Talk:Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration

message: I was only in this for the removal of sourced info. Now that the discussion has descended into politics, for a lack of better words, I'm out. Peace.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrary break, and some transparency 

message: In order to just get the facts out there, I think this page should include some of the actual figures of the Bush tax cuts. They are available on reference #12, and they could be simplified for the sake of easy reading on this page. For example, the top marginal income rate went from 39.6% to 35%, as the article states, but brackets for middle-income earners also went down. The ~$40,000-$100,000 bracket went down from 27.5% to 25%, between 2000 and 2003. --AaronM (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added information about all of the rate cuts, instead of just information about the marginal rate, which implies that the Bush tax cuts only benefitted the top earners. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not add a table showing the relative reduction in each income tax bracket, a second table for the Capital gains reductions, and finally a table showing increasing exclusion/deduction limits for 401k, Roth IRA, primary residence sale and the estate tax. This would be far more educational than the musings of a leftist partisan like Paul Krugman (who really shouldn't be cited in a serious article for his opinions since he really isn't offered as more than a celebrity-based appeal to authority based on past work that has nothing to do with his analysis.) 173.168.129.57 (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Income Brackets 

message: An anon IP author attempted to disprove the statement quoted from Brookings Institution (a centrist think-tank) with CBO data regarding the income of the top 1% between 2001 & 2004. First, that is OR. There is a difference between quoting reputable economists, representative of their profession when they state that tax cuts redistributed income from lower/working/middle to upper class households, and attempting to prove the opposite oneself with CBO data (the former is OK according to WP policy, while the latter is not). Moreover, the tax cuts went into effect in 2003; thus, the decline of income experienced among the top 1% in 2001-2003 (which in turn caused their mean income to be lower in '04 then in '01) is irrelevant here; especially as the gains made by that group since 2004 have more than off-set the fleeting decline in mean income experienced between 2001-2003 by that group - propelling its total share of income to the highest level since 1929. Least but not last, Townhall.com is not, unlike the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a reputable or acceptable source. No reputable source sells t-shirts advocating a political ideology on the margins of its articles.Signaturebrendel 09:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you checked the reference to the CBO data (you DID check the reference, right?), you would see that it was an article that cited CBO data. Therefore, it is not OR. Secondly, the tax cuts went into effect in both 2001 and 2003, which means that data from 2000 to 2005 is indeed relevant (and even if it weren’t, your claim that it is irrelevant is OR). And finally, Townhall.com is an acceptable source, unless you can prove that the facts cited in the article are inaccurate. I am restoring the deleted section, unless you can find another source showing that the cited article is factually inaccurate. 17.224.39.200 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Townhall.com is not itself acceptable, CBO data is. The article itself is not OR - you misunderstood. The fact that you are using this data in order to prove our point: that the Busht tax cuts didn't increase inequality makes it OR. Moreover, the data is irrelevant as we have data that doesn't end in 2004 but 2005. Income growth in Bush's second term among the top 1% has off-set their loses that came with the 2001-2002 downturn. Stating that their income has not increased faster than that of the general population in an abritrarily chosen timeframe is nothing short of misleading. Signaturebrendel 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not use the CBO data in order to prove my point; Reynolds did in his article. Furthermore, I dispute your claim that articles on Townhall.com are not “acceptable.” You believe that the data is irrelevant, but that itself is OR. As for “misleading,” you are quoting facts like “the average after-tax income of the top 1% rose by an inflation adjusted $146,000” to demonstrate the supposed “income inequality,” when that data does not prove anything without relevant information about changes in income for the other 99% for the same period. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, if “the data is irrelevant as we have data that doesn't end in 2004 but 2005,” then I’m sure you’ll pull your reference that “the average after-tax income of the richest one percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004.” If you can cite information based on 2004 numbers, why can’t I? 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So, from a quick perusal of your edits, it sounds like you deleted any references that say that the tax cuts were equitable, and replaced them with more references saying that the tax cuts benefitted the rich. On the basis of your edits, this article is at risk of losing NPOV. Competing viewpoints should be welcomed, not deleted because of your bias. 17.224.39.200 (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Viewpoint are welcome, but they article needs to give due weight to the views that currently dominate academia. The vast majority of economists hold the view that these tax cuts benefited the rich disproportionately (almost so that one could say the Busht tax cuts benefiting the rich unproportionately is a "fact," i.e. established through scientific consensus); this article will give that view due weight. As for the removal of sources; I removed townhall as it is not a credible sources (that's the one source I removed). So far I have added most of the sources in the article, most of which come from centrist non-paritsan think tanks (Brookings, CBPP) - something that can't be said for townhall.com. I will not remove credible sources, so long as they are not used for the purpose of OR and the article gives due weight to the most widely accepted views among social scientists. Signaturebrendel 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do NOT believe that the “vast majority of economists” believe that tax cuts benefitted the rich disproportionately; in fact, from researching this topic, I find that many people cite the same data from Piketty/Saez that has been disputed by Reynolds. However, I have not removed that information, but only added Reynolds’ opinion. And again, you do not have the right to remove the Townhall.com article, as it was written by Reynolds, who you have already cited as a credible source. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They do. If you don't beleive the research, conduct a study of your own, get it published and we can talk about including it. Townhall is not a reputable source, since it's content is not properly reviewed and it does not uphold a high standard for accuracy or manner of discourse - even an expert like Reynolds might post something there that is not credible; if his work is published through a university or think tank, however, I know its credible. Besides, Reynold's argument was kept - I simply added a response to his claims by Gary Burtless. Signaturebrendel 08:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: PS. Assume good faith, do not accuse editors of attempting to perpetuate their personal agenda; doing so is in violation of WP policy. Signaturebrendel 08:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want me to “assume good faith,” and accuse me of violating WP policy…yet just minutes before, you accuse me of “pushing a libertarian/conservative agenda”? I sense some hypocrisy here. As for my edits, I have been adding and clarifying information, while you have been rephrasing many of my statements to downplay or trivialize the conclusions. If you claim that I am violating Wikipedia policy by not assuming good faith, then I claim that you are violating Wikipedia policy by removing information that is verifiable, and thus belongs in the article. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am using the same sources (i.e. Reynolds) as before. I will go through and examine your changes to see what you have edited or removed needlessly; from what I have seen, you are again trying to provide information that is misleading and unsupported by fact. I hope you were less reckless with your reverts this time, but somehow I doubt it. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all misleading. Most edits were left, but I will maintain the article as to reflect the dominant view among our references. Once more, I will examine your changes as well, as I suspect, even while assuming good faith, that you are pushing a libertarian/conservative agenda that is not supported by most research or experts. Moreover, do not accuse me of being misleading, all data and statement I add are in consensus with the views dominant in the social scientific community (your are not). Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of data

message: As you have used more reputable sources this time (though CATO is bias, but we do allow think tank on WP), I have kept just about all your changes, though I did add critique of Reynold and added an explicit position regarding the stance most economists take on the issue of inequality. Also, we use seasonally adjusted figures regarding unemployment; thus, it was at 4.2, not 4.7 per cent in Janurary '01. If you would like to add unadjusted data, go ahead. Signaturebrendel 03:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using the same sources (i.e. Reynolds) as before. I will go through and examine your changes to see what you have edited or removed needlessly; from what I have seen, you are again trying to provide information that is misleading and unsupported by fact. I hope you were less reckless with your reverts this time, but somehow I doubt it. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all misleading. Most edits were left, but I will maintain the article as to reflect the dominant view among our references. Once more, I will examine your changes as well, as I suspect, even while assuming good faith, that you are pushing a libertarian/conservative agenda that is not supported by most research or experts. Moreover, do not accuse me of being misleading, all data and statement I add are in consensus with the views dominant in the social scientific community (your are not). Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most changes kept

message: Brendel, I am noticing a disturbing trend among your edits, where you rephrase sections for no other reason than to downplay the facts that don’t support the anti-Bush agenda. For example, I wrote:
“According to a March 2006 report by the Joint Economic Committe, the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.”
All of this is factually accurate, and taken directly from the cited report. However, you rephrased it as:
“Despite growth levels considerably below previous levels, the U.S. did experience greater growth in GDP, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability than most other developed countries.”
So first, you add in the “despite growth levels…” disclaimer, which is redundant to the previous paragraphs. Then you took out the reference to the 2001–2005 time period, removed the reference to “large developed economies” (the group that the study specifically cited), and changed it to “most other developed countries.” The overall purpose is to soften the factual statements from the report, presumably to support some agenda of your own. I am restoring the original phrasing; if you can find something factually inaccurate with what I wrote, let me know. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 07:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to support an agenda of my own, but the statement needs a transistion from the previous paragraph. Otherwise you imply a contradiction in data or some type of controversy (e.g. some say A, some say B). Such is not the case. The U.S. economy grew much slower under Bush than the average for business cycles between '45-'00 but sill faster than other large developed countries. There is no contradiction; thus, I added a transition to clarify this for the reader. The disclaimer is, therefore, no redundant. Regards, Signaturebrendel 07:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I will accept that the transition is not redundant. What about the other changes? 75.30.225.147 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Of course their tax liablities went up! they garnered half of all income gains, with their share of income increasing from 12.2% to 14%; as their share of income increased so did their overall liablitiy, despite a rate cut. The CBO data does not contradict any other statements in the article. Obviously if a group's share of income increases sufficiently, they will burden a greater share of tax liablity even if given a rate cut and less progressive taxation system. You can see the effects in the CBO article clearly: share of income went up by 14.7% while their share of tax liablity went up by 10.4%; how come their share of income increased 4 percentage points faster than their share of tax liability? The tax cut (had it not been for the cut, their share of tax liability would have increased as fast their share of income). Their per dollar tax burden decreased as evident in faster growth of their share of aggregate income vs. their share of overall tax liability (aside from increased share of aggregate net income & lower tax rates). One should definitely not add the word "but," as to imply that there was some sort of contradiction of some sort when there clearly isn't one. PS. After-tax income is not meaningless; it is one of the best tools to measure inequality (of course whether or not you or I see it as important is irrelevant. I'm sorry if I removed the CBO report by mistake before; it's a great source! Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I checked your math, and you are wrong when you said, "how come their share of income increased 4 percentage points faster than their share of tax liability? The tax cut (had it not been for the cut, their share of tax liability would have increased as fast their share of income)." Even if tax rates are fixed, tax liability does not increase at the same rate as share of income. Check the math yourself if you don’t believe me. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted Rephrasing 

message: Brendel, I don’t know what to do with you. As you obviously know, there are always statistics which support one viewpoint or another. However, you seem determined to remove all statistics which show how tax cuts have lowered the tax burden of the bottom 80%, and instead choose to add statistics which show that the top 1% have gained more income. Is this really how Wikipedia works: You just remove statistics that you disagree with or feel are irrelevant, and replace them with statistics which support your own viewpoint? I am tired of you removing the same sections over and over again without justification or explanation. 75.30.225.147 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit War 

message: Honestly, does anyone use this page for discussion about proposed changes any more? With the latest round of edits, I noticed a disturbing trend, where relevant information is being removed as “POV pushing" and "OR", when the sections removed are neither. Meanwhile, large sections are being "edited" by copying and pasting those same sections from previous versions, often introducing the same typos and grammatical errors which have been fixed over the course of weeks or months previously. This kind of slipshod editing is bad for the article, and should be avoided. If you are going to remove whole paragraphs of information, at least TRY to explain why those paragraphs are inaccurate. The Vidiot (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Edits 

message: I have re-inserted the bit about Bush being the first president in a very long time to go an entire term without vetoing any legislation. I'm not sure if that's completely relevant, so it may be removed on those grounds -- but it is correct. I think the confusion has to do with the meaning of the word "term." Bush served two terms as president. He did veto legislation in his second term, but not in his first. Kier07 (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And this impacts Bush's economic policy how? 161.150.2.58 (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Bush Vetoes 

message: Despite leaving office with an ongoing recession, the economy performed strongly for the most part of Bush's Presidency. This included nearly six years of uninterrupted growth and the strongest economy of any developed country.
This is POV, the first source is in COI, asking the senior political advisor to write up an article describing the greatness of the President he got elected is absolute POV, find a credibicle economists to say that instead, though if memory serves the actual economists tore this article to shreads as being nothing but spin. The second link is dead. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted that the quotes were from Rove and some facts to back up his arguments.. well some facts at least. We need to find a credible economist that supports Bush's economics policies and not his senior political advisor. The other cite was a dead link. No matter what, Karl Rove is not an impartial source and we shouldn't use him for any 'numbers' on the economy. RTRimmel (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence needs refrences 

message: Hi JustGettingItRight, could clarify your justification for removing the image in the introduction? Thank you. --Beerfinger (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The graph cannot start at zero, however, as our deficit did not start at zero at the start of Bush's term, so such a graph would be a lie. So far, everyone who has worked on this article has agreed with the image, so you are currently removing it against consensus, if you want to remove the image, gain consensus first.— Dædαlus Contribs 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with your first two edits. I'm not sure about the image though. The red font seems pretty irrelevant to me. The purpose of the graph is to depict the national debt during his tenure. It cites numerous sources to support its claims. The number 4.9T is the increase in the deficit during his tenure. Whether or not it's "possibly" incorrect that he was responsible is a matter of opinion. Some would say the president is responsible for everything that happens on his/her watch, "the buck stops here." Some might not. Either way, the FACT is that it DID increase that much on his watch. Regarding your gripe with the axis, I don't think you understand what you're asking. First of all, I'm not sure anyone remembers any point in recent history when the national debt was at zero. Second of all, if the creator of the image were to arbitrarily insert a 0 axis, it would actually have the effect of increasing the incline of the slope, which would consequently increase the perception that Bush significantly increased the national debt. Judging by your past edits, I get the impression that that would not be to your liking. Finally, I can see your point regarding the insertion of Bush's likeness, but I do not see any merit regarding the fact that he's smiling. While having a picture of Bush there might not be entirely relevant, I don't believe that it makes any of the graphs' assertions any less factual and I also don't believe that it makes this graph any more biased than the suggestion you put forth of creating a new graph. --Beerfinger (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: "So far, everyone who has worked on this article has agreed with the image, so you are currently removing it against consensus.." Where did this discussion occur? Absence of objections does not equal consensus. I find the image very amateurish and misplaced. If it were to be re-included, which I would not support, it would not be appropriate to place it in the introduction where it was previously placed. It would seem the editor who uploaded the image considered it to be a joke anyway. --auburnpilot talk 21:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the image is misplaced. Perhaps it would be a better fit in the "Economic Growth" section? The image was created by an amateur, that is obvious too as he is no graphic artist, but how was it placed as a joke? --Beerfinger (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the link at the end of my comment, which shows the editor who uploaded the image adding it to a discussion with the comment "You guys like this one? I thought it was just a little funny". --auburnpilot talk 21:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I've asked to see if he can provide us with some context. --Beerfinger (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is hopelessly biased in favor of Bush 43's policies. I think a more appropriate response is simply to tag it as such. Why is Karl Rove quoted twice in the intro? I mean come on people! What a joke. So I added an image worthy of the article. Bush was an economic disaster of near biblical proportions by most accounts and per our recent Nobel laureates Stiglitz and Krugman. He was the President and is accountable, particularly since he inherited an annual surplus from Clinton and cut taxes needlessly. Nearly all economic growth during his tenure was due to home equity extraction or otherwise debt-financed. He also could have attempted to reform Social Security with relatively minor tax increases and spending cuts, instead of blowing the opportunity on a divisive non-starter like privatization. As indicated above, the national debt was significant before he took office and he nearly doubled it, while counting most of the Iraq & Afghanistan spending outside the budget. He pointed to deficit reductions during his second term, while the debt increased dramatically, another misleading line of argument. He presided over enormous increases in the trade deficit, a major cause of the current crisis (see subprime mortgage crisis article for that). He said that he was a good steward of the taxpayers money, which was blatantly untrue. He helped the financial oligarchy to take this government over according to Simon Johnson--See The Quite Coup What you say? Taxpayers put in enormous amounts of money, yet no bondholder haircuts or nationalizations occurred during his administration for the major banks, which is what the IMF does in every other country facing this type of crisis. And the same management is in place, can you believe this? The Feds didn't even put significant new folks onto the boards. Unbelievable. I could go on, but...Ahem...I think a compromise would be to place a chart without his picture, that just shows the debt increases each year during his tenure. You can find the chart I'm talking about in the national debt article. Perhaps put that lower in the article. Perhaps add verbiage to the intro that says that even though he spent approximately the same amount as Clinton relative to GDP, his tax cuts resulted in enormous debt increases. And yes, it was the tax cuts, because GDP grew and tax receipts went down, as shown in the tax revenue and expenses relative to GDP chart in this article. Spending on Iraq/Afghanistan was about $750 billion during his tenure, not enough to account for the enormous debt increases. CBO estimates his tax cuts, if they do not expire, will cost treasury $1.8 trillion over 10 years, a proxy for how much they cost the Treasury already. I've quoted that source already in the body.Farcaster (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concerning "Bush was an economic disaster of near biblical proportions by most accounts and per our recent Nobel laureates Stiglitz and Krugman. He was the President and is accountable, particularly since he inherited an annual surplus from Clinton and cut taxes needlessly." I hope you realize that you, as well as Stiglitz and Krugman are extremely biased against Bush and Republicans in general. You do realize there wasn't any actual surplus from Clinton?TL36 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

text: This is original research. Personally, there is one point I disagree with you on: 1. that Iraq/Afghanistan did not contribute significantly to the deficit increases. Your views on former President George W. Bush's economic policies are your own personal opinions and should not belong in the article. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of image 

message: I'm not accusing anybody of this, but this article should not be a battleground in support or in opposition to Bush's economic policies. Rather it should matter of factly state what his policies were and what the economic indicators were. It should not offer selective opinion, positive or negative, of the effect of Bush's economic policies. JustGettingItRight (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues boil down to the amount of serious academic resources that have been devoted to discussing Bush's economic policies are vastly outweighed by the pundits discussing Bush's economy. We may need to wait a bit to see how the whole thing shakes out. My understanding is that presently there is a massive debate between supply side economists about the failure of their economic theory under Bush's watch. Then you have other economists trying to use this to kill that school of thought or at least push it from the mainstream so while the fact that Bush's policies did not perform well the exact reasons are debated rather hotly. After that most of the numbers are simply not good and getting actual factual numbers inserted is tricky and several editors are attempting to POV push items leaning quite heavily in one direction or another, and knowing what numbers are actually significant is also tricky (For example, more regulation because the Federal Register got more pages was seriously used to justify how Bush was a regulator recently). Finally you have administration people spinning the results of the economy that in no way reflect reality. Karl Rove in the lead, for example, is demonstratively wrong or so selective in his facts that its just not possible to take him seriously. Ex, Between 2003-2006 we had good job growth (though median income declined rather significantly), but between 2001-2008 we had very bad job growth. But those are just qualifiers, we should start with the lead and work down. Hopefully something decent comes of it. RTRimmel (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to keep coming back to the cause of the economic crisis we are in now being the sole fault of the sub-prime mortgages failing, and related issues. It also keeps beating in the point of a balanced budget by Bill Clinton. This is an incredibly myopic assessment of the situation. The core of the issue is the intellectual property transfer to China during the '90's, in which we closed nearly every factory that made anything, and literally sent our engineers to China to teach them how to make it. Stockholders in these companies reaped an enormous windfall when they quickly shed expenses, when they sold their stock they paid capital gains taxes, which helped balance the budget. Wall St. needs an expanding industry to invest in, with the lack of manufacturing startups they created a non sustaining industry in junk mortgages, people who previously had high paying factory jobs transferred to service sector employment and made less money so of course they extracted assets from their equity and refinanced. I know this isn't a forum to discuss issues but to put the blame all on the junk mortagage debacle ignores that the reason they were junk is because Americans were no longer making enough to pay for them.Batvette (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Biased inappropriate edits were made and corrected by myself. I don't know when it got there: "blob" (job) "ass instance"(assistnace) "sax" (tax) "fax" (tax) "primate mortgage crisis" (subprime mortgage crisis). Flag for review. Sbv7 (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Review of this article needed

message: 1. Re: Whether the revenues grew as tax rates fell, as predicted by the Laffer Curve:
"However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006" -This speaks for itself.
In other words, as the tax cuts got larger with each successive year, it follows that the revenues DID grow until it surpassed the pre-tax cut levels by 2006. Ergo, those who thought the Laffer curve would mean more revenue were correct: Cutting taxes DID produce more revenue than before the taxes had been cut. (This can also be seen in the declining yearly deficits up until the crisis in 2008.)
2. There is NO doubt that the Bush tax cuts shifted more of the income tax burden onto higher earners. It's basic math. The bottom income tax rate was slashed by 33% from 15% to 10%. The next rate was slashed by a smaller amount, and so on with the highest bracket being slashed from 39.1% to 35%, a reduction of 11.7%. Since the lower brackets were cut far more drastically than the higher brackets, it follows that the income tax burden (the total percentage of tax revenue each bracket represents) shifted into the upper brackets.
I'd really like to see this article's language updated to reflect these logically necessary facts, since now these areas seem to carry a taint of readily disprovable rhetoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.129.57 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're purposing would probably violate Wikipedia:Original Research. Editors should not include conclusions based on their own deductions. You should try to find a published source for the statements you want to add.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two easy non-sequitors that should be corrected in the interests of WP:NPOV 

message: "Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has estimated the total cost of the Iraq War at closer to $3 trillion.[39]"
We have actual data on what these wars cost, and it's about $100B per year according to the CBO. Taking some claim of what they will supposedly cost several decades down the line is not only highly speculative, but completely at odds with a discussion of a historical date range. Does the Costs of the Great Society article (or Economic policies of LBJ) calculate the costs of a Medicare Bankruptcy in 2045? Would a discussion of the costs of the New Deal discuss the bankruptcy of Social Security in 2070? How would Stiglitz separate costs directly attributable from the wars in 2040 from the costs of soldiers who simply required the higher standard of care required by an elderly person in 2040 without a time machine? Obviously He can't. This is an unsupportable statement based on a blatent appeal to authority (for an unrelated body of work) that does nothing to advance the reader's understanding of the actual budget deficits from 2001-2008. 173.168.129.57 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested removal of $3 Trillion dollar cost of wars 

message: This image carries the caption "Breakdown of debt incurred between 2001 and 2006" which must be incorrect because the sourced article from which it takes its data never gives figures for a "breakdown of debt." That article, "FROM SURPLUS TO DEFICIT: Legislation Enacted Over the Last Six Years Has Raised the Debt by $2.3 Trillion," does supply hypothetical numbers obtained from a CBO report but those numbers concern the effect of legislation enacted from 2001 to mid-2006 on the debt.
Taken literally, this graph is saying to me that the war in Iraq & Afghanistan contributed more than 3x as much to the debt as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid put together.
Some may argue that only the caption should be changed but I think the graph should be deleted. The other ones accompanying this article are sufficient and they are current to 2008 while this graph's data stops in August of 2006 though the article is dated 12/10. A bigger question concerns whether the article's sponsor, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think-tank with a well-known liberal bias, is a legitimate source for Wikipedia. They seem to me to be about as biased to the left as the Heritage Foundation is to the right.TL36 (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Bush deficit Graph Needs to be Changed or Removed

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418020602/http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/apers/borrowing.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/apers/borrowing.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080316094351/http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov:80/opd/opdpenny.htm to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926011820/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36294 to http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36294
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515081611/http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5510.htm to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5510.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html
*Added  tag to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090307183334/http://www.usbudgetwatch.org:80/stimulus? to http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/stimulus
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080517075933/http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/cafta/cafta_centralamerica.asp to http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/cafta/cafta_centralamerica.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719051700/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811012325/http://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/size.cfm to http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/size.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102202341/http://www3.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0504taxes_gale.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2005/0504taxes_gale.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127122216/http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22537.html to http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/22537.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wsj.com/article/SB117245928831919032-search.html?KEYWORDS=cafta&COLLECTION=wsjie%2F6month
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325214633/http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/12badideas.pdf to http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/12badideas.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usbudgetwatch.org/stimulus
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031172235/http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf to http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031172235/http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf to http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/168/bp168.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201204219/http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf to http://www.house.gov/jec/studies/rr109-32.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/perindex.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified