘Too Much’

As the senate version of the economic recovery package makes its way through Congress, a significant (though misguided) criticism of the package from Senate Republicans is that it is “too big.” For example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed, “from the very first moment of this debate, there’s been strong bipartisan agreement on one thing: the original version of this bill was too big.”

Similarly, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) lamented, “(T)his bill spends far too much,” while Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said, “It’s very wasteful…if you throw in the interest it’s about $1.3 trillion.” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called passing such a large package this week “just unthinkable.” Watch a compilation of these and other complaints about the size of the package:

<...>

Such objections are indeed ironic coming from some of the greatest advocates for President Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut package in 2001. Indeed, when Bush introduced his tax cuts he declared, “A warning light is flashing on the dashboard of our economy, and we just can’t drive on and hope for the best. .” The Republicans who now call the $800 billion recovery package “too big” jumped on the Bush bandwagon claiming his were just what was needed to jump start a sluggish economy:

Kyl: “I was there when the president signed into law the tax cut. … (I)f that isn’t one of the best things we can do to get this economy going again, then it seems to me that the American people might well lose confidence in what we’re doing, which would be the worst thing to do for the economy.” (Finance Committee Hearing, 10/3/2009)

Ensign: “Well, I don’t know that we’re going to get to the — you know, the total $1.3 trillion tax cut. I do think the tax cuts are necessary right now.” (CNN, 1/3/01)

Graham thought the cuts were so effective he wanted to make them permanent. But the tax cuts they championed proved to be extremely ineffective, leading to the slowest period of economic growth in decades.

If you compare the condition of the economy in 2001 to the current state of the economy, the numbers show that those who now call the recovery package too big, were willing to spend far more when the economic situation wasn’t nearly as precarious:

......................................................2001...............2009
Cost of package: .............................$1.35 trillion.......$900 billion
Unemployment: ...................................4%.............. 7.6%
Percent of Population Living In Poverty:......12.7%.............17%
Foreclosure Rates: ................................48%.............1.19%
Americans Relying On Food Stamps: .......17 million.......Over 30 million

[RedEarth]

1. Excellent post!

[givemebackmycountry]

2. Off to the front page with ye

kicky, kick-kick

[ProSense]

3. The Repubs are nervous and trying to hinder Obama's success. Here's why:

What are the chances that the Dems' stimulus package will equal Bush's tax cuts and other idiotic Repub policies in nearly doubling the unemployment rate, increasing the number of people living in poverty by five million, tripling the the foreclosure rates and increasing the number of people relying on food stamps by 13 million?

Bush and his tax cuts were miserable failures, and the Repubs own the resulting economic disaster. Under Bush, the economy effectively bottomed out, and while it will likely get worse (see yesterday's abysmal jobs report) before it gets better, things will begin to turn around. Repubs dread the notion that this will happen during Obama's Presidency.

[Still Sensible]

4. True, but it is probably not fair to say the

Bush tax cuts were "miserable failures." Did the benefits fall short of what the public was told when they were passed? Absolutely. Did the benefits accrue to the wealthy far more than everybody else? No doubt.

There is every possibility that the current stimulus will fall short of what we democrats expect. The good news is that at least we know if they do it won't be because the wealthy disproportionately benefited--but make no mistake, the infrastructure spending in this package will be going through the private sector and some wealthy pricks will get a windfall.

Then again, those other tax cuts were by Bush and the republicans. So fuck 'em, call them miserable failures at will.

[ProSense]

5. They were miserable failures for the majority of Americans and the U.S. economy.

Wealthy, greedy and corrupt individuals benefitted, but that's not how the Repubs sold the cuts or their policies. Based on the spin they used to push the tax cuts (and they're still trying to spin them as the "universal elixir for any economic problem"), Bush's tax cuts were miserable failures.







edited typo.

[democracy1st]

6. great post prosense thanks