does anyone remember January 2008, when George W. Bush successfully pushed for a $168 billion "stimulus program" that consisted of

"...Rebates are to go out beginning in May to taxpayers and low-income people, including seniors living off of Social Security and veterans who depend on disability checks. Businesses would get tax breaks for investing in new plants and equipment.

Most taxpayers will receive a check of up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples from the Internal Revenue Service, with an additional $300 per child. People earning at least $3,000 and those who owe little or no taxes would get $300 for singles, $600 for couples. Those making more than $75,000 and couples with income exceeding $150,000 are to get smaller rebates — $50 less per $1,000 they make over those thresholds..."

Here- read this. It's lost history, because the crisis that came in September dwarfed it:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/

It was a bribe to the American taxpayers, to cover up the fact that- far in advance of the mortgage collapse, or the later "stimulus package" that followed- George W. Bush had already run up something like $4 trillion in debt.

That was feel-good money to paper over the fact the George W. Bush was destined to leave office with a debt larger than nearly all of his Presidential predecessors combined. I knew that then. That was 100% of the rationale for doing it.

The Democrats went along with it, of course...1) it was a Republican President's idea; and 2) considering the unprecedented size of the pre-existing debt in the first place- what politician would vote against a cash rebate handout to the public?

After all- when the national debt has already been run up almost $4 trillion over the preceding seven years, what's another $168 billion?

And, once again- it was the opposing political party's idea.

Personally, I thought that, once again, I'd slipped into Bizarro World. A Guns & Free Beer'n'Chicken economy, financed by borrowing (from whom?)

But by then, I'd gotten a steep reactive tolerance to the phenomenon. And- what to do? Personally, I took the money.

But I was certainly under no illusion that a piddling $168 billion tax rebate- of borrowed funds, on top of borrowed funds- was going to have the slightest effect on reviving consumer spending (which was already undergoing a significant retraction, due to both credit card indebtedness and more households falling behind in the course of trying to keep up with their expanding mortgage payments on overvalued houses.)

I just thought I'd take the opportunity to remind folks that even without the mortgage crisis, well in advance of that news- as of the last year of his tenure in office, George W. Bush was already on-track to deepen the US Federal budget debt, to the tune of over 4 trillion dollars.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Lots of helpful article links on that site, linked at my signature.

I said this at the outset of the George W. Bush administration- "they'll run it like a bust-out."

To the point where, you know, seemingly the only logical thing left to do is to sell the National Parks to the ultra-wealthy, for condo developments. So they can take their tax rebates and buy their 18th house, and their 12th summer place, like Ken Lay. And leave it vacant for most of the year, of course- although you can be sure they'll pay for the private security patrols, as a top priority.

The sort of places that don't drop in value, since they're the creme de la creme...location, location, location. With a view of Bridal Veil Falls to die for. Paid for in cash, perhaps- no "mortgage" business, unless of course it would look better for the tax preparer. With savings accumulated through the largess of some tax cuts from a previous decade, put through and made permanent, by an old friend.

"Some call you 'the wealthy.' I call you 'my base.'" -George W. Bush Jr.

Hey, anyone remember what they did with their $300 or $600 dollars?

I'm given to understand that it's axiomatic in some quarters that tax cuts produce increases in revenue for the Federal government, due to the economic expansion that is a supposedly inevitable result.

Leaving aside the matter of the size of the Federal budgets for the years roughly covered by the Bush Jr. presidential term 1/2001-1/2009:

How does the ledger presently read,

in terms of the projected amount of tax revenues that were eventually left uncollected due to the enactment of the tax cuts requested by the Bush administration,

as balanced against the amount of tax revenues actually collected during the course of the years roughly coincident with 1/2001-1/2009?

Was revenue boosted beyond projections for the Federal revenues due before the tax cuts were enacted, or did it decline?

I'm trying to get some hard numbers on whether it's a truism that "tax cuts always grow the economy" here.

Tax cuts to business, to the consumer creates spending, which creates jobs, which creates spending and more jobs. It's not really that difficult. -JaaZee

Show me. But not about the Reagan years, or any other period in history. For the Bush term in office. 1/2001-1/2009.

with $4.9 trillion of that number being run up in the previous 8 years by the preceding administration

who requested and received an annual Federal budget of $2.9 trillion (2008)

that fit somehow into the context of a national GDP of $14.2 trillion (2008)

and a nation of 304 million people

none of the options that remain are all that attractive.