Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Removal of image

Hi JustGettingItRight, could clarify your justification for removing the image in the introduction? Thank you. --Beerfinger (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the compilation of my recent edits if anyone wants to review. My changes. I made three changes: 1. Reverted hidden vandalism on a link, 2. added a citation needed tag for one assertion that I think is right but a citation is still needed, and 3. removed a very large POV image that was in the intro.

Here is the image for review as a link Image removed from intro

This was a self created image. However, this image's use of the red color font as well as having a smiling picture of George W. Bush inserted in between the 2001 deficit and 2008 deficit, with the number 4.9T above his head, implying, possibly incorrectly, that George W. Bush was responsible for the deficit increase (as well as not having the axis going down to zero) is not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Facts speak a lot louder than misleading graphs and the graph brings (what I feel are rightful) allegations of a systemic bias against George W. Bush. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose the creation of an NPOV graph showing the increase in the deficit during the Bush administration (with the axis starting at zero - we learned about this in 4th grade), but any graph with a smiling picture of Bush up top should not be included. JustGettingItRight (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The graph cannot start at zero, however, as our deficit did not start at zero at the start of Bush's term, so such a graph would be a lie. So far, everyone who has worked on this article has agreed with the image, so you are currently removing it against consensus, if you want to remove the image, gain consensus first.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with your first two edits. I'm not sure about the image though. The red font seems pretty irrelevant to me. The purpose of the graph is to depict the national debt during his tenure. It cites numerous sources to support its claims. The number 4.9T is the increase in the deficit during his tenure. Whether or not it's "possibly" incorrect that he was responsible is a matter of opinion. Some would say the president is responsible for everything that happens on his/her watch, "the buck stops here." Some might not. Either way, the FACT is that it DID increase that much on his watch. Regarding your gripe with the axis, I don't think you understand what you're asking. First of all, I'm not sure anyone remembers any point in recent history when the national debt was at zero. Second of all, if the creator of the image were to arbitrarily insert a 0 axis, it would actually have the effect of increasing the incline of the slope, which would consequently increase the perception that Bush significantly increased the national debt. Judging by your past edits, I get the impression that that would not be to your liking. Finally, I can see your point regarding the insertion of Bush's likeness, but I do not see any merit regarding the fact that he's smiling. While having a picture of Bush there might not be entirely relevant, I don't believe that it makes any of the graphs' assertions any less factual and I also don't believe that it makes this graph any more biased than the suggestion you put forth of creating a new graph. --Beerfinger (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"So far, everyone who has worked on this article has agreed with the image, so you are currently removing it against consensus.." Where did this discussion occur? Absence of objections does not equal consensus. I find the image very amateurish and misplaced. If it were to be re-included, which I would not support, it would not be appropriate to place it in the introduction where it was previously placed. It would seem the editor who uploaded the image considered it to be a joke anyway.[1] --auburnpilot talk 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the image is misplaced. Perhaps it would be a better fit in the "Economic Growth" section? The image was created by an amateur, that is obvious too as he is no graphic artist, but how was it placed as a joke? --Beerfinger (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the link at the end of my comment, which shows the editor who uploaded the image adding it to a discussion with the comment "You guys like this one? I thought it was just a little funny". --auburnpilot talk 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've asked to see if he can provide us with some context. --Beerfinger (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is hopelessly biased in favor of Bush 43's policies. I think a more appropriate response is simply to tag it as such. Why is Karl Rove quoted twice in the intro? I mean come on people! What a joke. So I added an image worthy of the article. Bush was an economic disaster of near biblical proportions by most accounts and per our recent Nobel laureates Stiglitz and Krugman. He was the President and is accountable, particularly since he inherited an annual surplus from Clinton and cut taxes needlessly. Nearly all economic growth during his tenure was due to home equity extraction or otherwise debt-financed. He also could have attempted to reform Social Security with relatively minor tax increases and spending cuts, instead of blowing the opportunity on a divisive non-starter like privatization. As indicated above, the national debt was significant before he took office and he nearly doubled it, while counting most of the Iraq & Afghanistan spending outside the budget. He pointed to deficit reductions during his second term, while the debt increased dramatically, another misleading line of argument. He presided over enormous increases in the trade deficit, a major cause of the current crisis (see subprime mortgage crisis article for that). He said that he was a good steward of the taxpayers money, which was blatantly untrue. He helped the financial oligarchy to take this government over according to Simon Johnson--See The Quite Coup What you say? Taxpayers put in enormous amounts of money, yet no bondholder haircuts or nationalizations occurred during his administration for the major banks, which is what the IMF does in every other country facing this type of crisis. And the same management is in place, can you believe this? The Feds didn't even put significant new folks onto the boards. Unbelievable. I could go on, but...Ahem...I think a compromise would be to place a chart without his picture, that just shows the debt increases each year during his tenure. You can find the chart I'm talking about in the national debt article. Perhaps put that lower in the article. Perhaps add verbiage to the intro that says that even though he spent approximately the same amount as Clinton relative to GDP, his tax cuts resulted in enormous debt increases. And yes, it was the tax cuts, because GDP grew and tax receipts went down, as shown in the tax revenue and expenses relative to GDP chart in this article. Spending on Iraq/Afghanistan was about $750 billion during his tenure, not enough to account for the enormous debt increases. CBO estimates his tax cuts, if they do not expire, will cost treasury $1.8 trillion over 10 years, a proxy for how much they cost the Treasury already. I've quoted that source already in the body.Farcaster (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "Bush was an economic disaster of near biblical proportions by most accounts and per our recent Nobel laureates Stiglitz and Krugman. He was the President and is accountable, particularly since he inherited an annual surplus from Clinton and cut taxes needlessly." I hope you realize that you, as well as Stiglitz and Krugman are extremely biased against Bush and Republicans in general. You do realize there wasn't any actual surplus from Clinton?TL36 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research. Personally, there is one point I disagree with you on: 1. that Iraq/Afghanistan did not contribute significantly to the deficit increases. Your views on former President George W. Bush's economic policies are your own personal opinions and should not belong in the article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of this article needed

I'm not accusing anybody of this, but this article should not be a battleground in support or in opposition to Bush's economic policies. Rather it should matter of factly state what his policies were and what the economic indicators were. It should not offer selective opinion, positive or negative, of the effect of Bush's economic policies. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues boil down to the amount of serious academic resources that have been devoted to discussing Bush's economic policies are vastly outweighed by the pundits discussing Bush's economy. We may need to wait a bit to see how the whole thing shakes out. My understanding is that presently there is a massive debate between supply side economists about the failure of their economic theory under Bush's watch. Then you have other economists trying to use this to kill that school of thought or at least push it from the mainstream so while the fact that Bush's policies did not perform well the exact reasons are debated rather hotly. After that most of the numbers are simply not good and getting actual factual numbers inserted is tricky and several editors are attempting to POV push items leaning quite heavily in one direction or another, and knowing what numbers are actually significant is also tricky (For example, more regulation because the Federal Register got more pages was seriously used to justify how Bush was a regulator recently). Finally you have administration people spinning the results of the economy that in no way reflect reality. Karl Rove in the lead, for example, is demonstratively wrong or so selective in his facts that its just not possible to take him seriously. Ex, Between 2003-2006 we had good job growth (though median income declined rather significantly), but between 2001-2008 we had very bad job growth. But those are just qualifiers, we should start with the lead and work down. Hopefully something decent comes of it. RTRimmel (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to keep coming back to the cause of the economic crisis we are in now being the sole fault of the sub-prime mortgages failing, and related issues. It also keeps beating in the point of a balanced budget by Bill Clinton. This is an incredibly myopic assessment of the situation. The core of the issue is the intellectual property transfer to China during the '90's, in which we closed nearly every factory that made anything, and literally sent our engineers to China to teach them how to make it. Stockholders in these companies reaped an enormous windfall when they quickly shed expenses, when they sold their stock they paid capital gains taxes, which helped balance the budget. Wall St. needs an expanding industry to invest in, with the lack of manufacturing startups they created a non sustaining industry in junk mortgages, people who previously had high paying factory jobs transferred to service sector employment and made less money so of course they extracted assets from their equity and refinanced. I know this isn't a forum to discuss issues but to put the blame all on the junk mortagage debacle ignores that the reason they were junk is because Americans were no longer making enough to pay for them.Batvette (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biased inappropriate edits were made and corrected by myself. I don't know when it got there: "blob" (job) "ass instance"(assistnace) "sax" (tax) "fax" (tax) "primate mortgage crisis" (subprime mortgage crisis). Flag for review. Sbv7 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two easy non-sequitors that should be corrected in the interests of WP:NPOV

1. Re: Whether the revenues grew as tax rates fell, as predicted by the Laffer Curve: "However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006" -This speaks for itself.

In other words, as the tax cuts got larger with each successive year, it follows that the revenues DID grow until it surpassed the pre-tax cut levels by 2006. Ergo, those who thought the Laffer curve would mean more revenue were correct: Cutting taxes DID produce more revenue than before the taxes had been cut. (This can also be seen in the declining yearly deficits up until the crisis in 2008.)

2. There is NO doubt that the Bush tax cuts shifted more of the income tax burden onto higher earners. It's basic math. The bottom income tax rate was slashed by 33% from 15% to 10%. The next rate was slashed by a smaller amount, and so on with the highest bracket being slashed from 39.1% to 35%, a reduction of 11.7%. Since the lower brackets were cut far more drastically than the higher brackets, it follows that the income tax burden (the total percentage of tax revenue each bracket represents) shifted into the upper brackets.

I'd really like to see this article's language updated to reflect these logically necessary facts, since now these areas seem to carry a taint of readily disprovable rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.129.57 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you're purposing would probably violate Wikipedia:Original Research. Editors should not include conclusions based on their own deductions. You should try to find a published source for the statements you want to add.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suggested removal of $3 Trillion dollar cost of wars

"Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the total cost of the Iraq War at closer to $3 trillion.[39]"

We have actual data on what these wars cost, and it's about $100B per year according to the CBO. Taking some claim of what they will supposedly cost several decades down the line is not only highly speculative, but completely at odds with a discussion of a historical date range. Does the Costs of the Great Society article (or Economic policies of LBJ) calculate the costs of a Medicare Bankruptcy in 2045? Would a discussion of the costs of the New Deal discuss the bankruptcy of Social Security in 2070? How would Stiglitz separate costs directly attributable from the wars in 2040 from the costs of soldiers who simply required the higher standard of care required by an elderly person in 2040 without a time machine? Obviously He can't. This is an unsupportable statement based on a blatent appeal to authority (for an unrelated body of work) that does nothing to advance the reader's understanding of the actual budget deficits from 2001-2008. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know when a common person knowing breaks the law he or she is held accountable for their actions. President George W Bush was told over and over again that his policies where going to break the will of nation and great harm will come of it. It's now the summer of 2010 and we still have not seen the last of what President Bush's Policies did to our nation. I wish there was a way to hold him accoutable to the American People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.124.224.52 (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bush deficit Graph Needs to be Changed or Removed

This image carries the caption "Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006" which must be incorrect because the sourced article from which it takes its data never gives figures for a "breakdown of debt." That article, "FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT: Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion," does supply hypothetical numbers obtained from a CBO report but those numbers concern the effect of legislation enacted from 2001 to mid-2006 on the debt.

Taken literally, this graph is saying to me that the war in Iraq & Afghanistan contributed more than 3x as much to the debt as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid put together.

Some may argue that only the caption should be changed but I think the graph should be deleted. The other ones accompanying this article are sufficient and they are current to 2008 while this graph's data stops in August of 2006 though the article is dated 12/10. A bigger question concerns whether the article's sponsor, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think-tank with a well-known liberal bias, is a legitimate source for Wikipedia. They seem to me to be about as biased to the left as the Heritage Foundation is to the right.TL36 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEconomic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration