Thoughtone and Dave your "thoughts".
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm: Source
"If tax cuts create jobs, why weren't any created by the Bush tax cuts?"
Democrats and progressives smugly ask this question, as if they know something low-tax advocates don't know. They love taxes (on some people) and they're sure this line will some points. Have they ever looked at unemployment rate for previous years?
Well, below are unemployment figures (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) by year, with a few key events inserted.
2001: 4.7
September 11, dealt a blow to travel and created an atmosphere of uncertainty about future attacks.
Bush tax cuts were put in place in 2002.
2002: 5.8
2003: 6.0
2004: 5.5
2005: 5.1
2006: 4.6
2007: 4.6
Notice any trend? Those failed policies had us living under 4.6% unemployment. Horrific I know. The media was drumming the misery so hard and people were so clueless that they complained. I could go for 4.6% today. There were only 3 years during the glorious reign of Bill Clinton where rates were at or below 4.6%. ('98, '99, 2000)
Then came the housing/financial meltdown in 2008.
2008: 5.8
To deal with the crisis, we had the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus, bailout of GM, etc. in 2009.
2009: 9.3
2010: 9.6
2011 (to date): 9.2
Failed policies?
Okay, I know someone will decide to show how smart they are and challenge these data by entering into a discussion about causation vs correlation. But be honest, unemployment is a primary indicator of economic health, and when the discussion is jobs, you have to go with the facts (oops data) as they present themselves. Now don't you feel smart.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm: Source
"If tax cuts create jobs, why weren't any created by the Bush tax cuts?"
Democrats and progressives smugly ask this question, as if they know something low-tax advocates don't know. They love taxes (on some people) and they're sure this line will some points. Have they ever looked at unemployment rate for previous years?
Well, below are unemployment figures (from the Bureau of Labor Statistics) by year, with a few key events inserted.
2001: 4.7
September 11, dealt a blow to travel and created an atmosphere of uncertainty about future attacks.
Bush tax cuts were put in place in 2002.
2002: 5.8
2003: 6.0
2004: 5.5
2005: 5.1
2006: 4.6
2007: 4.6
Notice any trend? Those failed policies had us living under 4.6% unemployment. Horrific I know. The media was drumming the misery so hard and people were so clueless that they complained. I could go for 4.6% today. There were only 3 years during the glorious reign of Bill Clinton where rates were at or below 4.6%. ('98, '99, 2000)
Then came the housing/financial meltdown in 2008.
2008: 5.8
To deal with the crisis, we had the Obama/Pelosi/Reid stimulus, bailout of GM, etc. in 2009.
2009: 9.3
2010: 9.6
2011 (to date): 9.2
Failed policies?
Okay, I know someone will decide to show how smart they are and challenge these data by entering into a discussion about causation vs correlation. But be honest, unemployment is a primary indicator of economic health, and when the discussion is jobs, you have to go with the facts (oops data) as they present themselves. Now don't you feel smart.