Ann, once again, you continue to slam the Bush Administration with absolutely nothing to back it up. You immediately discount the disappearance of trillions of dollars of wealth as all the major stock indices lost anywhere from 40-60% of their value in 2000 and expect it has no effect on the economy. That is a remarkable statement to make. You claim tax cuts were responsible. Well, where's the proof?
Here's the GDP by quarter as you wanted to see:
GDP By Quarter You'll see that in 1999, GDP growth was rather astounding. First, the dot com bubble was reaching its height and was just about to pop in early 2000. Second, growth was being fueled by a capital gains tax cut, which I noticed you've ignored as well since it conflicts with your theories. That capital gains cut, by all your theories, should have blown holes in the budget and would cripple growth. Yet between 1997 and 2000, we had pretty decent growth.
Fast forward to 2000 before George W Bush took office.
The first quarter had 1.01% growth.
The second quarter had 6.28% in real growth. The bubble popped in the second quarter with the height of the stock market in March 2000.
The third quarter growth was -0.46%. Yeah, no effect from the dot com bubble here since we only lost nearly 7% annualized growth in one quarter.
The fourth quarter growth was 2.08%, a slight recovery.
Now let's go to 2001. Bush took office in January 2001 but his policies were not implemented until October of 2001 since government fiscal years run from Oct. 1-Sept. 30. So in Jan-Oct. 2001, we were operating under Clinton's last budget.
The first quarter showed -0.49%. Again, no measurable impact from the dot com bust, right?
You can't even blame the Bush tax cuts since they weren't even voted on until the end of May, more than midway through the second quarter.
Second quarter showed 1.23%. A slight improvement, but still pathetic compared to the 6% quarter we had just as the bubble burst.
Third quarter showed -1.41% decline in real GDP. Hmm, what happened in the third quarter? A couple of planes crashed into a couple of New York buildings and another into the Pentagon, killing 3000 people and crippling the nation's transportation industry as over a million jobs disappeared. According to you, this was due to Bush economic policies and not Osama bin Laden. But wait, Bush's policies had only started to go into effect, a few weeks after 9/11 and hadn't had time to work yet. The third quarter encompasses July 1-September 30, while Bush's economic policies took effect on October 1.
Fourth quarter recovered to 1.58%, which encompasses Oct-Dec, where Bush policies took effect on Oct. 1. It seems a recovery is underway from the hit we took from 9/11, a reversal of 3% from the previous quarter. One quarter by itself is not a trend, but subsequent quarters show an increasing recovery.
From the data I see, it's pretty plain that the dot com bubble bursting had a significant effect on the nation's economy that you simply blame on President Bush, but HE WASN'T IN OFFICE YET. Still think the dot com bubble was just some minor thing where a couple trillion dollars here or there make no difference? Where's the roaring economy you claim Bush inherited from Bill Clinton? Between third quarter of 2000 and third quarter of 2001 under Clinton economic policy, the economy grew a "staggering" 0.59%.
Once again, you exonerate the Democrats from the current financial disaster without a shred of proof. You also claimed Bush had a solid grasp on Congress during his term. Well, let's see if that's true. In 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords (VT-I) jumped ship on May 30, 2001 and turned control of the Senate over to Tom Daschle and the Democrats. Democrats held a 51-49 effective (including Independent Jeffords) majority whereas before the GOP held nominal control with a 50-50 margin with only Dick Cheney casting the tie-breakers. Nope, no solid control there. In 2002 elections, Republicans gained two seats and took control of the Senate with a razor-thin 51-49 margin, far shy of the 60 votes needed for solid control due to Senate rules that give much control to the minority. In 2004, the GOP won four seats in the Senate to have a 55-45 majority. That's a decent majority, but still not enough to stop filibusters. It was during this time that Christopher Dodd and company killed McCain's bill that would have reformed oversight on Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. The bill passed the House but failed to reach the floor of the Senate with Majority Leader Bill Frist knowing the bill would be filibustered. In 2006, the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.
So, you postulate that Bush had solid control of Congress. By my count, he had a minority in the Senate for half his eight years, a minority in the House for 2 years, a razor thin majority in the Senate by 51-49 for 2 years, and decent control of 55-45 for 2 years. Again, your accusations hold no water, especially since he had a minority in the Senate in most of his first two years in office, contrary to your claim that "When George W. Bush was elected, he had a solidly Republican Congress to work with." Wrong again. A 51-49 Democrat majority in the Senate doesn't qualify as "solidly Republican."
I also took a look at the House majority in 2001. Republicans controlled 222 seats (incl. one independent), Democrats controlled 212 seats (incl. one independent), and there was one vacancy. The GOP had basically a five seat majority in a body with 434 seats occupied. Again, "solidly Republican" it was not.
As for Bush having a terrible economic record, let's take a look at this piece from the Wall Street Journal:
Bush Has a Good Economic Record
