CAN'T PIN FISCAL WOES ON W.

New York Post ^ | 10/03/02 | DANIEL J. MITCHELL

[kattracks]

Fact: The economy began to weaken in 2000, almost one year prior to the enactment of tax-cut legislation. The economy began to weaken in the middle of 2000, according to Commerce Department figures, averaging less than one percent growth in the final six months of the year.

[Dick Vomer]

Forward this to Al Gore and tell him to shut up about "Growing " the economy. Only Fascist think that the government is the method for "growing" an economy. In case a liberal is lurking look up Fascism in a dictionary. You'd be surprised.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Al Gore should have criticized Clinton then. Clinton ran in 2000 with a deliberate desire to drive up the deficit through a massive infrastructure program. It was an old fashioned 'New Deal' method to 'stimulate' the economy. Instead, Gore teamed up with this FDR-style 'economist'.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Ronald Reagan, "Furthermore, higher taxes won't translate into higher revenue and lower deficit spending. This has been clear ever since the time of Adam Smith back in 1776. ``High taxes,'' that great economist noted, ``frequently afford a smaller revenue to government than what might be drawn from more moderate taxes.'' Now, you know, it made sense the first time he told me that. [Laughter] It doesn't take a genius to understand that increasing the Federal tax could well lead to higher spending, higher tax rates, and a new recession. We didn't come to Washington to preside over such a scenario."

Remarks at the 1986 Reagan Administration Executive Forum
February 6, 1986

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1986/20686e.htm

====

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

Quotes from the Heritage Foundation

"Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue."

"Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase."

"Federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion in 1980 to $1.25 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was an increase of 35.8 percent."

"As a percentage of GDP, federal expenditures grew slightly from 21.6 percent in 1980 to 21.8 percent in 1990."

"From 1950 to 1973, real economic growth in the U.S. economy averaged 3.6 percent per year. From 1973 to 1982, it averaged only 1.6 percent. The Reagan economic boom restored the more usual growth rate as the economy averaged 3.5 percent in real growth from the beginning of 1983 to the end of 1990"

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Another graphic and readable analysis of the recession is available here.

[Charlotte Corday]

This article is quite correct, but what it misses is the point that Bush's tax cut was (a) big enough to give the Dems a campaign issue while at the the same time (b) being far too small in its first 3-4 years to have any growth impact on the economy.

[alaskanfan]

It would have been poetic justice if Gore would have won the election and inherited the failing economy of Billboy's mis-administration.

I suppose his answer would have been a tax increase. I'm glad it didn't happen.

I still don't understand that lib theory that involves taking more of my money and tying it to an economic upturn for the nation?