Statement II When President George W Bush Signed...

George Bush brought to the White House a dedication to traditional American values and a determination to direct them toward making the Noriega was brought to the United States for trial as a drug trafficker. Bush's greatest test came when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait...President George H.W. Bush makes his concession speech to supporters in Houston in 1992.John Gaps III/Associated Press. Fauntroy called Bush and predecessors Ford and Carter "men of integrity" while saying Trump, "with authoritarian leanings and evidence of narcissism, has not shown...PHOTO: Former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush accompanied by family members watch as pallbearers carry the casket of Bush took a hit in his support among American women when he nominated Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court and a former employee of...Click here to get an answer to your question Which statement best describes economic conditions when President George H. W. Bush took office?The United St… The United States had a booming economy.The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was characterized by significant income tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the implementation of Medicare Part D in 2003, increased military spending for two wars, a housing bubble that contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008...

What it looked like when George H.W. Bush... - The Boston Globe

Former President George H.W. Bush is best known for his foreign policy achievements, most notably his deft handling of the breakup of the Soviet Union. But what's less well-known is how Bush's presidency resulted in the balanced budgets of the 1990s.President George H. W. Bush falls squarely in the middle of these eleven leaders, losing 3.2% from Like his father, he took office immediately after a period of fantastic economic growth, so it would have been Interestingly enough, the president almost universally acknowledged to be the best since the...President George H.W. Bush's actions weren't always elegant, but he would accomplish much more than From the moment he took office, Bush walked a tightrope: doing deals with Democrats who It didn't help that his concession was inelegantly announced, in a one-page statement quietly pinned...On the Republican side, Vice President George Bush was chosen as Reagan's successor, and Reagan campaigned hard for the Bush ticket Additionally, the federal government had responded slowly to the AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) epidemic when it surfaced in the early...

Former President George H.W. Bush dead at 94

The letter George H.W. Bush left for Clinton is a lesson in grace. Dear Bill, When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. Good luck—. George. Once political rivals, Presidents Bush and Clinton ended up forming an unlikely friendship.Former President George HW Bush spoke his final words in a phone call with his son, former President Bush addressing nation from the White House Oval Office on start of Operation Desert President-elect George H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara wave to supporters in Houston, Texas after...President George W. Bush's economic policies added $6 trillion to the national debt by funding two wars and three tax cuts. George W. Bush campaigned for president in 2000, promising "compassionate conservatism" and a return to morality following his predecessor's impeachment, Bill...People Are Memorializing George H.W. Bush By Sharing His Letter To Bill Clinton After He Took Office. I will never forget George H.W. Bush and President Clinton meeting me in my old hometown of New I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described. There will be very tough times...When George H. W. Bush was sworn in as President on January 20, 1989, he took over from the very popular Ronald Reagan. In his inaugural address, Bush spoke about the plight of homelessness, crime, and drug addiction. He advocated volunteerism and community involvement...

Jump to navigation Jump to look This article is a part of a chain aboutGeorge W. Bush Political positions Electoral historical pastEarly existence Career Family Public symbol HonorsGovernor of Texas GovernorshipPresident of the United States Presidency timelinePolicies Domestic Economic Foreign Bush Doctrine world journeys Space Legislation and systems PardonsAppointments Cabinet JudicialFirst term Transition First inaugurationSeptember Eleven attacks War on TerrorWar in Afghanistan Invasion of IraqEmail controversyTimeline '01 '02 '03 '04Second time period Second inaugurationWar in Iraq 2007 Iraq surgeDismissal of U.S. legal professionals controversy Economic Stimulus ActTimeline '05 '06 '07 '08–'09Presidential campaigns 2000 primaries convention debates election Florida recount Bush v. Gore2004 primaries conference debates election Post-presidency Presidential library Bibliography Decision Points 41: A Portrait of My Father Portraits of Courage Clinton Bush Haiti Fund One America Appeal

vte

The economic policy of the George W. Bush management was characterised via significant revenue tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the implementation of Medicare Part D in 2003, increased army spending for two wars, a housing bubble that contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–2008, and the Great Recession that adopted. Economic efficiency all the way through the duration used to be adversely affected by two recessions, in 2001 and 2007–2009.

Overview

U.S. cumulative real (inflation-adjusted) GDP expansion by means of President.[1]

President Bush was once in office from January 2001 to January 2009, a posh and difficult economic and budgetary time. In addition to two recessions (2001 and the Great Recession of 2007–2009), the U.S. faced a housing bubble and bust, two wars, and the upward push of Asian competition, principally China, which entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the economy suffered from a recession that lasted from March 2001 to November 2001. During the Bush Administration, Real GDP has grown at an average annual price of 2.5%.[2]

During his first time period (2001–2005), President Bush sought and obtained Congressional approval for the Bush tax cuts, which basically comprised the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). These acts decreased many revenue tax rates, reduced the capital good points tax, increased the kid tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and have been set to run out in 2010, while expanding federal deficits through an estimated 1.5% to 2.0% GDP every year.[3] Among the many stated rationales for the massive income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 was the 2001 recession, which adopted the bursting of the Dot-com bubble in overdue 2000 and early 2001. Further, some influential conservatives equivalent to Alan Greenspan believed that the nearly trillion in finances surpluses forecast by way of the CBO for the 2002-2011 length should be given back to taxpayers moderately than used to pay down the national debt.

The U.S. replied the September 11, 2001 assaults with the invasion of Afghanistan in a while thereafter. The invasion of Iraq adopted in 2003. Military expenditures roughly doubled in nominal greenbacks to pay for these wars, rising from around 0 billion in 2001 to 0 billion in 2008.

While President Bush normally endured the deregulatory way of his predecessor President Clinton, a very powerful exception was the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, which adopted high-profile company scandals at Enron, World Com, and Tyco International, amongst others. It required auditors to be more impartial of the firms they audit, corporations to scrupulously test their financial reporting controls, and most sensible executives to attest to the accuracy of company financial statements, amongst many other measures.

Regarding entitlement systems, President Bush signed Medicare Part D into regulation in 2003, considerably expanding that program, even supposing with out new sources of tax earnings. However, an try to privatize the Social Security program was unsuccessful in his 2nd time period.

His 2nd time period (2005–2009) was characterised by means of the housing bubble height and bust, adopted by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession. Responses to the disaster incorporated the 0 billion TARP program to bail out damaged monetary institutions, loans to assist bail out the auto business crisis, and bank debt guarantees. The vast majority of these budget were later recovered, as banks and auto corporations paid again the federal government.

Economic performance overall suffered because of the 2001 and 2007–2009 recessions. Real GDP growth averaged 1.8% from Q1 2001 to This autumn 2008.[4] Job introduction averaged 95,000 personal sector jobs per thirty days,[5] measured from February 2001 to January 2009, the least of any president since 1970. Job creation all through the 2001–2007 period was once slow by way of historic requirements and arguably unsustainable, as just about all of the net process creation was once reversed during the subsequent Great Recession. The employment recoveries from each the 2001 and 2007–2009 recessions have been protracted; the peak employment point for personal sector workers in January 2008 was once not regained till 2014. Income inequality endured to worsen pre-tax (a pattern since 1980) and used to be speeded up after-tax via the Bush tax cuts, which dis-proportionally benefited higher-income taxpayers, who pay the vast majority of revenue taxes.

The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2009, each in buck phrases and relative to the dimensions of the economic system (GDP), because of a combination of tax cuts, wars and recessions. Measured for fiscal years 2001–2008, Federal spending under President Bush averaged 19.0% of GDP, just below his predecessor President Bill Clinton at 19.2% GDP, even supposing tax receipts had been considerably lower at 17.1% GDP as opposed to 18.4% GDP. Income tax revenues averaged 7.7% GDP under Bush, as opposed to 8.5% GDP under Clinton.[6] The sizable nationwide debt increases all through his management represented a reversal from a large surplus projection by way of the Congressional Budget Office just previous to his taking office.[7]

As of 2017, a big legacy of President Bush's economic policy was once his tax cuts, which were extended indefinitely by means of President Obama for roughly the ground 99% of taxpayers, or about 80% of the price of the tax cuts.

Tax policy

President Bush signing the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 within the White House East Room on June 7, 2001 CBO knowledge - Federal particular person revenue tax revenue traits from 2000-2009 (greenbacks and % GDP) 2001 tax minimize See also: Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush management instituted a federal tax lower for all taxpayers. Among other adjustments, the bottom income tax charge lowered from 15% to ten%, the 27% rate went to twenty-five%, the 30% fee went to twenty-eight%, the 35% charge went to 33%, and the top marginal tax charge went from 39.6% to 35%.[8] In addition, the kid tax credit went from 0 to 00, and the "marriage penalty" lowered. Since the cuts got applied as part of the once a year congressional finances solution, which protected the invoice from filibusters, numerous amendments, and more than 20 hours of discussion, it needed to include a sunset clause. Unless congress handed law making the tax cuts everlasting, they had been to expire after the 2010 tax year.

Facing opposition in Congress for an first of all proposed 1.6 trillion tax cut (over ten years),[9] Bush held the town hall-style public meetings across the country in 2001 to increase public improve for it. Bush and some of his economic advisers argued that unspent govt funds needed to be returned to taxpayers. With reviews of the threat of recession, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan mentioned tax cuts may just paintings however must be offset with spending cuts.[10]

Bush argued that this sort of tax lower would stimulate the financial system and create jobs. Ultimately, 5 Senate Democrats crossed birthday party traces to join Republicans in approving a 1.35 trillion[11] tax cut program — one of the crucial biggest in U.S. history.

2003 cuts and later See additionally: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

The United States Congress handed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) on May 23, 2003 and President George W. Bush signed it into legislation five days later. Nearly all of the cuts (individual charges, capital good points, dividends, estate tax) were to run out after 2010.[12]

Among other provisions, the act speeded up certain tax changes passed in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, increased the exemption quantity for the individual Alternative Minimum Tax, and lowered taxes of revenue from dividends and capital gains. JGTRRA endured at the precedent established by way of the 2001 EGTRRA, whilst expanding tax discounts on funding revenue from dividends and capital positive factors. JGTRRA accelerated the gradual price relief and increase in credit passed in EGTRRA. The maximum tax rate decreases initially scheduled to be phased into impact in 2006 underneath EGTRRA have been retroactively enacted to use to the 2003 tax yr. Also, the child tax credit score increased to what would had been the 2010 level, and "marriage penalty" relief sped up to 2009 ranges. In addition, the brink at which the other minimal tax applies used to be also larger. JGTRRA increased each the percentage rate at which pieces are depreciated and the amount a taxpayer may choose to expense beneath Section 179, letting them deduct the overall cost of the object from their income without having to depreciate the quantity.

In addition, the capital positive aspects tax reduced from rates of 8%, 10%, and 20% to five% and 15%. Capital good points taxes for the ones recently paying 5% (in this example, the ones within the 10% and 15% income tax brackets) are scheduled for removing in 2008. However, capital positive factors taxes stay on the regular income tax price for property held less than 365 days. Certain categories, comparable to collectibles, remained taxed at current rates, with a 28% cap. In addition, taxes on "qualified dividends" lowered to the capital positive aspects ranges. "Qualified dividends" includes maximum income from non-foreign companies, actual property investment trusts, and credit union and financial institution "dividends" nominally curiosity.

CBO scoring

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has persistently reported that the Bush tax cuts (EGTRRA and JGTRRA) didn't pay for themselves and represented a sizable decline in revenue for the Treasury:

The CBO estimated in June 2012 that the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (EGTRRA) and 2003 (JGTRRA) added approximately 1.Five trillion overall to the debt over the 2002-2011 decade, except for interest.[7] The CBO estimated in January 2009 that the Bush tax cuts would upload roughly .Zero trillion to the debt over the 2010-2019 decade if totally extended in any respect revenue levels, together with interest.[3] The CBO estimated in January 2009 that extending the Bush tax cuts at all income ranges over the 2011-2019 length would building up the annual deficit through an average of one.7% GDP, attaining 2.0% GDP in 2018 and 2019.[3]Commentary at the Bush tax cuts

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said the middle class won't get advantages sufficient from the tax reduce and the wealthy will reap unfairly high advantages. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle argued that the tax minimize is too huge, too generous to the rich and too dear.[13]

Economists, including the Treasury Secretary on the time Paul O'Neill and 450 economists, including ten Nobel prize laureates, who contacted Bush in 2003, hostile the 2003 tax cuts at the grounds that they would fail as a enlargement stimulus, building up inequality and aggravate the finances outlook significantly (see Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts).[14] Some argued the results of the tax cuts had been as promised as revenues in fact higher (even though revenue tax revenues fell), the recession of 2001 ended reasonably temporarily, and economic enlargement used to be positive.[15]

The tax cuts were in large part adverse through American economists, together with the Bush management's own Economic Advisement Council.[16] In 2003, 450 economists, together with ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, despatched to President Bush pointing out 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."[17]

The Bush administration had claimed, based on the idea that of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts in truth paid for the themselves by way of producing sufficient further earnings from additional economic expansion to offset the lower taxation rates. However, revenue tax revenues in buck terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak till 2006. Through the top of 2008, general federal tax revenues relative to GDP had yet to regain their 2000 height.[6]

When requested whether or not the Bush tax cuts had generated extra income, Laffer said that he didn't know. However, he did say that the tax cuts were "what was right," because after the September Eleven assaults and threats of recession, Bush "needed to stimulate the economy and spend for defense."[18]

Critics point out that the tax revenues would were considerably larger if the tax cuts had now not been made.[19][20] Income tax revenues in greenback phrases didn't regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006.[6] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (which had been scheduled to expire in 2010) would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly 1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically expanding federal deficits.[21]

The Tax Policy Center reported that the various tax cuts underneath the Bush management had been "extraordinarily expensive" to the Treasury:[22]

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation calculated a rating, or revenue alternate, for every of the seven major tax minimize expenses passed throughout the Bush management: their blended price sums to over

{title}

{content}

.Zero trillion from 2001 to 2017. Extending these tax cuts into the longer term would lift a identical cost: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently estimated the cost of extending them via 2017 at 1.9 trillion, now not counting the prices of debt provider, and now not counting the price of indexing the other minimal tax (AMT) to inflation to stop it from undoing much of the cuts...if one takes into account the direct results of the tax cuts, further curiosity bills, and the additional "interaction" price of reforming the AMT whilst extending the Bush tax cuts, the blended price of extending the tax cuts via 2017 provides as much as

{title}

{content}

.8 trillion.

Impact on inequality

Federal revenue taxes (distinct from payroll taxes) are paid overwhelmingly by the easiest income taxpayers. For example, in 2014 the top 1% of revenue earners paid 45.7% of federal income taxes; the ground 80% of earners paid 15%.[23] Therefore, insurance policies that reduce revenue tax charges, such as the Bush tax cuts, dis-proportionally receive advantages the rich, as they pay the lion's percentage of the taxes.[24] During President Bush's terms, revenue inequality grew, a development since 1980. CBO reported that the share of after-tax revenue won by means of the top 1% rose from 12.3% in 2001 to a peak of 16.7% in 2007, earlier than finishing at 14.1% in 2008. Comparing 2001 and 2008, the bottom and easiest quintiles of the revenue distribution had a larger share of the after-tax revenue, while the middle three quintiles had a lower proportion.[25]

Further, revenue inequality can also be measured both before-tax and after-tax, so the Bush tax cuts primarily impacted the latter measurements. President Bush didn't take deliberate steps to handle pre-tax inequality, which involves policies similar to elevating the minimal salary, strengthening collective bargaining energy (unions), restricting government pay, and protectionism. CBO reported that the highest 1% paid an average overall federal tax fee of 32.5% in 2000, 30.1% in 2004, and 28.2% in 2008. The top 1% paid a median federal income tax price of 24.5% in 2000 and 20.4% in 2008.[25]

In phrases of increasing inequality, the impact of Bush's tax cuts on the upper, heart and lower magnificence is contentious. Some economists argue that the cuts have benefited the country's richest households at the expense of the center and lower class,[26] while libertarians and conservatives[27] have claimed that tax cuts have benefitted all taxpayers.[28] Economists Peter Orszag and William Gale described the Bush tax cuts as reverse govt redistribution of wealth, "[shifting] the burden of taxation away from upper-income, capital-owning households and toward the wage-earning households of the lower and middle classes."[29]

This would recommend that the Bush tax minimize coverage used to be highly regressive, but some writers, particularly on the Koch-funded Tax Foundation, argue that the concept that of a innovative tax should be indifferent from its traditional association with income redistribution,[30] noting that for the reason that percentage of income of essentially the most wealthy rose so much throughout the length, their share of the total tax burden went up whilst their tax rates went down. Between 2003 and 2004, following the 2003 tax cuts, the proportion of after-tax income going to the top 1% rose from 12.2% in 2003 to fourteen.0% in 2004. (This adopted the length from 2000 to 2002, where after-tax incomes declined essentially the most for the highest 1%.)[31] At the similar time, the percentage of overall tax liabilities of the highest 1% increased from 22.9% to twenty-five.3%,.[32] In this manner, they claim, the tax device actually was extra revolutionary between 2000 and 2004.[30]

Defense spending

Defense Spending 2001–2017. Further information: Financial price of the Iraq War

Defense spending greater from 6 billion in 2001 (2.9% GDP) to 2 billion in 2008 (4.2% GDP). The invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/Eleven attacks in 2001, along side the 2003 invasion of Iraq, added significantly to defense spending. The Congressional Research Service estimated that Congress approved 1.6 trillion right through the FY2001-FY2014 periods for "military operations, base support, weapons maintenance, training of Afghan and Iraq security forces, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans' health care for the war operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks." Roughly half this quantity, 3 billion, used to be licensed for the FY2001-2008 length of the Bush management.[33]

This spending was incremental to the "base" Department of Defense finances, which also greater faster than inflation during the duration. The Comptroller of the Department of Defense (DOD) estimated spending for "Overseas Contingency Operations" (OCO), analogous to the CRS amount above, at 8 billion for the 2001-2008 length. This was incremental to the "base" DOD finances, which totaled .1 trillion throughout the 2001-2008 duration.[34]

Other estimates outline the price of the Iraq battle by myself through the years as significantly larger. For instance, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the entire value of the Iraq War at closer to trillion, taking into consideration the long-term maintain army staff, equipment substitute, and other components.[35]

Budget deficit and nationwide debt

Image compares the CBO January 2001 surplus baseline forecast for the 2002-2011 length as opposed to the actual deficit quantities.

The U.S. fiscal position modified dramatically for the more serious during the Bush years. CBO projected in its January 2001 baseline that the U.S. would have a total of .6 trillion in annual surpluses over the 2002-2011 decade, assuming the regulations in place throughout the Clinton technology endured and the financial system performed as anticipated. However, the true deficits all through those years ended up being .1 trillion, a unfavourable swing of .7 trillion. Two recessions, two wars, and tax cuts have been the principle drivers of the variations.[7][36]

During his two phrases (2001-2008), President Bush averaged 19.0% GDP spending, relatively under the 19.2% GDP spending underneath Clinton (1993-2000). However, revenues of 17.1% GDP were 1.3% GDP under the 18.4% GDP moderate throughout the Clinton generation.[6] Further, CBO had forecast in 2001 that revenues would moderate 20.4% GDP all over the 2001-2008 duration (above the FY2000 document of 20.0% GDP), whilst spending would average 16.9% GDP and be on a downward pattern, very low by means of historical standards.[37]

CBO reported that debt held via the public, a partial measure of the nationwide debt, rose from .41 trillion in 2000 (33.6% GDP) to .80 trillion in 2008 (39.3% GDP). However, CBO had forecast in 2001 that debt held through the general public would fall to 1.0 trillion by means of 2008 (7.1% GDP).[37]

Interest at the debt (including each public and intragovernmental amounts) higher from 2 billion to 4 billion annually. The proportion of public debt owned by means of foreigners higher significantly from 31% in June 2001 to 50% in June 2008, with the greenback steadiness owed to foreigners increasing from 1.0 trillion to

{title}

{content}

.6 trillion. This additionally considerably greater the curiosity payments sent out of the country, from approximately billion in 2001 to 1 billion right through 2008.[38]

Most of the debt increase over the 2001-2005 period was accrued as a result of tax cuts and increased national safety spending. According to Richard Kogan and Matt Fiedler, "the largest costs — 1.2 trillion over six years — resulted from the tax cuts enacted since the start of 2001. Increased spending for defense, international affairs, and homeland security – primarily for prosecuting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – also was quite costly, amounting to almost 0 billion to date. Together, tax cuts and the spending increases for these security programs account for 84 percent of the increases in debt racked up by Congress and the President over this period."[39]Lawrence Kudlow, alternatively, noted "The U.S. has spent roughly 0 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that's a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule [sic]." He also reported that "during the five years of the Iraq war,. . .household net worth has increased by trillion." [40]

In phrases of the budget legacy passed to his successor President Obama, CBO forecast in January 2009 that the deficit that 12 months could be 1.2 trillion, assuming the continuation of Bush insurance policies.[3] From a coverage point of view, the long-term deficit legacy depended significantly on whether the Bush tax cuts have been allowed to expire in 2010 as initially legislated. President Obama prolonged the Bush tax cuts entirely through the finish of 2012 as part of the 2010 Tax Relief Act, then prolonged them for the ground 99% of income earners indefinitely thereafter as part of the fiscal cliff answer, more or less 80% of the greenback value of the cuts.

President Bush additionally signed into legislation Medicare Part D, which supplies additional prescription drug benefits to seniors. The program was once not funded by means of any changes to the tax code. According to the GAO, this program by myself created .4 trillion in unfunded tasks in present price terms, a bigger fiscal problem than Social Security.[41]

Recent additions to U.S. public debt Fiscal 12 months (begins 10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP 2001 4.5 billion 1.4% 2002 9.Five billion 3.9% 2003 9.Zero billion 5.5% 2004 5.0 billion 5.3% 2005 3.0 billion 4.3% 2006 6.Five billion 4.1% 2007 9.5 billion 3.4% 2008 2.Zero billion (proj.) 6.8%

Trade coverage

U.S. Current Account or Trade Deficit.

The Bush administration in most cases pursued free trade insurance policies. China entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in past due 2001. Bush used the authority he gained from the Trade Act of 2002 to push through bilateral industry agreements with several international locations. Bush also sought to enlarge multilateral business agreements through the WTO, but negotiations have been stalled within the Doha Development Round for most of Bush's presidency.

The sizable decline in U.S. production jobs since 2000 has been blamed on various causes, equivalent to industry with a emerging Asia, offshoring of jobs with few restrictions to decrease salary nations, innovation in world supply chains (e.g., containerization), and other technology improvements. The tens of millions of construction jobs created throughout the housing bubble that peaked in 2006 helped masks a few of this adverse employment impact first of all. Further, families dramatically larger their debt burden from 2001-2007, extracting house fairness to be used in intake. However, the housing bubble collapse in 2006-2008 contributed to the subprime loan crisis and resulting Great Recession, which ended in households switching from including debt to paying it down, a headwind to the financial system for several years thereafter.

Developing international locations blamed america and the EU for stagnated negotiations since both handle protectionist insurance policies in agriculture. While normally favoring unfastened trade, Bush has also on occasion supported protectionist measures, notably the 2002 United States metal tariff early in his term. Bush also applied a 300% tax on Roquefort cheese from France in retaliation for a European Union ban on hormone-treated beef not unusual within the American pork trade.[42]

George W. Bush effectively gained ratification of the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA). Supporters of DR-CAFTA claim it has been a good fortune,[43] however detractors still oppose the settlement for quite a lot of reasons including its impact at the setting.[44]

In 2005, Ben Bernanke addressed the consequences of america's high and emerging present account (industry) deficit, as a result of USA imports exceeding its exports.[45] Between 1996 and 2006, america current account deficit increased to a document of just about 6% of GDP. Financing the trade deficit required the US to borrow large sums from abroad, a lot of it from nations operating industry surpluses, principally the emerging economies in Asia and oil-exporting countries. A significant portion of this borrowing was once directed through large monetary institutions into mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives, an element that contributed to the housing bubble and the crises that adopted. The business deficit peaked in 2006 along with housing prices.[46]

Efforts to reform Social Security

Main article: Social Security debate (United States)

President Bush advocated the partial privatization of Social Security in 2005-2006, however was once unsuccessful in attaining any reforms to this system against sturdy congressional resistance. His proposal would have diverted one of the payroll tax revenues that fund this system into private accounts. Critics argued that privatizing Social Security does not anything to deal with the long-term funding problem going through this system. Diverting price range to personal accounts would reduce available budget to pay current retirees, requiring significant borrowing. An research by means of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that President Bush's 2005 privatization proposal would have added 1 trillion in new federal debt in its first decade of implementation and .Five trillion in the decade thereafter.[47]

According to the 2016 Social Security Administration Trustees Report, bills will likely be cut by 23% beneath present regulation around 2035, if no reforms are made to this system.[48]

Regulatory philosophy

Leverage ratios of investment banks increased considerably between 2003 and 2007.

President Bush advocated the Ownership society, premised at the ideas of particular person duty, smaller government, and the proudly owning of property. Critics have argued this contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis, by way of encouraging house possession for those not able to have the funds for them and inadequate law of monetary establishments.[49] The number of economic regulation governmental staff used to be increased by means of 91,196, while Bill Clinton had cut down the quantity by means of 969.[50]

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into legislation during July 2002, which he referred to as "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." The law was once handed in the wake of a number of corporate scandals and standard stock marketplace losses. The regulation addressed conflicts of curiosity between accounting firms and the corporations they audit and required executives to certify the accuracy of the corporation's financial statements.[51] The law has been arguable, with some advocating its certain impact on investor confidence and detractors mentioning its important price.[52]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

In 2003, the Bush Administration tried to create an agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill by no means made development in Congress, dealing with sharp opposition by Democrats.[53] In 2005, the Republican controlled House of Representatives handed a GSE reform bill (Federal Housing Finance Reform Act) which "would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership".[54] However, the Bush administration antagonistic the bill and it died within the Senate. Of the invoice and its reception through the Bush White House, Ohio Republican Mike Oxley (the invoice's author) mentioned: "The critics have forgotten that the House passed a GSE reform bill in 2005 that could well have prevented the current crisis. All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this. What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute." [54] The Bush economic coverage relating to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac changed during the economic downturn of 2008, culminating in the federal takeover of the 2 greatest lenders in the mortgage market. Further economic demanding situations have resulted within the Bush management making an attempt an economic intervention, through a asked $seven-hundred billion bailout bundle for Wall Street funding homes.

Regulation of the monetary sector Those people who have seemed to the self-interest of lending institutions to offer protection to shareholders' equity, myself incorporated, are in a state of surprised disbelief.

Alan Greenspan[55]

President Bush and his economic mavens did not adequately address basic adjustments within the banking sector which had taken place over the 20 years prior to the crisis. The essentially unregulated shadow banking system (e.g., funding banks, loan companies, cash marketplace mutual finances, and so forth.) had grown to rival the traditional, regulated depository banking device but without an identical safeguards. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman described the run at the shadow banking machine because the "core of what happened" to reason the crisis. "As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that they were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible—and they should have responded by extending regulations and the financial safety net to cover these new institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank." He referred to this lack of controls as "malign neglect."[56]

President Bush mentioned in September 2008: "Once this crisis is resolved, there will be time to update our financial regulatory structures. Our 21st century global economy remains regulated largely by outdated 20th century laws."[57] The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in permitting the self-regulation of investment banks, which proceeded to take on more and more dangerous bets and leverage after a key 2004 determination.[58][59]

Financial crisis and Great Recession

Further data: Financial disaster of 2007–2008 Shadow (non-depository) banking grew to rival conventional (depository) banking, but with out equivalent safeguards.[60] Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically all through the 2004–2006 length previous the crisis (supply: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report, p. 70 Figure 5.2). Further information: Subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession

The ultimate yr of Bush's 2nd term was dominated via the Great Recession. GDP declined in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th quarters of 2008 by way of -2.7%, -1.9% and -8.2%, respectively. The recession officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, with the financial system returning to constant enlargement in Q3 2009,[4] despite the fact that civilian employment did not go back to its December 2007 peak until September 2014.[61]

On September 24, 2008, President Bush addressed the country from the White House at the financial crisis, which he stated "We've seen triple-digit swings in the stock market. Major financial institutions have teetered on the edge of collapse, and some have failed. As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money. We're in the midst of a serious financial crisis, and the federal government is responding with decisive action".[62]

After years of monetary deregulation accelerating under the Bush administration, banks lent subprime mortgages to increasingly more house consumers, causing a housing bubble. Many of these banks additionally invested in credit score default swaps and derivatives that have been necessarily bets at the soundness of those loans. In reaction to declining housing costs and fears of an coming near near recession, the Bush management arranged passage of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Falling house costs started threatening the financial viability of many institutions, leaving Bear Stearns, a prominent U.S.-based investment bank, on the point of failure in March 2008. Recognizing the rising threat of a monetary disaster, Bush allowed Treasury secretary Paulson to prepare for some other bank, JPMorgan Chase, to take over maximum Bear Stearn's belongings. Out of shock that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may additionally fail, the Bush management put both institutions into conservatorship. Shortly afterwards, the management realized that Lehman Brothers was on the verge of bankruptcy, however the administration in the long run declined to intrude on behalf of Lehman Brothers.[63]

Paulson was hoping that the monetary industry had shored itself up after the failure of Bear Stearns and that the failure of Lehman Brothers would no longer strongly impact the economy, but news of the failure caused inventory costs to tumble and iced up credit. Fearing a total financial collapse, Paulson and the Federal Reserve took regulate of American International Group (AIG), some other major financial institution that teetered on the point of failure. Hoping to shore up the opposite banks, Bush and Paulson proposed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which would create the 0 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to shop for toxic property. The House rejected TARP in a 228–205 vote; although give a boost to and opposition crossed birthday party lines, most effective about one-third of the Republican caucus supported the bill. After the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 778 points on the day of the House vote, the House and Senate both handed TARP. Bush later extended TARP loans to U.S. automobile corporations, which confronted their very own crisis due to the vulnerable economy. Though TARP helped end the monetary disaster, it did not save you the onset of the Great Recession, which would proceed lengthy after Bush left office.[64][65]

Fed chair Ben Bernanke defined in 2010 that vulnerabilities within the world financial system built up over a long period of time, after which specific triggering events set the 2007-2008 subprime loan disaster into motion. For example, vulnerabilities integrated failure to control the risk-taking of the non-depository banking sector, the so-called shadow banks similar to investment banks and mortgage firms. These corporations had outgrown the regulated depository banking sector, however did not have the similar safeguards. Further, financial connections have been established between the depository banks and shadow banks (e.g., by means of securitization and special function entities) that created dependencies that were not smartly understood via regulators. Certain kinds of derivatives, essentially bets at the efficiency of different securities, remained in large part unregulated and had been any other opaque source of dependencies.[66]

Bernanke further defined that specific triggering events began in mid-2007, as traders started to withdraw finances from the shadow banking gadget, analogous to depositors retreating cash from depository banks in previous bank runs. Investors became unsure of the value of the securities (mortgage collateral) held via the shadow banks, as many derived their worth from subprime mortgages. Mortgage corporations could not borrow cash to originate mortgages, and many failed in 2007. The disaster sped up in 2008, as the biggest 5 U.S. funding banks, which had trillion in liabilities via the end of 2007, may just no longer obtain financing. They had grown an increasing number of dependent on momentary resources of financing (e.g., repurchase agreements), and have been unable to procure new funding from traders. These funding banks were compelled to promote long-term securities at fire-sale prices to meet their day-to-day financing wishes, struggling monumental losses. Concerns concerning the imaginable failure of these banks led the financial device to really freeze by means of September 2008. The Federal Reserve an increasing number of intervened in its position as lender of closing lodge to stabilize the monetary device as the crisis deepened.[66]

Bush replied to the early signs of economic issues of lump-sum tax rebates and different stimulative measures within the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. In March 2008, Bear Stearns, a major US funding bank closely invested in subprime loan derivatives, began to move below. Rumors of low cash reserves dragged Bear's stock price down while lenders to Bear started to withdraw their cash. The Federal Reserve funneled an emergency mortgage to Bear via JP Morgan Chase. (As an funding bank, Bear may no longer borrow from the Fed but JP Morgan Chase, a industrial financial institution, may).[64][65]

The Fed ended up brokering an settlement for the sale of Bear to JP Morgan Chase that took place at the finish of March. In July, IndyMac went below and had to be positioned in conservatorship. In the center of the summer time it gave the impression of recession might be avoided even supposing high gas prices threatened shoppers and credit issues threatened investment markets, but the economy entered crisis in the fall. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been additionally put below conservatorship in early September.[64][65]

A few days later, Lehman Brothers began to falter. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who in July had publicly expressed worry that steady bailouts would result in ethical hazard, determined to let Lehman fail. The fallout from Lehman's failure snowballed into market-wide panic. AIG, an insurance corporate, had bought credit default swaps insuring in opposition to Lehman's failure under the assumption that one of these failure was extraordinarily not likely.[64][65]

Without enough money to pay out its Lehman-related debts, AIG went underneath and used to be nationalized. Credit markets locked up and disaster appeared all too most probably. Paulson proposed providing liquidity to financial markets by way of having the federal government buy up debt related to dangerous mortgages with a $seven hundred billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. Congressional Democrats advocated an alternate coverage of investing in monetary companies at once. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which approved both policies.[67]

Throughout the crisis, Bush seemed to defer to Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. He kept a low public profile at the issue with his most vital function being a public television cope with the place he introduced that a bailout was essential another way the United States "could experience a long and painful recession." [68]

Nearly the entire cash paid out for banking bailouts via the Bush administration was once within the form of loans that were paid back. For example, as of 2012 the TARP program had paid out 5 billion to banks, whilst the government were given again 7 billion including curiosity.[69]

Economic indicators

Job Growth through U.S. President, measured as cumulative percentage trade from month after inauguration to end of time period. Economic expansion for the 2001 to 2005 industry cycle in comparison to the average for trade cycles between 1949 to 2000.[16][70] Overall Economic growth, measured because the alternate in real GDP versus the prior quarter, averaged 1.8% from Q1 2001 to This fall 2008. This used to be slower than the 2.6% average from Q1 1989-This fall 2008.[4] Real GDP grew nearly 3% all through President Bush's first term however simplest 0.5% all over his 2d time period. During the Clinton management, GDP expansion used to be on the subject of 4%.[71] A significant motive force of economic enlargement all the way through the Bush management used to be home fairness extraction, necessarily borrowing against the value of the house to finance personal intake. Free cash used by shoppers from equity extraction doubled from 7 billion in 2001 to 1,428 billion in 2005 because the housing bubble constructed, just about $Five trillion over the period. Using the house as a supply of funds also reduced the web savings charge significantly.[72][73][74] Real GDP rose from .6 trillion in Q1 2001 to a peak of .Zero trillion in Q4 2007, earlier than ending at .6 trillion, a cumulative increase of

{title}

{content}

trillion or 16%.[75] A March 2006 document by way of the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economic system outperformed its peer staff of large advanced economies from 2001 to 2005. (The different economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in actual GDP enlargement, funding, industrial manufacturing, employment, hard work productiveness, and value balance.[76] The seasonally adjusted unemployment charge rose from 4.3% in January 2001 to six.3% in June 2003, then fell as the housing bubble inflated to a trough of 4.4% in March 2007. As the Great Recession deepened, the velocity rose again to 6.1% in August 2008 and up to 7.2% in December 2008 at the finish of the Bush management. It peaked at 9.9% in November 2009, early in the Obama administration.[77] From December 2007 when the recession started to December 2008, an additional 3.6 million people changed into unemployed.[78] Private sector task creation (overall non-farm payrolls) was a net unfavorable from February 2001 to January 2005. There were 132.7 million persons hired within the non-public sector in January 2001; this figure fell to a trough of 130.2 million in August 2003 earlier than incessantly rising to a top of 138.4 million in January 2008 as the housing bubble expanded. It then fell hastily right through the Great Recession, to 134.0 million on the finish of his two terms in January 2009. It endured falling thereafter to a trough of 129.7 million in February 2010. January 2001 and March 2009 had kind of the similar level of non-farm non-public sector jobs.[5] Interest rates remained at average levels for many of his two terms, with the 10-year Treasury bond averaging 4.4% yield, compared to 5.8% from Q1 1989-Q4 2008. It completed at 2.4% as the recession deepened.[79] Inflation (measured as CPI for all pieces) averaged 2.8% right through his tenure, similar to the three.0% reasonable from Q1 1989-This autumn 2008, but plunged to 0 in overdue 2008 because the economic system entered a deep recession.[79]Households Household debt grew dramatically throughout the length to a file point, emerging from .Four trillion in Q1 2001 to .3 trillion in Q4 2008, an increase of .9 trillion. Measured as a % of GDP, it rose from 70% GDP to 99% GDP.[80] This debt addition was once a driver of the housing bubble and crises that adopted. When housing prices fell, but the worth of the loan debt typically didn't, many householders discovered themselves in a unfavourable equity position (underwater) on their homes, using an important housing payment delinquency and foreclosures problem. This led to buyers to query the price of mortgage-backed securities held by means of financial establishments, contributing to the run at the shadow banking device. Median household income has greater than kept up with inflation since Bush took keep an eye on of fiscal coverage all the way through the 2001 near-recession, rising 1.6% higher in constant 2007 dollars to ,233 in 2007 from ,454 in 2001.[81][82] The poverty rate increased from 11.25% in 2000 to 12.3% in 2006 after peaking at 12.7% in 2004; in 2008 increased to 13.2%.[83] The Under 18 years poverty charge larger from 16.2% in 2000 to 18% in 2007; in 2008 rose to 19%.[84] From 2000 to 2005, only 4% of employees, generally extremely skilled execs, had real income increases.[85] During President Bush's phrases, income inequality grew. CBO reported that the percentage of after-tax income received via the top 1% rose from 12.3% in 2001 to a height of 16.7% in 2007, earlier than finishing at 14.1% in 2008. Comparing 2001 and 2008, the bottom and perfect quintiles of the revenue distribution had a larger percentage of the after-tax income, while the middle three quintiles had a decrease percentage.[25]

See additionally

Starve the beast - Post Seventies taxation/funds coverage U.S. economic performance underneath Democratic and Republican Party Presidents

References

^ FRED-Real GDP-Retrieved July 1, 2018 ^ .mw-parser-output cite.citationfont-style:inherit.mw-parser-output .quotation qquotes:"\"""\"""'""'".mw-parser-output .id-lock-free a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-free abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg")appropriate 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .id-lock-registration a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg")correct 0.1em center/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .id-lock-subscription a,.mw-parser-output .quotation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,clear),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg")right 0.1em heart/9px no-repeat.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registrationcolour:#555.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration spanborder-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:assist.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:linear-gradient(transparent,transparent),url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg")appropriate 0.1em center/12px no-repeat.mw-parser-output code.cs1-codecolour:inherit;background:inherit;border:none;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errorshow:none;font-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorfont-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintshow:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-rightpadding-right:0.2em.mw-parser-output .citation .mw-selflinkfont-weight:inherit"Gross Domestic Product". Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved 2007-07-25. ^ a b c d "CBO Budget and Economic Outlook 2009–2019". CBO. Retrieved November 21, 2016. ^ a b c "FRED Real GDP". FRED. Retrieved November 22, 2016. ^ a b "FRED Total Nonfarm Payrolls". FRED. Retrieved April 11, 2017. ^ a b c d "CBO Historical Tables" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ a b c "CBO Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001". CBO. June 7, 2012. ^ "Tax Policy Center: Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. (March 13, 2007). Tax Facts: Historical Top Tax Rate". Archived from the original on October 31, 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-13. ^ "Bush Touts 1.6 trillion Tax Cut". CNN.com. Atlanta: Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. 2001-02-01. Retrieved 2008-09-29. ^ "Alan Greenspan Bashes President Bush in New Book". Fox News. 2007-09-15. ^ Wallace, Kelly (2001-06-07). "1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law". CNN InsidePolitics archives. Archived from the unique on 2006-07-19. Retrieved 2006-06-30. ^ "Tax Policy Under President Bush". Cato Institute. ^ Wallace, Kelly (June 7, 2001). "1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law". CNN InsidePolitics archives. Retrieved December 29, 2010. ^ "CBS Interviews Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill]". Archived from the unique on 2006-05-15. Retrieved 2007-07-25. ^ "U.S. economic growth revised up". CNN. 2003-11-25. Retrieved 2010-05-01. ^ a b "Price, L. (October 25, 2005). The Boom That Wasn't: The economy has little to show for 0 billion in tax cuts" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 31, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-10. ^ "4. Akerlof, G., Arrow, K. J., Diamond, P., Klein, L. R., McFadden, D. L., Mischel, L., Modigliani, F., North, D. C., Samuelson, P. A., Sharpe, W. F., Solow, R. M., Stiglitz, J., Tyson, A. D. & Yellen, J. (2003). Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts" (PDF). Archived from the unique (PDF) on December 14, 2006. Retrieved 2007-10-13. ^ Justin Fox (2007-12-06). "Tax Cuts Don't Boost Revenues". Time. Retrieved 2007-12-07. ^ "A Heckuva Claim". Washingtonpost.com. 2007-01-06. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Sebastian Mallaby - The Return Of Voodoo Economics". Washingtonpost.com. 2006-05-15. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2008" (PDF). p. 6. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ Tax Policy Center. "Tax Policy Center-Briefing Book 2008". Taxpolicycenter.org. Archived from the unique on 2011-08-11. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ CNBC-Robert Frank-Top 1% pay nearly half of federal revenue taxes-April 14, 2015 ^ Brookings-Gale, Elmendorf, Furman, Harris-Distributional Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts-June 30, 2008 ^ a b c "CBO The Distribution of Household Income and Federal Taxes, 2013". Retrieved December 12, 2016. ^ Andrews, Edmund L. (2007-01-08). "Tax Cuts Offer Most for Very Rich, Study Says". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-01-14. ^ Chait, J. (September 10, 2007). Feast of the Wingnuts: How economic crackpots devoured American politics. The New Republic, 237, 27-31. ^ "Tax cuts and the rich". The Washington Times. 2007-01-14. Retrieved 2007-01-14. ^ "Gale, G. W. & Orzsag, P. R. (May 4, 2005). The Great Tax Shift". Archived from the original on November 2, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-11. ^ a b "The Tax Foundation (August, 2007). Have Federal Income Taxes Gotten More Progressive Since 2000?". Archived from the unique on 2007-11-27. Retrieved 2008-04-14. ^ "Aron-Dine, A. & Sherman, R. (January 23, 2007). New CBO data show inequality continues to widen: After-tax income for top 1% rose by 6,000 in 2004". Retrieved 2007-11-10. ^ "Congressional Budget Office (December, 2006). Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-01-25. ^ Congressional Research Service-The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global WOT Operations Since 9/11-December 8, 2014-See Table 5 ^ Comptroller of the DOD-Defense Budget Overview FY2017 Budget Request-See Figure 1-2 ^ Stiglitz, Joseph E. "NPR-Stiglitz Interview". Npr.org. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities-Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits-February 28, 2013 ^ a b CBO-Budget & Economic Outlook 2002-2011-January 2001 ^ "GAO on BPD Federal Debt Schedules" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Fiedler, M. & Kogan, R. (December 13, 2006). From Surplus to Deficit: Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by

{title}

{content}

.3 Trillion". Retrieved 2007-11-10. ^ "Kudlow, Lawrence (April 14, 2008). "What Price Freedom?"". Archived from the unique on April 15, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-15. ^ "GAO-08-446CG U.S. Financial Condition and Fiscal Future Briefing, presented by the Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States: The National Press Foundation, Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2008" (PDF). p. 17. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "US roquefort tariff angers French." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/17/france-america-import-tariffs ^ "One Year After Cafta". The Wall Street Journal. 2007-02-26. Archived from the original on 2009-08-17. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the unique on 2008-05-17. Retrieved 2008-01-24.CS1 maint: archived replica as name (hyperlink) ^ "Bernanke-The Global Saving Glut and U.S. Current Account Deficit". Federalreserve.gov. Retrieved 2009-02-27. ^ "The Giant Pool of Money". This American Life. Episode 355. 2008-05-09. CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (hyperlink) ^ "Twelve Reasons Privatizing Social Security is a Bad Idea-Reason 3" (PDF). Archived from the unique (PDF) on 2009-03-25. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Social Security Trustees Report" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Krugman Interview". Pbs.org. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Bush's Regulatory Kiss-Off - Obama's assertions to the contrary, the 43rd president was the biggest regulator since Nixon". Reason magazine. January 2009. Archived from the unique on 2009-09-02. Retrieved 2009-02-02. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (2002-07-31). "CORPORATE CONDUCT: THE PRESIDENT; Bush Signs Bill Aimed at Fraud In Corporations". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-01. ^ Farrell, Greg (2007-07-30). "USA Today-Sarbox". Usatoday.com. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ Labaton, Stephen (2003-09-11). "New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-01. ^ a b Farrell, Greg (2008-09-09). "Oxley Hits Back At Ideologues". The Financial Times. ^ NYT-Edmund Andrews-Greenspan concedes error in regulation-October 23, 2008 ^ Krugman, Paul (2009). The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008. W.W. Norton Company Limited. ISBN 978-0-393-07101-6. ^ "President's Address to the Nation September 2008". ^ Labaton, Stephen (2008-09-27). "SEC Concedes Oversight Flaws". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-01. ^ Labaton, Stephen (2008-10-03). "The Reckoning". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-01. ^ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report, determine 2.1, p. 32 ^ FRED-Civilian Employment Level-Retrieved January 18, 2017 ^ "President Bush's Speech to the Nation on the Economic Crisis". www.nytimes.com. September 24, 2008. Retrieved May 21, 2020. ^ Mann (2015), pp. 126-132 ^ a b c d Mann (2015), pp. 132-137 ^ a b c d Smith (2016), pp. 631-632, 659-660 ^ a b Ben Bernanke (September 2, 2010). "FCIC Testimony-Causes of the Recent Financial and Economic Crisis". ^ "Stimulus Watch". Archived from the unique on 2009-03-07. ^ Terrence P. Jeffrey. "Declaring 'Entire Economy' in Danger, Bush Calls Bipartisan Powwow for Biggest Bailout Ever". Archived from the original on September 26, 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-27. ^ Jake Berry (October 25, 2012). "Politifact-Barack Obama says banks paid back all the federal bailout money". ^ "Price, L. & Ratner, D. (October 26, 2005). Economy pays price for Bush's tax cuts" (PDF). Archived from the unique (PDF) on October 31, 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-10. ^ "Why the economy has grown faster under Democratic Presidents". The Economist. Retrieved November 22, 2016. ^ "Sources and Uses of Equity Extracted from Homes -Greenspan Kennedy Report - Table 2" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Equity extraction - Charts". Seekingalpha.com. 2007-04-25. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ "Reuters-Spending Boosted by Home Equity Loans". Reuters.com. 2007-04-23. Retrieved 2011-08-29. ^ FRED-Real GDP-Retrieved January 18, 2017 ^ "Joint Economic Committee (March, 2006). Research Report #109-32" (PDF). Archived from the unique (PDF) on 2008-02-01. Retrieved 2008-01-25. ^ "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey". U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved 2008-09-28. ^ "Bureau of Labor Statistics". December 2008. ^ a b "FRED CPI and 10-Year Treasury". FRED. Retrieved November 22, 2016. ^ "Household Debt". FRED. Retrieved November 22, 2016. ^ "Historical Income Tables - Households". United States Census Bureau. 2007. Archived from the original on November 27, 2008. Retrieved 2008-03-22. ^ "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007" (PDF). ^ U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, desk 7. ^ U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, table 3. ^ Scheve, Kenneth F. (2007-07-01). "Slaughter-A New Deal for Globalization". Foreignaffairs.com. Retrieved 2011-08-29. vteGeorge W. Bush 43rd President of the United States (2001–2009) forty sixth Governor of Texas (1995–2000) Owner of the Texas Rangers (1989–1998)Presidency Transition First inauguration Second inauguration First time period Second term Domestic coverage Legislation and techniques Economic policy Foreign coverage International journeys Bush Doctrine Russia summits Slovenia Slovakia War in Afghanistan Status of Forces Agreement Patriot Act No Child Left Behind Act Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act USA Freedom Corps Department of Homeland Security Space policy Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty "War on Terror" President's Council on Service and Civic Participation award Dismissal of U.S. legal professionals controversy Email controversy Judicial appointments Supreme Court controversies Cabinet Pardons Impeachment efforts Executive orders Presidential proclamations

Life Presidential library Presidential portrait Early lifestyles Military service controversy Killian paperwork controversy authenticity problems Professional life Governorship of Texas Prairie Chapel Ranch Walker's Point Estate Clinton Bush Haiti FundSpeeches Axis of evil Mission Accomplished State of the Union addresses 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Elections 1978 United States House of Representatives elections (misplaced) Texas gubernatorial elections: 1994 1998 Presidential campaigns: 2000 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries: 2000 2004 Republican National Conventions: 2000 2004 United States presidential elections: 2000 Bush v. Gore 2004Public image Bushisms Nicknames As the topic of books and flicks Fictionalized portrayalsBooks A Charge to Keep (1999) Decision Points (2010) 41: A Portrait of My Father (2014) Portraits of Courage (2017)Family Laura Bush (wife) Barbara Pierce Bush (daughter) Jenna Bush Hager (daughter) George H. W. Bush (father presidency) Barbara Bush (mother) Robin Bush (sister) Jeb Bush (brother) Neil Bush (brother) Marvin Bush (brother) Dorothy Bush Koch (sister) Prescott Bush (grandfather) George P. Bush (nephew) Barney (canine) Miss Beazley (dog) India (cat) Spot Fetcher (canine) ← Bill Clinton Barack Obama →Category Commons vtePublic coverage of the United States Agricultural Arctic Climate exchange G. W. Bush Domestic Reagan G. W. Bush Drug Economic Clinton G. W. Bush Obama Trump Biden Energy Obama Environmental Trump Biden Fiscal Foreign history criticism Trump Biden Gun control Clinton Immigration Trump Biden Infrastructure Trump Biden Low-level radioactive waste Monetary Native American Grant Nixon Obama Nuclear energy Science Social Obama Trump Biden Space G. W. Bush Obama Trump Biden Stem mobile Telecommunications Trade Visa Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration&oldid=1007788918"