Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

Biasness

THis page is SOO BIAS, it is disgraceful. I just has claims made by critics.

It reflects the dominant opinion among economists pretty well, so I would disagree with your assessment (there happen to be far more critics and than admirers among social scientists). We could add more info on the mortage releif program - which was welcomed by most economists, though only as a "baby-step" in the right direction. Signaturebrendel 23:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree some work should be done to eliminate bias in the article and some phrases should be removed because they haven't been cited.--74.203.180.247 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen on the bias, citation #1 of the article is an article written by Karl Rove (a person who definitely has a conflict of interests commenting on the Bush Administration). 71.13.222.6 (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this page is incredibly biased. Citing a column written by a CATO Institute Libertarian for a section on Regulation is like letting Fidel Castro define the efficacy of Capitalism. It's not a wonder the guy who posted it named himself "Bbbbush". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of IPs and now a brand-new editor who thinks the exact same thing. Smells fishy to me, or rather, socky. You have no consensus for these changes, and you are reverting sourced material. I will revert you now, and warn you against such reverts.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warn me?! The "source" you speak of is from a libertarian online magazine. This is not a valid source when discussion the Bush administrations' regulatory practices. I will revert you back and warn you to cease inserting your politically-influence ideology into what is supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedic source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage you not to treat good faith edits as vandalism, Daedalus969. If you disagree with another editor's edit, discuss it. Don't throw around accusations and make blind reverts instead. --auburnpilot talk 23:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd encourage you to not make accusations yourself, if you bothered to look at the contributions of all the involved parties, it looks alot like vote-stacking to me. The edits I reverted are removing sourced material, and are therefore vandalism. It is a kind of page-blanking.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what vote-stacking is. This is the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia. I don't know what you're accusing me of with that and your comment about IP's, but just because something is sourced doesn't make it valid. If I sourced Mein Kampf, would that make it valid?--Beerfinger (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit warring, against consensus, you have been told to stop by two users, one of them an admin. I'm reporting you now.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one who told me to stop, as far as I'm aware. And YOU'RE the one who was "edit warring" by reverting my edit. Report me all you want. Since this is my first time editing Wikipedia, I still haven't figured out how to report you, but rest assured I will return in kind.--Beerfinger (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your mistaken. The removal of vandalism, which is what you were doing(a form of page blanking) is against the rules. You're edit warring against consensus. Having two random IPs agree with you that have no edits outside of the single edits to this page is not consensus.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protected the page for one hour, so now is the time to actually discuss the merits of your edits. Why should the content be removed? Why should it stay? Why isn't the source a reliable source? Why is it a reliable source. Discuss without throwing around accusations. --auburnpilot talk 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, AuburnPilot, and thank you again for your patience with me as I learn how to do all of this. Here are a couply of quotes from your "reliable source" link you kindly provided: "An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." The other is "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." I would like to quote the source that I am questioning, including the name of the writer and the publication, but I can't figure out how to see the previous version now that you've locked it. Needless to say, the headline of the page on which the source COLUMN is written is about "free markets" and the COLUMNIST is from the CATO Institute, which is a Libertarian thinktank. The source claims that Bush was one of the biggest regulators in recent history - this is a fallacy pushed forth by Libertarians in an attempt to deny recent consensus in America that deregulation helped cause our current economic crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 23:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the version before the content was removed and here is the actual removal. The article in question is Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off by Veronique de Rugy (a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University). --auburnpilot talk 23:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually like to comment on the content issue in situations like this, but since Daedalus969 hasn't, I suppose I will. I'm not familiar with Reason (magazine), and can't say definitively if it is a reliable source. I would say that if the content is included, it likely should be introduced as the author's work. In other words, a statement such as "Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has found that xyz". If the Veronique de Rugy's findings are shared by many (and not WP:FRINGE), it should be easy to find other sources to confirm. At that point, attribution to de Rugy wouldn't be necessary. I have no real opinion either way. --auburnpilot talk 23:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a fringe opinion. The only group you will ever see sharing Veronique de Rugy's opinion on this is Libertarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The two sections I have a problem with are:

"Economic regulation expanded rapidly during the Bush administration. President Bush is quoted as the biggest regulator since President Richard Nixon.[6] Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation.[6] Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%.[6]

Spending on regulation increased by 62% from $26.4 billion to $42.7 billion.[6] Whereas President Clinton cut the federal government's regulatory staff, President Bush expanded it by 91,196 workers between 2001 and 2007.[6]"

and

"The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[21] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[51] The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. In contrast to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and Republican presidential primary candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, there is a broad consensus among even conservative economists (including current and former top economists of the Bush Administration such as Greg Mankiw) that the tax cuts have had a substantial net negative impact on revenues (i.e., revenues would have been substantially higher if the tax cuts had not taken place), even taking into account any stimulative effect the tax cuts may have had and any resulting revenue feedback effects.[52] When asked whether the Bush tax cuts had generated more revenue, Laffer stated that he did not know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September 11 attacks and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense."[53]"

The first is a new section. The second is in essence a re-wording. Both edits were made by a user named Bbbbush (emphasis mine).

The source of the first section is "Reason Online" - a Libertarian monthly magazine for the Reason Foundation, a Libertarian thinktank. Their byline is "Free Markets and Free Minds". This is an old adage by Libertarian thinktanks. The source itself, as you can see, is an opinion piece written by Veronique de Rugy. A simple online search of Veronique de Rugy concludes that she is an adjunct scholar at the CATO Institute. The CATO Institute is a Libertarian thinktank.

The source claims that Bush was "the biggest regulator since Nixon." As evidence of this, it claims that increased spending on regulatory agencies constitutes increased regulation. While it may be true that America has spent more on funding it's regulatory agencies over the past 8 years, that does not mean that the result has been more regulation. One of the things that has contributed to the increase in regulatory funding is new hires to the agencies - some of which have been accused of being "in bed" with the very industries they are supposed to be regulating.

The motivation a Libertarian would have to accuse Bush of being a big regulator is because of the current economic crisis. Much of the blame on said crisis has been laid at the feet of deregulation. Deregulation is an age-old goal of Libertarians, so you can see how a CATO Institute Libertarian would be motivated to publish a column making these claims.

How's that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beerfinger (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that the second pillar of Wikipedia is that materials should be unbiased. I think it's pretty clear that was not the case here with Veronica de Rugy. She was the only source in that entire section.--Beerfinger (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the recently removed section is biased. It is a cited study involving facts and numbers and the only allegation of bias submitted is that the source is a "Libertarian" source. However, this is political censorship and should be no more valid for discounting a properly conducted study than if the study was performed by a Democrat or Republican source. I ask that the passage be restored and, if Beerfinger is able to prove that the study is faulty, then remove it. But until he does so, it should remain in place as a valid study and his allegations of bias are unfounded. Furthermore, he cites that the section is an "opinion" that is shared only by libertarians but the study is not an opinion at all. It is a study performed by counting the number of regulatory dollars spent by the Bush administration and involves no "opinion" at all, it deals with raw numbers. For these reasons the content should be restored. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term to use is either lying through omission, preying on the uninformed or subterfuge. In any case, the source is utter bunk. Bush's did increase the number of regulators and regulations, however most of his regulations were 'de'regulations, lowering the standards and trying to get out of the way. Quoting number of regulations is meaningless to the informed because you must write a regulation to repeal a regulation. The raw data in the presented format does not inform the reader and could easily confuse them into thinking that more regulations = more regulation when it could easily mean the exact opposite, and in this specific case Bush was known for passing 'de'regulation much more than his regulation. As this makes no sense, I'll try to make an example here, say Clinton made the first ever kitten/milk based regulation that said Kittens had to drink whole milk. Bush makes a regulation that says to ignore all previous kitten/milk related regulations. Bush just increased the number of kitten/milk based regulations 100% by repealing the previous rule. Sound stupid? Check out the 18th and 21st amendments to the US Constitution. Of course, its quite a bit more complicated than this and there are many levels that the regulations must pass through but you don't see that in the source. So the source deals with raw numbers, but not any raw numbers that will inform anyone about anything useful. For example, did you know Rape skyrockets during summer months? Did you know Snowcone sales skyrocket during summer months? Are they related, of course not. But neither is the amount of regulation versus the number of pages in the Federal Registry. RTRimmel (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I feel the study should still be included with the explanation that Bush increased regulation spending, though that spending might have increased personnel and had the effect of deregulation. It is an important study to note, because at the same time many people believe that Bush represented small government and lack of regulation, but while he may have used his spending to increase regulatory spending and regulatory employees, which necessitated increased red tape and procedures when it came to the regulatory process even if the net effect was to loosen oversight in general. Employing regulatory agents and increasing regulatory spending, as Bush did, factually, is still an important part of his economic policy. If the effect of the increased regulation was the loosening of oversight of some industries, users should be able to find similar date to cite that discusses how Bush used increased regulatory agents and regulations to actually decrease regulation. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're now admitting that the source is biased, but I don't see why the study is important to note. It is disingenuous in its attempt to characterize Bush as a deregulator, which he most certainly was not. To the contrary. What is so important about that study? If the only reason Bush created new regulations was because due process forced him to do so in order to achieve his goal of deregulation, why then bother cite this study at all? Unless your goal is to specifically use the study to mislead people, just as Veronica de Rugy did?--Beerfinger (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not admitting the source is biased, I admitted that it was a libertarian source and have never tried to hide that. The source is not an opinion piece, it is based on a study that one can download via .pdf and you can see the stats for yourself: regulatory spending and agency employees increased across the board more than any other time in history. Are we to believe this is not an important part of Bush's regulatory and economic policy? If Bush's intent was merely to abolish all regulations, why the need for increased regulatory agents? Do we have some sort of evidence that proved that he deregulated all agencies? In fact, the housing and mortgage lending sectors seemed to be regulated more than ever, as well as several others. Characterizing Bush as "laissez-faire" because he looted a few sectors, such as energy, is also subterfuge. It implies that hands off regulation by its nature is designed to benefit corporations, when in fact, it was DESIGNED regulation that was designed to benefit corporations. This is an important distinction and Bush's army of regulatory agents to carry out these actions should be noted and distinguished from true libertarianism, which, it should be noted, offered strong resistance to Bush's regulatory schemes THROUGHOUT his presidency. You would think if this was revisionist history only reflecting the economic collapse, their opposition to him while he was deregulating would have been non-existant. Instead, it is the exact opposite. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't seem to get it. You're taking this too personally. This is not a condemnation of your ideology, as a Libertarian or anything else. This is merely about the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a town square where anyone can stand on a soapbox and scream their point of view. That's exactly what Bbbbush did with his post and linking to Veronica de Rugy's column the way he did. No one said anything about Bush being or not being laissez-faire. Your insistence on trying to make this about the virtues and merits of your own ideology proves just how wrong Bbbbush's entry was. But, to answer your question, the reason Bush increased funding for the regulatory agencies was precisely to decrease regulations by asserting his influence - whether that be by hiring like-minded individuals or something else, the net effect was to deregulate.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I have said multiple times now, the study is not biased and studies that provide facts have a place in encyclopedias. If a re-writing of Bbbbush's entry is in order, I have already indicated I am amenable to that, and that it can be properly contextualized by stating that Bush's desire might have been to deregulate certain sectors (this can be supported with more facts and links as they are found), but that all his involvement also had the effect of increased red tape and cronyism. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which study, exactly, you are referring to? The only study in Veronique's column is from another libertarian source whom I believe she works with.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't stopped supporting that notion; my contention is that Bush was the heaviest regulatory President we have ever seen. You just don't like what he did with the regulations (and neither do I). He still employed the agents. He still set the bad regulatory policy. But this isn't is the same as deregulation. And furthermore, many sectors were, in actuality, more heavily LEGITIMATELY regulated than at any other point in history (housing and mortgage lending). -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you're just plain, flat-out wrong. Bush created regulations for the sole purpose to deregulate, including the mortgage market.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just hope THAT political opinion doesn't go into wikipedia without facts as good as the ones provided in this study. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you are reconciling your admission that the Bush administration used regulations to deregulate markets with your claim that Bush was the biggest regulator since Nixon. On one hand, you're saying that Bush deregulated markets (even if, because of procedure, he was forced to create new regulations to do so). On the other hand, you're saying that Bush was a big regulator. You're continuing to try to have your cake and eat it to, despite the fact that you're admitting it tastes like you-know-what.--Beerfinger (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He did that in SOME areas; not all. In some areas, he was a huge regulator. In fact, Democrats opposed oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back in 2003... simply look at this article about an oversight agency of that organization which never came to pass.... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink .... Bush DID heavily regulate many sectors. This heavy regulation makes him one of our heaviest regulating presidents, at least since Nixon. It's not like he had to compete with all that many.... Reagan? Bush I? Clinton? Hell, Clinton is the one who DEREGULATED Glass-Steagall, thus giving rise to this characterization of Bush as the heaviest regulating President since Nixon. Maybe this isn't enough for your political preference, but it's still a supportable contention. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The irony in that article, which is from 2003, is that immediately after that was when most of the subprime mortgages began to be written. Coincidence?--Beerfinger (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it also demonstrates Bush's ability and willingness to regulate where Democrats were not. This elevates him, among other areas, over some other recent Presidents of the past. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Again, Bush's increase in regulatory spending did not actually have anything to do with increasing regulation. On the contrary.--Beerfinger (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and as I said.... AGAIN... lets hope THAT ^ political opinion does not go into wikipedia without some corroboration from non-biased sources. It is a complete fabrication that every Bush regulatory action was a deregulation. It is simply not true. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion to say that Bush's increase in regulatory spending did not actually have anything to do with increasing regulation.--Beerfinger (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is. The contention that Bush did not increase regulation in a single sector is patently absurd and not in the mainstream whatsoever. You must therefore be talking about specific sectors, and such claims would require unbiased sources to verify them. You seem to be operating under some mistaken notion that you are the arbiter of the exact truth at this site and that anything you claim is the "mainstream" is therefore uncontradictable. If that is the stated policy of wikipedia, then they are no less biased than those they are seeking to denounce as fringe. To claim that Bush did not engage in serious regulation in many areas, as I said before, is simply false. You should not be able to simply disagree and pretend it is under the mantle of the "mainstream." If you have evidence to support the claim that every single regulation Bush passed was in fact a deregulation, then you should be able to provide it. If not, the clearly common sense view was that many heavy regulations were still formulated during the Bush administration. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth. I never made the claim that "every single regulation Bush passed was in fact a deregulation." Nor did I ever say that Bush "did not increase regulation in a single sector." What I've been doing is objecting to the characterization of Bush as a big regulator. That is not the same as saying that Bush never regulated anything. Surely, in his eight years in office, he regulated something. But the vast majority of the regulations that were created during his tenure were actually deregulations. Again, the source for this that you seek is the Federal Register. I'm losing my patience with you mischaracterizing my argument for your own benefit.--Beerfinger (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has occurred to me, however, that what you might be objecting to is the use of the term "since Nixon." That is, I suppose, unverifiable either way given the current data we have, and I don't want you to think that is what I am arguing to have put in the article here. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is with the attempt to misrepresent the Bush administration as somehow being a big regulator and, in turn, blaming regulation as being the cause of the current economic crisis. That theory is specifically a libertarian one pushed forth in order to deflect some of the heat being created by the fact that deregulation, something libertarians support, is being blamed for much of the crisis. --Beerfinger (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is further worth noting that I see no mention of "libertarianism" as a fringe theory and classifying a study as fringe simply because it's source is a libertarian source seems to me to be a dangerous policy and should be avoided. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AuburnPilot has already directed you to the Wikipedia policy of Fringe Theories Wikipedia:Fringe theories.--Beerfinger (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe AuburnPilot has stated that libertarian sources should be classified as "fringe" sources. And if he did, I would feel he is incorrect. Libertarians should not be considered "fringe" sources as they are a valid political party and not any more prone to lies or misinformation than Democrats or Republicans (indeed, some might say less). Furthermore, any "opinion" interjection by the author can easily be contextualized by wikipedia writers, and the raw facts, which are not opinions, are still valid to prove an essential point regarding George W. Bush's economic policy. If they are not incorrect, then they are factual, and should be allowed to be posted to demonstrate that point; namely, that Bush still increased red tape, regulatory agents, and regulatory spending. This spending wasn't being spent on nothing. To insinuate that it was, as an earlier poster put it, would be a lie by omission. Bush was not a laissez-faire president and to paint him as such would be incorrect. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Democratic Party is a fringe party. The Republican Party is a fringe party. Somehow, you seem to think that the Libertarian Party is above this. It's not. What made Veronica de Rugy's column inadequate as a source was the way user Bbbbush phrased his entry. All Wiki entries should be unbiased. It's an encyclopedia, mschmidt, not your own personal pavilion for espousing your political views and opinions. I'm sure I could easily find an editorial by Paul Krugman in which he would supply statistics to support his opinion that socializing healthcare is the best option for America, but that wouldn't make it valid to post here as is, without any clarification about its biased source and without any reference to differing points of view. And you continue to pretend that the facts presented in Veronica de Rugy's column aren't intended to mislead. They are there explicitly for that reason, which makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel it's so important to add a section that says that Bush was not a "laissez-faire president", I invite you to do so.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not see any classification of any of the parties as fringe. But regardless, this piece was not an opinion piece. It was a factual provision of data that Bush's regulatory spending was the highest since Nixon. You claim that your problem is that Bbbbush phrased his entry in a biased way, but I have already said that I feel a new write-up can be created that will better contextualize the FACTS presented by the study. The study itself, however, should not be discounted as biased, and its removal is just as much an attempt to espouse political views and opinions as a biased entry would be, as I know you are partial to demonstrating that laissez-faire caused the current recession. The data in that study demonstrates that this contention isn't entirely true, even if Bush was using regulatory agents to pawn off assets to cronies, because that is not laissez-faire economics. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course Wikipedia does not list every single possible fringe source in the world. A fringe theory is described as follows: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth." For the umpteenth time, while the data is technically factual, the way it is being used and interpreted is biased. This is not the first time someone in this world has done that. That Bush was somehow a deregulator is most certainly NOT a mainstream view. That, by definition, makes Veronica de Rugy's column a fringe source.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the view that Bush was heavily involved with the regulatory processes and burdened them with increased agents and regulations is a factual stance that is not opinion or misleading. Again I must cite the housing and mortgage lending sectors, which were heavily regulated, or the energy sector, which was looted. These things do not fit under the classification of "deregulation" yet are factually demonstrable via assistance from this study. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mschmidt, if you want to add an entry to this article about the housing and mortgage lending sectors, no one is stopping you. It will, of course, be subject to the same scrutiny that this is. Already, I can tell you that deregulation (through, as discussed, new regulations) is what allowed "Credit Default Swaps" to happen to the mortgage market. And we all know how those worked out. So, again, the assertion that those markets were over-regulated is also disingenuous.--Beerfinger (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that is true about the credit default swaps, I don't think they tell the whole story about either the economy or the Bush administration's attitude towards regulatory agencies in general. Instead, it, along with energy, is just the most obvious and easiest example to cite. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an example of something that, in your mind, more accurately depicts Bush's regulatory attitude towards the mortgage market? Your claim that the mortgage market was overly regulated flies in the face of all of the evidence that's been presented to us since the housing bubble burst. I'm just wondering what information you're leaning on to make such claims.--Beerfinger (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that the housing market wasn't heavily invested with government oversight and pressure? Because that would go against all the evidence that I've seen. Keep in mind I'm not arguing that Bush was a model regulator. Just the heaviest we've had in our history, in terms of overall expenditures, and that he was no laissez-faire president. This is a point that needs to be communicated, and is entirely appropriate being displayed through facts in an encyclopedia entry. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My evidence is the general accepted consensus, but I would appreciate it if you answered my question instead of posing me with another question as your response. Saying Bush was the heaviest regulator we've had in terms of overall expenditure means nothing, as has already been established. Overall expenditures is not an accurate measure of level of regulation.--Beerfinger (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that your contention is the generally accepted consensus. In fact it is my understanding that the entire reason that Democrats opposed an additional oversight agency on Fannie and Freddie was because it would jeopardize their commitments to low-income housing policy platforms. Though in that case they were not pressuring the industry with oversight agencies, but it was government pressure nonetheless. In reality, the fact that mortgage lending was backed up by government-created corporations (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) plus a host of other regulations really underlies this argument. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that we can debate these points so finely should be all the proof that one needs that Bush was not the deregulator some would paint him to be. This is besides the point, however, and I'm glad we've resolved that the data from the study can be re-inserted if re-contextualized with the caveat that increased federal regulatory expenditures doesn't mean that Bush wasn't simply increasing red tape, and loosening controls on SOME areas. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Republicans in the senate and Bush administration actually killed the additional regulations on Fannie and Freddy because their belief is the additional regulations were not going to actually resolve the issues the regulations were penned to. Not that the democrats were all that fond of it, but the regulations did pass in the house twice and were blocked in the senate twice.
Being able to debate points when one side is very creative in the use of data does very little to actuall prove that Bush is much of anything. The article in question is a single source and not backed up by enough solid evidence that it should be used. Find another source that agrees with it. If you are correct and its not fringe, that should be quite easy. If the source is fringe it shouldn't be here in the first place. The way the article presents her conclusions from the study are very biased and not that informative. I'd just find the study itself without all the POV baggage that comes from Veronique. RTRimmel (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've agreed that the "article" may draw some misleading conclusions but that the study itself is not "fringe" because it is not an opinion and instead is just a recounting of the Federal Register. Calling it "fringe" would be the same as calling the Federal Register "fringe." I can find a link directly to the study that doesn't use that article. The study itself was published, among other places, by Reuters and the New York Times. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times piece you speak of is, again, a column - an opinion piece called "Economic View". It was written by Tyler Cowen who, not surprisingly, is an economics professor at George Mason U. and director of the James Buchanan Center. In case anyone is unaware, James Buchanan is a LIBERTARIAN economist. There is no doubt that libertarians have an agenda here and that they've all gotten the memo. Mr. Cowen's column basically rehashes everything Veronique wrote in hers. It tries to paint the Bush administration as a big regulator by purposefully misrepresenting the results of this study. The Reuter's article is the closest thing to an article that exists, but even it seems to have missed the mark. While it makes certain to refer to the increase in "Bush Regulatory Spending" instead of merely saying that Bush increased regulations, the article is still misleading and even quotes Veronique de Rugy as a source. There is a clear and discernible link between all of these, and that is that they all mislead the reader - either intentionally or not - and by no stretch of the imagination do they represent the mainstream.--Beerfinger (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wouldn't be citing the opinion article of the NYT itself (though the Reuters article, as you admit, is not opinion -- but I wouldn't be citing it either). As I said I can find a link to the pdf of the study with the numbers itself, and I'm capable of writing a paragraph that cites the study and says that Bush Regulatory SPENDING went up. I bring up the NYT and Reuters article merely to cite that respectable media institutions clearly believe the numbers in the study are credible, not for the conclusions in the articles themselves. However, I believe that if any assertion is made that Bush used the regulatory spending to deregulate in actuality, it should also have a source showing factual proof. There is a lot of contention here on what the "mainstream" belief is but those contentions are being putforth by parties as biased towards their own interpretation of what is "mainstream" as any libertarian. I do not think it unreasonable to ask for that corroboration. -- Mschmidt64 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone will stop you from writing that the Bush administration increased regulatory spending as long as it's clear that the result of that was decreased regulation and not the opposite. However, the Federal Registry is the "proof" you're requesting. It just so happens that Veronique de Rugy happened to intentionally misrepresent the facts within the registry in order to advance her own libertarian agenda. If the registry is explained with a neutral POV, it will be made clear that the increased money spent on funding American regulatory agencies during the Bush years was with the intent to decrease regulations overall, not increase them. Throughout her piece, Veronique chose to cite only other libertarian sources to back up her assertions, including people she works with. If you do indeed choose to write something about it, I would suggest you read the Wikipedia NPOV, Verifiability and NOR guidelines as well as the NPOV Tutorial and FAQ before doing so. --Beerfinger (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break, and some transparency

I was only in this for the removal of sourced info. Now that the discussion has descended into politics, for a lack of better words, I'm out. Peace.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Income Brackets

In order to just get the facts out there, I think this page should include some of the actual figures of the Bush tax cuts. They are available on reference #12, and they could be simplified for the sake of easy reading on this page. For example, the top marginal income rate went from 39.6% to 35%, as the article states, but brackets for middle-income earners also went down. The ~$40,000-$100,000 bracket went down from 27.5% to 25%, between 2000 and 2003. --AaronM (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information about all of the rate cuts, instead of just information about the marginal rate, which implies that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the top earners. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not add a table showing the relative reduction in each income tax bracket, a second table for the Capital gains reductions, and finally a table showing increasing exclusion/deduction limits for 401k, Roth IRA, primary residence sale and the estate tax. This would be far more educational than the musings of a leftist partisan like Paul Krugman (who really shouldn't be cited in a serious article for his opinions since he really isn't offered as more than a celebrity-based appeal to authority based on past work that has nothing to do with his analysis.) 173.168.129.57 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of data

An anon IP author attempted to disprove the statement quoted from Brookings Institution (a centrist think-tank) with CBO data regarding the income of the top 1% between 2001 & 2004. First, that is OR. There is a difference between quoting reputable economists, representative of their profession when they state that tax cuts redistributed income from lower/working/middle to upper class households, and attempting to prove the opposite oneself with CBO data (the former is OK according to WP policy, while the latter is not). Moreover, the tax cuts went into effect in 2003; thus, the decline of income experienced among the top 1% in 2001-2003 (which in turn caused their mean income to be lower in '04 then in '01) is irrelevant here; especially as the gains made by that group since 2004 have more than off-set the fleeting decline in mean income experienced between 2001-2003 by that group - propelling its total share of income to the highest level since 1929. Least but not last, Townhall.com is not, unlike the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a reputable or acceptable source. No reputable source sells t-shirts advocating a political ideology on the margins of its articles.Signaturebrendel 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked the reference to the CBO data (you DID check the reference, right?), you would see that it was an article that cited CBO data. Therefore, it is not OR. Secondly, the tax cuts went into effect in both 2001 and 2003, which means that data from 2000 to 2005 is indeed relevant (and even if it weren’t, your claim that it is irrelevant is OR). And finally, Townhall.com is an acceptable source, unless you can prove that the facts cited in the article are inaccurate. I am restoring the deleted section, unless you can find another source showing that the cited article is factually inaccurate. 17.224.39.200 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Townhall.com is not itself acceptable, CBO data is. The article itself is not OR - you misunderstood. The fact that you are using this data in order to prove our point: that the Busht tax cuts didn't increase inequality makes it OR. Moreover, the data is irrelevant as we have data that doesn't end in 2004 but 2005. Income growth in Bush's second term among the top 1% has off-set their loses that came with the 2001-2002 downturn. Stating that their income has not increased faster than that of the general population in an abritrarily chosen timeframe is nothing short of misleading. Signaturebrendel 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not use the CBO data in order to prove my point; Reynolds did in his article. Furthermore, I dispute your claim that articles on Townhall.com are not “acceptable.” You believe that the data is irrelevant, but that itself is OR. As for “misleading,” you are quoting facts like “the average after-tax income of the top 1% rose by an inflation adjusted $146,000” to demonstrate the supposed “income inequality,” when that data does not prove anything without relevant information about changes in income for the other 99% for the same period. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if “the data is irrelevant as we have data that doesn't end in 2004 but 2005,” then I’m sure you’ll pull your reference that “the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004.” If you can cite information based on 2004 numbers, why can’t I? 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, from a quick perusal of your edits, it sounds like you deleted any references that say that the tax cuts were equitable, and replaced them with more references saying that the tax cuts benefitted the rich. On the basis of your edits, this article is at risk of losing NPOV. Competing viewpoints should be welcomed, not deleted because of your bias. 17.224.39.200 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viewpoint are welcome, but they article needs to give due weight to the views that currently dominate academia. The vast majority of economists hold the view that these tax cuts benefited the rich disproportionately (almost so that one could say the Busht tax cuts benefiting the rich unproportionately is a "fact," i.e. established through scientific consensus); this article will give that view due weight. As for the removal of sources; I removed townhall as it is not a credible sources (that's the one source I removed). So far I have added most of the sources in the article, most of which come from centrist non-paritsan think tanks (Brookings, CBPP) - something that can't be said for townhall.com. I will not remove credible sources, so long as they are not used for the purpose of OR and the article gives due weight to the most widely accepted views among social scientists. Signaturebrendel 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do NOT believe that the “vast majority of economists” believe that tax cuts benefitted the rich disproportionately; in fact, from researching this topic, I find that many people cite the same data from Piketty/Saez that has been disputed by Reynolds. However, I have not removed that information, but only added Reynolds’ opinion. And again, you do not have the right to remove the Townhall.com article, as it was written by Reynolds, who you have already cited as a credible source. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They do. If you don't beleive the research, conduct a study of your own, get it published and we can talk about including it. Townhall is not a reputable source, since it's content is not properly reviewed and it does not uphold a high standard for accuracy or manner of discourse - even an expert like Reynolds might post something there that is not credible; if his work is published through a university or think tank, however, I know its credible. Besides, Reynold's argument was kept - I simply added a response to his claims by Gary Burtless. Signaturebrendel 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Assume good faith, do not accuse editors of attempting to perpetuate their personal agenda; doing so is in violation of WP policy. Signaturebrendel 08:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to “assume good faith,” and accuse me of violating WP policy…yet just minutes before, you accuse me of “pushing a libertarian/conservative agenda”? I sense some hypocrisy here. As for my edits, I have been adding and clarifying information, while you have been rephrasing many of my statements to downplay or trivialize the conclusions. If you claim that I am violating Wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith, then I claim that you are violating Wikipedia policy by removing information that is verifiable, and thus belongs in the article. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most changes kept

As you have used more reputable sources this time (though CATO is bias, but we do allow think tank on WP), I have kept just about all your changes, though I did add critique of Reynold and added an explicit position regarding the stance most economists take on the issue of inequality. Also, we use seasonally adjusted figures regarding unemployment; thus, it was at 4.2, not 4.7 per cent in Janurary '01. If you would like to add unadjusted data, go ahead. Signaturebrendel 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the same sources (i.e. Reynolds) as before. I will go through and examine your changes to see what you have edited or removed needlessly; from what I have seen, you are again trying to provide information that is misleading and unsupported by fact. I hope you were less reckless with your reverts this time, but somehow I doubt it. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all misleading. Most edits were left, but I will maintain the article as to reflect the dominant view among our references. Once more, I will examine your changes as well, as I suspect, even while assuming good faith, that you are pushing a libertarian/conservative agenda that is not supported by most research or experts. Moreover, do not accuse me of being misleading, all data and statement I add are in consensus with the views dominant in the social scientific community (your are not). Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted Rephrasing

Brendel, I am noticing a disturbing trend among your edits, where you rephrase sections for no other reason than to downplay the facts that don’t support the anti-Bush agenda. For example, I wrote: “According to a March 2006 report by the Joint Economic Committe, the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.” All of this is factually accurate, and taken directly from the cited report. However, you rephrased it as: “Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, the U.S. did experience greater growth in GDP, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability than most other developed countries.” So first, you add in the “despite growth levels…” disclaimer, which is redundant to the previous paragraphs. Then you took out the reference to the 2001–2005 time period, removed the reference to “large developed economies” (the group that the study specifically cited), and changed it to “most other developed countries.” The overall purpose is to soften the factual statements from the report, presumably to support some agenda of your own. I am restoring the original phrasing; if you can find something factually inaccurate with what I wrote, let me know. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to support an agenda of my own, but the statement needs a transistion from the previous paragraph. Otherwise you imply a contradiction in data or some type of controversy (e.g. some say A, some say B). Such is not the case. The U.S. economy grew much slower under Bush than the average for business cycles between '45-'00 but sill faster than other large developed countries. There is no contradiction; thus, I added a transition to clarify this for the reader. The disclaimer is, therefore, no redundant. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will accept that the transition is not redundant. What about the other changes? 75.30.225.147 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another change which I feel is unwarranted and biased. My original summary of an article was: "Between 2003 and 2004, the year following the 2003 tax cuts, the share of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2 percent in 2003 to 14.0 percent in 2004, equivalent to an inflation adjusted $146,000 per household. (This followed the period from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined the most for the top 1%.)" This was modified to read: "Between 2003 and 2004, the year following the tax cuts, the average after-tax income of the top 1% rose by an inflation adjusted $146,000." Again, going through the changes one by one: There were tax cuts in 2001, 2002, and 2003, so it is important to say WHICH tax cuts; when talking about increases, the data is more significant if you include the percentage increase, because an absolute number is irrelevant without knowing the relative percentage; and why did you remove the statement (also in the article) that after-tax incomes declined from 2000 to 2002 the MOST for the top 1%? I suppose if someone wanted to, they could say that you were biased to include the period where income for the top 1% went UP the most, while omitting the period where income for the top 1% went DOWN the most. But of course, I would not accuse you of bias, because I assume the best. Oh, and you also removed the CBO data which shows that the tax liabilities went up for the top 1%, while tax liabilites for the bottom 80% went down. If you want to make a point about how tax cuts caused inequality among income groups, then that would be an important statistic to cite. It is much more relevant than citing a meaningless statistic like “the after-tax income for the top 1% rose by $146,000.” 75.30.225.147 (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course their tax liablities went up! they garnered half of all income gains, with their share of income increasing from 12.2% to 14%; as their share of income increased so did their overall liablitiy, despite a rate cut. The CBO data does not contradict any other statements in the article. Obviously if a group's share of income increases sufficiently, they will burden a greater share of tax liablity even if given a rate cut and less progressive taxation system. You can see the effects in the CBO article clearly: share of income went up by 14.7% while their share of tax liablity went up by 10.4%; how come their share of income increased 4 percentage points faster than their share of tax liability? The tax cut (had it not been for the cut, their share of tax liability would have increased as fast their share of income). Their per dollar tax burden decreased as evident in faster growth of their share of aggregate income vs. their share of overall tax liability (aside from increased share of aggregate net income & lower tax rates). One should definitely not add the word "but," as to imply that there was some sort of contradiction of some sort when there clearly isn't one. PS. After-tax income is not meaningless; it is one of the best tools to measure inequality (of course whether or not you or I see it as important is irrelevant. I'm sorry if I removed the CBO report by mistake before; it's a great source! Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I checked your math, and you are wrong when you said, "how come their share of income increased 4 percentage points faster than their share of tax liability? The tax cut (had it not been for the cut, their share of tax liability would have increased as fast their share of income)." Even if tax rates are fixed, tax liability does not increase at the same rate as share of income. Check the math yourself if you don’t believe me. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

Brendel, I don’t know what to do with you. As you obviously know, there are always statistics which support one viewpoint or another. However, you seem determined to remove all statistics which show how tax cuts have lowered the tax burden of the bottom 80%, and instead choose to add statistics which show that the top 1% have gained more income. Is this really how Wikipedia works: You just remove statistics that you disagree with or feel are irrelevant, and replace them with statistics which support your own viewpoint? I am tired of you removing the same sections over and over again without justification or explanation. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality information

I'm totally open to fixing POV, OR, and referencing issues. Please point them out so that we can discuss them instead of deleting big sections of the article. johnpseudo 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would post a discussion on the Talk page, but previous attempts at discussion have been ignored (see above). As I have stated in the past, Brendel seems determined to add references supporting one position (usually while deleting the other), cherry-picks information out of referenced articles, and in some cases, simply rephrases sections to emphasize one viewpoint over another. For example, he replaced this section:
While the administration has stated that the tax cuts have spurred economic growth, critics have pointed out that growth in GDP, paid jobs, and income has remained below average.
…with this:
Critics of the tax cuts have assert that they failed to spur growth, increased inequality, made the tax structure less progressive and contributed to a record deficit, despite the administration's claim to the contrary.
The first one appears (to me) to be saying, “The administration believes X, but critics believe Y,” while the second says, “The critics point out X, Y, and Z, but the administration disagrees with all of that.” The first sounds like a balanced statement of both views; the second is a blanket dismissal of an administration that is implicitly untrustworthy. But when I revert that kind of change, my edit is quickly reverted. Can someone explain to me how Brendel can make blatantly POV edits like this, but my attempts to fix it are rebuffed? The Vidiot (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of these versions is good. Phrase "Critics believe" is weasely, and phrases like that should be replaced with specific mentioning of who believes what- preferably with a clarification of what the truth is, e.g.
"Since the tax cuts implemented in 2001, income inequality has increased between the richest and poorest Americans, with the real median income falling by 2% while the income of the richest 1% grew by 3%.[1] Some non-profit groups such as OMBWatch[2], Center on Budget and Policy Priorities[3], and the Tax Policy Center[4] have attributed some of this rise in income inequality to the decreased progressiveness of Bush tax policy. In February of 2007, President Bush addressed the rise of inequality for the first time, saying "The reason is clear: We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education"[5]."
johnpseudo 23:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that does look much better. As far as weasely lanugage goes, there are a lot of phrases like that in the current article. In particular, there are many of the form, “Most economists think X…while conservative economists think Y.” Again, the implication is that the majority is right, while the minority (which is conservative, and therefore implicitly biased) is wrong. I have posted rebuttals to some criticisms, but some of those were deleted as being “biased” (i.e. conservative).
Another question is, how should statistics be dealt with? Especially with income and taxes, different views of the same statistics can imply completely different things. For example, with a statement like, “The top 1% got a $100,000 discount on their taxes, while the bottom 20% only got $500 back”: that may be technically accurate, but it doesn’t include the fact that the top 1% paid $400,000 in taxes before, while the bottom 20% paid $600, so the bottom 20% received a much higher percentage of their money back. One recent study which was cited did the exact same thing, saying that the rich got a 4% tax cut, while the bottom 20% only received a 1.9% tax cut…except the tax rate for the top 1% went from 35% to 31%, while the tax rate for the bottom 20% went from 6% to 4%. Saying “the rich got a bigger tax cut,” is factually correct, but it is also correct to say that the rich had their taxes cut by 12%, the poor had their taxes cut by 34%, the rich paid an even greater share of the tax burden after the cuts, and so on. So, with so many “lies, damn lies, and statistics,” how do you choose which stats to include and which ones to omit? The Vidiot (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't chose and interpret statistics, our sources do. The inequality info currently in the article represents the conclusions economists have reaced and published based on current statistics. These are secondary sources which already include any relevant normative statements; thus, the interpretation of statistics in the article is not that of the editors but that of the scholars who published the sources used in this article. It is them who see the Bush cuts as contributing to increased inequality, contributing to a record deficit will not spurring growth - none of this is OR as all these conclusions were found by the reputable scholars cited in the article, who (according to recent surveys) are representative of most economists. If disagree with them, publish your opinion in a journal and convince the social scientific community that your interpretation of the statistics is correct. But so long as most economists see inequality in the U.S. as excessive & see the cuts as contributing to this rising inequality, Wikipedia will represent this view with due weight.
The implication that most economists are corrent and the minority is wrong was added by you, not this article. That most economists support progressive taxation and see inequality in this country as excessive and the need for more redistribution is a relevent fact, which will be mentioned in this artcile. You cannot justify the omission of a fact becuase of the way you beleive that fact will be interpreted by the audience - that's a clear violation of NPOV that will not be allowed. You will need to let the reader decide whether or not he trusts the majority of economists or the (conservative) minority who support the cuts. That said, this article will give more weight to the opinion of the majority of expert - that's what an encyclopedia does; and unless you convince all the academics that Bush cuts were a good idea, that's what this article will do.
I will gone from WP for a while (busy in real life), but upon my return will check this article and correct any violation to WP policy regarding due wright, NPOV and OR. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have in fact chosen statistics. You have cited facts from sources such as the CBO report, saying, “The top 1% got a refund of X thousand dollars, while the bottom 20% only got X hundred dollars back.” When you cite one data point like that, it sounds like the top 1% are getting a much better deal, but you omit the fact that they are already paying a much greater portion of their income in taxes. You can say, “The top 1% got a larger tax cut,” or you can say, “The tax rate of the top 1% received a refund of 5% of their taxes, while the bottom 20% received a refund of 60% of their taxes.” So yes, WHICH facts you cite has a great influence on the implied conclusion, especially from a data-rich source as the CBO.
I have attempted to provide balance by citing reports by economists with the contrary view. However, you have either deleted those references (claiming they were “biased”), rephrased their findings, downplayed their significance, or referred to other sources which criticize THOSE economists. You keep noting that “most economists” are against the Bush tax cuts, while “conservative economists” are the ones who support them. Again, the implication is that “most economists” are unbiased and correct, while “conservative economists” are inherently biased, and therefore their findings can not be trusted.
And then you have things like the recent blanket revert, where you undid several revisions’ worth of progress (including typos and nonsensical sentence fragments) without any justification. And somehow, I am the one accused of removing facts. From now on, I will fight these unwarranted rephrasings, and deletion of facts that have been added to the article. To start with, I will undo your latest blanket revert, and ask you to discuss here what changes you feel should be made to the article. For example, why do you think this:
Median household income has kept up with inflation since Bush took control of fiscal policy during the 2001 near-recession, growing slightly higher in constant 2006 dollars in 2006 to $48,200 from $48,100 in 2001[6], while poverty rose slightly from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.3% in 2006.
should be replaced with this:
Median household income, when adjusted for inflation, has remained stagnant since Bush took office, while poverty rose slightly.
The first part seems more NPOV, better referenced, and more detailed.The Vidiot (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Edits

Honestly, does anyone use this page for discussion about proposed changes any more? With the latest round of edits, I noticed a disturbing trend, where relevant information is being removed as “POV pushing" and "OR", when the sections removed are neither. Meanwhile, large sections are being "edited" by copying and pasting those same sections from previous versions, often introducing the same typos and grammatical errors which have been fixed over the course of weeks or months previously. This kind of slipshod editing is bad for the article, and should be avoided. If you are going to remove whole paragraphs of information, at least TRY to explain why those paragraphs are inaccurate. The Vidiot (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vidiot's edits

Vidiot's edits included three aspects that I oppose. I started three sub-sections for discussion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bkwillwm, since you do not appear interested in discussing the matter, I restored the edits that you previously changed. If you disagree with them, please discuss them here instead of changing them again. The Vidiot (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush tax cut progressivity

Diff Vidiot cites a Tax Foundation blog post that claims that the Bush tax cut made the tax code more progressive. The blog post argues that the wealthy now pay a larger share of the US's tax burden. This is a redefinition of tax progressivity. A progressive tax is one where, as a person's income goes up, the greater the share of their income that they pay in tax. A tax is considered more progressive when higher income individuals pay at a higher rate, this is the standard definition for what tax progressivity is and the blog post is just spin. We can include that fact that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the total tax paid, but that is only because they are wealthy. Vidiot also added this cite from the CBPP, which does a pretty good job of refuting everything that the Tax Foundation argued, and what Vidiot tried to post. The CBPP article says the complete opposite of the text that references it.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blog post does not define progressivity as “the wealthy now pay a larger share of the U.S.’s tax burden.” It specifically says that progressivity for a given income group is the ratio of the tax share to the income share; if that ratio is going up over time, then the tax code is becoming more progressive. And higher income individuals DO pay taxes at a higher rate, as the CBO numbers show. I also dispute the claim that “We can include that fact that the wealthy are paying a higher share of the total tax paid, but that is only because they are wealthy”: The wealthy pay both a higher share of the total tax, AND a higher share of taxes as a percentage of their income. For example, in 2004, the top 10% earned 38.8% of all income, yet paid 52.3% of all taxes. If the tax code were not progressive, then tax share and income share would be equal.
Part of the problem is that other editors are doing what you accuse me of: posting facts that, while true, imply something other than what is intended. For example, the passage that says:
"the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004, after adjusting for inflation, a one-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This increase was the largest increase in 15 years, measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars."
Again, using these absolute numbers says nothing about progressivity or inequality. The after-tax income went up because the pre-tax income went up, which has nothing to do with tax rates. It is possible for a tax code to become more progressive, while the top 1% still get large tax breaks (and in fact, that has happened). But by quoting large numbers like this, the editor tries to imply a conclusion which is not supported by the facts.
Finally, the CBPP report does not use the traditional definition of progressivity, as the Tax Foundation article points out:
“Some attempt to measure progressivity based upon the pre-tax share of income versus the after-tax share of income, implicitly stating that the goal of progressivity is to redistribute income. The problem with such measures is that almost any tax cut will appear as if the tax code has gotten less progressive, even though it is possible that the dollar amount of redistribution to the poor could increase in the process.”
But of course, attempts to point out this redefinition are usually removed as OR. The Vidiot (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't that the tax is not progressive. By most measures, the tax decreased in progressivity though. I think the best solution is to explain the way that the Tax Foundation blog post defines progressivty compared to how others, like the CBPP, define it, and cite each argument appropriately. Once again, I'll be offline for awhile, so it'll take awhile for me to put something together.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote deletion

Diff Vidiot removed a quote and said that it was "hypothetical." Only one part of the quote was at all hypothetical, and it was a budget forecast, which is perfectly acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Vidiot then reverted it again and said that even the parts that weren't forecast related were "estimates." Considering all economic numbers are estimates, I think this argument is even less legitimate.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of why I removed the quote is because it does not flow with the rest of the section. The editor simply took a quote from a liberal economist and dropped it in the middle of a section, without any attempt to connect it or make it flow correctly. And again, the quote is hypothetical in multiple parts, and again implies something not supported by the facts. Of course tax cuts are going to “disproportinonally (sp) [benefit] wealthy taxpayers,” because those are the people who have a much higher income. But again, that does not mean that the tax cuts are “massive government-engineered trasnfer of additional wealth from the lower and middle classes to the rich”; it just means that, all else being equal, those who make more will receive more when taxes are cut.
I am noticing a disturbing trend in this article, where certain quotes are repeatedly cut as being “OR” or from a “conservative” source, while quotes like this from a liberal source can never be removed once added, even if they are used to imply things that are not supported by the facts. It is getting increasingly frustrating to see people like 207.177.231.5 who come in every few months and massively revert an article (often reintroducing typos that had been fixed) that has actually made progress in the intervening period. The Vidiot (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputes are handled on a case by case basis in Wikipedia. If something was removed that shouldn't have been, you can contest that. If the quote doesn't flow with the rest of the text, you can always make the flow better rather than chopping it out. I'd have more sympathy for you're argument if you didn't change your reason for deleting this section over and over again. First it was "hypothetical," then "just estimates," and now it doesn't flow.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I said “hypothetical” and “just estimates,” those are the same reason, not two different reasons. There is a difference between estimating a data point in the past, and producing a hypothetical estimate of what a number might be in the future. Also, I do not know how to make it flow with the rest of the text, because the original editor just dropped the quote in, completely disconnected with the preceding paragraph. If I thought it fit at all, I would have tried to fix it, but I can not figure out how to make it fit. That is why I deleted it. The Vidiot (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on integrating the quote into the article better (or wait until someone else does). I won't be online for awhile, so it'll take some time. I'll leave it out of the article for now.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic growth

Diff This addition supported by one citation of economic statistics (estimates, by the way) but includes many claims based off the statistics, including the POV statement that "[Bush] managed to keep the economy out of a recession." This section is POV and is original research.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statements of GDP are not estimates; they are historical data points. If you find portions of the paragraph that are POV, then state what they are and people can correct them. But simply removing the entire paragraph is not the answer. The Vidiot (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you find some reliable source and simply quote it to get your POV accross. Take a cue from others. Here's a great example from the other POV side:
According to Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels:[1]
--Work permit (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Work Permit, we were already discussing that quote. It was dropped unceremoniously into a section where it didn’t fit. The answer is not to simply find a quote that fits your POV, and then plug it into the article wherever you want. And also, reliable sources do not need to be extensively quoted, as the (I believe wrongly) deleted section demonstrates. The Vidiot (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, BEA GDP numbers are estimates. BEA bureaucrats don't tally up every economic transaction in the US to compute GDP. Almost every economic number you see is an estimate, so it's pointless to argue that something shouldn't be included because it is an estimate.
I have added POV and cite tags to your section on economic growth. You need to have some sort of citation for the statement that Bush "inherited a falter economy." Interpretation of data is generally original research (BTW, 1.1% is probably not right since the value of GDP shifts you can't just average a group of percentages to get overall growth, you should work from GDP levels data), and the state of the economy during the transition is not a clear issue. I'm sure you can find something legitimate to cite for this, but you have to actually get it. You also have a contradiction with this statement and you're last statement that Bush presided over part of a 17 year term without a recession. You link to the 2000s recession article and then claim that there hasn't been a recession since 1991. You need to clean that up somehow. The biggest issue is the claim that Bush's policies kept the US out of a recession. That's a causal claim and you definitely need more than data to back it up. The claim that Bush presided over part of 17 year cycle without a recession is also suspect. Bush was only president for 7 years of that term so language that attributes this feat to him is POV. Also, once again, you're jumping from referencing a NBER recession in 2000 to using the 2 quarter definition without any explanation.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again regarding estimates, there is a marked difference between an estimate such as GDP, which is based on consistent data points, and an estimate of an event in the future, such as, “the total cost to the federal treassury of those cuts from 2001 through 2013 [is estimated] at $4.6 trillion.” One is based on known calculations, and one is based on unknown equations.
Thanks for the cite tags; I will look for appropriate citations. The Vidiot (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lack of Bush Vetoes

I have re-inserted the bit about Bush being the first president in a very long time to go an entire term without vetoing any legislation. I'm not sure if that's completely relevant, so it may be removed on those grounds -- but it is correct. I think the confusion has to do with the meaning of the word "term." Bush served two terms as president. He did veto legislation in his second term, but not in his first. Kier07 (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this impacts Bush's economic policy how? 161.150.2.58 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence needs refrences

Despite leaving office with an ongoing recession, the economy performed strongly for the most part of Bush's Presidency. This included nearly six years of uninterrupted growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.

This is POV, the first source is in COI, asking the senior political advisor to write up an article describing the greatness of the President he got elected is absolute POV, find a credibicle economists to say that instead, though if memory serves the actual economists tore this article to shreads as being nothing but spin. The second link is dead. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that the quotes were from Rove and some facts to back up his arguments.. well some facts at least. We need to find a credible economist that supports Bush's economics policies and not his senior political advisor. The other cite was a dead link. No matter what, Karl Rove is not an impartial source and we shouldn't use him for any 'numbers' on the economy. RTRimmel (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.[6] --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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration