trickybeck wrote:
So, basically Bush did what every single republican endorses as economic policy, and what every Republican president has tried to do, and that makes him a genius? And all the Democratic presidents who had the opposite policy and still got the same economic results were just lucky? Interesting.
Clarification: Bush did what most Republican presidents have endorsed since the modern models of supply side economics came to exist (which occured roughly in the early 1970s). However, there has not been a Republican president at the same time as a Republican controlled Congress since 1955 (Eisenhower). Thus, the concepts of supply side economics have *never* been properly applied. Not until George W. Bush (and some would argue he still didn't apply them properly).
Are you arguing that Supply side economic theory is so superior to Demand side economic theory that an idiot could implement it and still get better results then the brightest president applying Demand side economics? Or did you mean something else?
Look. It doesn't matter who implements the policies. They work. Despite decades of Dems insisting that it doesn't (the so called "voodoo economics"), it does in fact work. And it works very very well. So well that even though Bush didn't fully implement them (to be fully supply side compliant he should have cut spending as well), they *still* produced the increases in economic growth and tax base that Republicans have been saying they would the whole time. His lack of spending cuts just meant it took longer for the deficit to fall, but the increases in growth were unaffected.
Which is the point. I'd also argue that this was the real reason the Dems were most concerned about the 2000 election and why it was such a sore point with them (almost a desperate one). I'd also suggest that it's the true underlying reason why the anti-Bush sentiment is so strong. You may think it's about wiretapping and wars and such, but those are just symptoms IMO. We've had wars before. Presidents have conducted wiretapping of foreigners before. Those are convenient issues for those "in power" on the left to use to rally the masses against George Bush, but I believe their motivation in doing so is economic (which is why I argue economics alot when we debate politics). Because if those same masses figured out that they could prosper just find with a smaller government, and that prosperity for all could increase with lower taxes, they'd be less willing to support anyone who ran on that sort of platform. This would effectively kill the central platform that Dems run on (well, they don't run on it, but their platform requires it): Tax and Spend. They require that the masses believe that the only way to make their own personal condition "better" is through direct government intervention. The Dems must convince them that higher taxes is always worth the increased benefits they will get as a result. If supply side economics was shown to work, and the masses realized it would work, you'd never get them to support a tax increase again...