Most economists credit Bush's tax cuts in rebound (Wait - this is USA Today?)

USA Today ^ | 02/17/04 | Peronet Despeignes

[TonyInOhio]

President Bush insists his tax cuts are a big reason for the economy's rebound.

"Tax relief was a vital part of this economic recovery," he said Monday at a window plant in Tampa, repeating a theme in many of his recent speeches.

[TonyInOhio]

Man, you had to pry it out of them in context, but I can't remember seeing a genuinely positive story about the Bush Administration on the front of USA Today.

[tractorman]

It's all Bush's fault, no wait, it's all NOT Bush's fault.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bump

[Izzy Dunne]

Wasn't this tax cut foisted onto the resistant President by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, and those guys. That's the say I remember it...

< /sarcasm >

[FRgal4u]

The other story to watch is the total wealth story..

The total wealth of this country (homes, stocks, savings) is now at 46 Trillion dollars, as high as the March 2000 peak (and significantly higher than the wealth figure when Bush came to office). No one could have imagined that considering the burst of the stock market, 9/11 and the subsequent wars. The democreeps like to preach the doom and gloom on the jobs data, but in reality, the average wealth of every American has increased significantly during the Bush years. A lot of the gains are in the form of home equity prices and the gains in housing has more than fully compensated the losses from the burst of NASDAQ in March 2000. People vote for the pocket books and in all the stats I see, people's pockets are fuller during the Bush years due to tax cuts, lower interest rates, home refi, lower mortgage rates.

[Brasil]

The business cycle. More than 227 years of U.S. economic history suggest that the economy has always bounced back from a downturn, with or without Washington's intervention.

but... but... but... haven't we been told by RATS for several years that the prosperity of the 90's was because the rapist raised taxes??

[JLS]

Well let's see tax rates on income generation were reduced. What other result could we see from that policy than an increase in income generation.

Now you can as the Dims will argue that no it is the fiscal stimulus from the budget deficit or money growth or random positive shocks to the economy that is causing it to grow. But you can not argue that reducing taxes on income generation reduces income generation. So the debate will be over the sources of the income growth but not whether or not tax reductions contributed or not.

Just as only the dimest of the Dims argued the Clinton tax increase increase income generation. They just did not reduce income generation enough to offset the positive things happenning in the economy.

[lasereye]

What Bush campaign needs to do is quote this article and others like it in commercials, AND say Kerry would kill the recovery by raising taxes. Don't just say, "If I'm reelected I'll make the tax cuts permanent". You've got to say exactly why Kerry shouldn't get elected. I'm not sure Bush's people have the brains to do that. Don't want to sound "negative". That seems to be their main concern.

[Libloather]

Headlines - from page 9A...