Bush era tax cuts initially resulted in decreased tax revenues. By 2007, tax revenues were $144 billion greater than when he had taken office. This gain is attributed to the sharp increase from corporate tax revenue within two years of the early administration tax cut.

A disproportionate change in tax rates by household income existed after Bush’s early administration tax cuts. The lowest 80% of households received as much as a 28 to 53% reduction in tax rates, compared to 1983, while the top 10% of households received over a 10% increase in tax rates. In 2005, the top 10% of earners paid 70% of federal income taxes.

Spending increased under every administration in recent memory. Bush and Reagan increased spending by 25%; Clinton by 9%; Bush-41 by 18%.   Revenues increased the most under Clinton at 35% through increases in individual income taxes.

Federal deficits have been common between 1.0 to 4.3% of GDP. Bush and Carter ran deficits at 2.4%. Reagan and Bush-41 did so at 4.3%. Clinton gets top marks for running balanced over his terms! However, spending has increased regardless of party in either The White House or The Congress.

Pork projects or earmarks gained in popularity during Bush’s terms ultimately growing in quantity by 3 times. Bush exercised the power of veto only 9 times compared to Clinton at 37, Bush-41 at 44, Reagan at 78 and Carter at 31.

The unemployment rate steadily dropped during Clinton’s terms from 8% to 4%. Bush saw a post-9/11 spike to 6.4% but correction to 4% by 2007.

Bush attempted to reform Social Security early in his administration but was unable to gain support in The Congress. As a percentage of GDP, in 2015 the three major entitlements will be half of our tax revenue. If current trends continue, in 2080 our country’s costs will be twice its revenue. Of federal spending in 2008, over 50% was mandatory up from 42% in 1985 and 27% in 1965.

US trade deficit has been on a steady increase since 1992 but began a turn around in late 2005.

Bush, through Committee, and McCain, through co-sponsorship of legislation, separately attempted to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2002 and 2005, respectively. The mortgage giant is overseen by a board directly reporting to Congressional committee.

After review, I sit in confusion as to what “failed economic policies of the last eight years” are being referenced. Surely there can be no argument with increases in tax revenue by shifting the burden to the wealthy since candidate Obama made clear of his intention to “spread the wealth.” Surely there can be no argument regarding increases to federal spending including earmarks since Obama’s budget is laden with pork, as was the Spendulus bill, and results in quadrupling the annual deficit. The Omnibus bill included 8,570 earmarks while there were 8,341 earmarks in all of 2002!  Surely there can be no argument on decreasing the unemployment rate since Obama has been clear in his plans to create or save 3.5 million jobs.  Surely he wouldn't want to negate gains made in improving the trade deficit.

This phrase must, then, be in reference to not getting reform of Social Security and Freddie/Fannie, yet neither are on Obama’s agenda. Could I get a clarification please? I wonder how many “uhs” Robert Gibbs would jibber to get out a response? Maybe he would look into it for me.