$6.6 trillion lost on Bush tax cuts could pay all student loans, car loans, credit cards

[hfojvt]

28. there isn't any

And George W. Bush kept moving the goalposts anyway. By early 2001 he was selling them as an economic stimulus, not to create more prosperity, but to revive the economy.

The whole calculation from the article is based on the idea that the prosperity of 2000 would continue indefinitely - something that has never happened in our history. In fact, thanks to rising gas prices and the FED continuing to tighten interest rates, the economy was already slowing down in 2000. In fact, in the last seven months of 2000, the economy only created 540,000 jobs - an average of only 77,000 per month.

The Bush tax cuts were not even pass until June 7, 2001 and except for the quick $300 checks, many of the high end tax cuts were going to phase in slowly over the next 3 or 4 years. By June 2001, the economy had lost 381,000 jobs, and it lost 197,000 in July and 148,000 in August.

Then something happened in September. I cannot remember what (something the media got all excited about) (yes, I know, it was more horrible than the Civil War, WWI, WWII and the flu pandemic combined). Anyway the economy lost 352,000 jobs in October, 298,000 in November and 239,000 in December.

Can any of that be blamed on the Bush tax cuts?

I don't see how that would be an honest attack to blame that on the Bush tax cuts.

Mind you, I detest the Bush tax cuts, but they cannot really be blamed for the economic troubles of 2001. In fact, I am fairly sure that they provided some stimulus to an ailing economy.

p.s. Keep in mind that my MA in economics IS from the University of Nebraska, and that that was long ago and far away...