Because the economy is bad? Bush was still President in 2008 and over 4 million jobs were lost in 2008.
In December 2000 there were 132,485,000 people with jobs in America. By April 2009 there were only 131,488,000. Almost one million fewer jobs after 8 years of Bush (and 3 months of Obama). In 2000, before Bush took office, the participation rate was 67.1% and the unemployment rate was 4%. By the time Bush left office in February 2009, the participation rate was 65.7% and the unemployment rate was 8.2% and rising. It was not rising because of the policies of the Obama administration which had just taken office.
I think it is instructive to look at how the Republicans acted in the stimulus debate. Not the Obama stimulus of 2009, but the earlier one in early 2008.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=9701. Bush (and Republicans) didn't want to provide rebates to lower income workers - even though that is a better stimulus
"The rebate proposal included in the announced stimulus deal would provide a sizeable rebate to all income tax filers with earnings of at least $3,000. In contrast, as Table 2 shows, households would not have begun to benefit from the Administration’s proposed rebate until their income reached much higher levels. The Administration had suggested that the rebate be provided by reducing the 10 percent tax rate to zero. To benefit from such a change at all, a married couple with two children would need an income of about $25,000. Moreover, such a family would receive only a relatively modest rebate until its income climbed well above $25,000."
2. Bush and Republicans did not include unemployment extension or aid to states or extra money for food stamps or Liheap, all of which would have better stimulated the economy.
"The deal also failed to include an extension of unemployment benefits or any fiscal relief for states, many of which are already facing deficits as tax revenues fall due to the weakening economy. An extension of unemployment benefits would be highly effective stimulus because it would put money in the hands of workers who have lost their jobs and thus are trying to cope with a significant reduction in their income, while providing targeted relief to states whose economies are souring would help them avert program cuts and tax increases that would further weaken their economies and the national economy."
"The deal" mentioned there is one that Pelosi made with Bush and House Republicans, perhaps to avoid yet another Bush veto, since Bush vetoed 7 bills in 2007 and only had one over-ridden. It was a bad deal though, because it did not include unemployment extension and other types of spending which would have been better at stimulating the economy.
Senate Democrats attempted to add some of those measures, but Republicans, backed by Bush, filibustered the stimulus bill in January 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/washington/31cnd-fiscal.html?_r=1&hp"Backed solidly by the Bush administration, Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked a $157 billion economic stimulus package championed by Senate Democrats, who said they would have no choice but to quickly adopt a cheaper, more streamlined plan approved earlier this week by the House."
Here's what Democrats fought for and Bush and the Republican Party fought against
"Top items on that agenda are increased benefits for the elderly and veterans; higher subsidies for low-income families struggling with high heating bills and other energy costs; mortgage counseling for homeowners at risk of foreclosure; extended unemployment benefits; increased food stamps, and tax credits for alternative energy."
Considering that over 4 million jobs were lost in 2008, I think that stimulus bill can be called a massive failure. About one year later Congress was working to pass another stimulus bill. This did not stop Republicans from proposing essentially the same thing that had already failed - more tax cuts.
That's one thing Bush was certainly consistent on. Pushing for his tax cuts aimed at the wealthy. This is from his (thankfully) final State of the Union.
"We have other work to do on taxes. Unless the Congress acts, most of the tax relief we have delivered over the past 7 years will be taken away. Some in Washington argue that letting tax relief expire is not a tax increase. Try explaining that to 116 million American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $1,800. "
See that would have been more honest if he'd said "Try explaining that to the 400 richest American taxpayers who would see their taxes rise by an average of $45,800,000." Or "Try explaining that to the 13,776 people making more than $10,000,000 who will see their taxes rise by an average of $1,229,000" but he always liked to lump those making well over $250,000 with those making less than $100,000 and try to pretend that if taxes go up for the first group that would somehow hurt those in the second group.
Do voters really miss the failed policies and the lies that Republicans continue to push?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7766878&mesg_id=7767445Are they really gonna vote this crap back in this November?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
