Message To Democrats: Bush Tax Cuts Did NOT Cause Our Economic Troubles!

He's at it AGAIN! In his radio address today, President Obama blamed our current economic troubles on Bush's tax cuts. It is sooooo hard to believe how many people fall for the nonsense(!) claim that the Bush tax cuts caused or were even a partial cause of the financial collapse. Here are the actual facts:

1. A little history is relevant. Bush had NOTHING to do with what's laughably called the Bush Recession. It was entirely caused by the High Tech Bust precipitated by a 50% fall in the NASDAQ which happened BEFORE Bush even took office! (Note: but Clinton wasn't responsible for that either ... any more than he was responsible for the economic boom of the 90's which was caused by the Tech Boom, NOT Clinton policies ... but that's a story for another day.)
2. Bush instituted tax cuts to deal with the recession HE 'inherited' from a Democrat congress and president. Those tax cut policies, IN FACT, turned the economy around. Following bullets highlight the results.
3. Bush's tax cut was not just a 'tax cut for the rich' as Democrats, especially Obama, keep claiming. The biggest percentage cuts were for low- and middle-income Americans ... $2 TRILLION dollar's worth in fact. Small businesses benefitted the most.
4. Businesses invested their tax savings to grow their companies and citizens spent a big chunk of what they saved. The results:
5. Unemployment immediately began DECREASING STEADILY ... from 6.3% to 4.8% over the next 5 years.
6. Government Revenues began INCREASING STEADILY and were back to Clinton era levels 18 months later! (Question: how have we done by comparison in the current recession under 18 months of Democratic control of everything?)

The preceding info tells a different story from what liberals want us to believe. Here's what actually led to the financial collapse:

1. ONLY ONE TOXIC investment was the primary cause ... sub-prime mortgages.
2. Derivatives trading DID NOT CAUSE the collapse but they made it a little worse. (Note: if there had not been derivatives trading those toxic sub-prime mortgages would STILL HAVE EXISTED and would have collapsed the financial industry anyway. It wouldn't have been derivatives holders taking it on the chin in that case but the mortgages would have caused a melt-down ANYWAY!)
3. Excessive spending by Republicans during the Bush years also did not cause the collapse but made it worse due to the debt their spending created.

So, why wasn't something done about sub-prime mortgages to prevent it? Well, contrary to liberal propaganda, Bush actually tried.

1. Bush tried to reign in these toxic investments his last two years in office but Democrats were in charge of congress then and they thwarted Bush's attempted regulation of sub-prime mortgages as well as regulation of Fannie's and Freddie's role in the collapse that was coming.
2. In fact, Democrats had pushed sub-prime mortgages for years and as recently as one year prior to the collapse, none other than Barney Frank, chairman of the committee responsible for oversight in this area, said Fannie and Freddie were fine and there was NO risk of economic problems from them.
3. Sure, the financial industry 'packaged' and traded these mortgages via the derivates trading mechanism but derivatives did NOT create the toxic investments that collapsed the economy. When they got around to actually doing something about this whole mess, Democrats fixed 'derivatives' ... did NOT touch the real causes, sub-prime's, Fannie/Freddie or Frank and Dodd!!!
4. Final Irony: When Democrate finally got around to what they call financial overhaul they named that bill (that didn't actually fix what caused the collapse!) the Frank-Dodd bill (THE TWO people most responsible for the growth of sub-prime mortgages AND lack of regulation).

The financial collapse was caused by sub-prime mortgages and had nothing to do with the Bush tax cuts. What did Bush's tax cuts have to do with derivatives or trading them? Nothing! If President Obama actually believes otherwise as he says, one has to wonder about his understanding of fundamental economics and his ability to lead our country economically.