What Atrios seems to forget is that we already hit "double 0" on 9-11. It amazes me how people who criticize the impact of economic policy during the Bush administration almost always selectively ignore 9-11. Atrios, and others, like to compare the last three years to history as if there is a historical precedent.
- The golden years of the US economy, 1945-1973, coincided with the period of record high top marginal tax rates.
Let me remind you
THERE IS NO HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE FOR 9-11.
Lest I e thought a shill for Bush's economic policy, I need to give credit where credit is due. Atrios also says:
- Did the Bush tax cuts "cause" a sluggish economy? It's doubtful, but what we can say with some certainty is that they spent a lot of money and don't have much to show for it.
My own feeling is that the combination of the tax cuts plus the out-of-control spending will have long-term negative consequences and that is contributing to the common citizen's less-than-enthusiastic feeling about today's economy. If one doesn't feel positive about his longterm economic outlook, he will tend to think tomorrow (literally) things could fall apart.
Back at the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002, the public was aching for a way to "contribute" to the war effort. They were also hanging on every word Bush said and he was winning kudos for his leadership. It would have been so easy for Bush to rally the country to the idea of no tax cuts. he could have said, "We all need to pull together and tighten our belts for awhile to help defeat this threat to our country."
In short, I think there are plenty of ways to criticize Bush's economic policy without using donut logic.