They didn’t.

Even cherry-picking what years you want look at, economic growth under Bush II has been mediocre, at best.

What the tax cuts have led to is large structural deficits. Now, I know Ryan B. will disagree, but most economists will tell you that chronic deficits lead (ceteris paribus) to higher long-term interest rates. Which hurts economic growth.

All the fine talk about fiscal discipline on the spending side is just that — talk. Revenues dropped from 20.9% of GDP in 2000 to 16.3% of GDP in 2004, before rebounding slightly to 17.5% in 2005 (whoop-dee-do!). Meanwhile, spending climbed from 18.4% of GDP to 20.1%.
(N.b.: the on-budget numbers are even more dismal.)

If you think that a return to fiscal responsibility is possible without rolling back, at least part of the Bush tax cuts, you are either a visionary or a dreamer.

Drop the first two years of the current Administration as “bad data points”. Average Real GDP Growth for the subsequent 3 years was 3.48%.

Better than the postwar average, but pathetic compared to similarly cherry-picked “good years” from the Clinton era.

Go to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. You will find that from 1946-2005, annual Real GDP Growth was 3.35%. During the 8 years of the Clinton Administration, it was 3.71%. During Clinton’s 2nd term, it was 4.20%.

Over the first 5 years of the current Administration, annual Real GDP Growth was 2.55%.

According to this NRO article WWII average was 3.5% and Clinton was 3.6%, so 3.9% is indeed higher, but not “well above” either. Also, Clinton’s second term was 4%, so that was obviously a 4 year period where it was higher.

In any event, the numbers are so close I don’t think they’re statistical significant differences (i.e. it could very well be noise). If the tax cuts were repealed and it went back to 1.4% like the 2 years prior to tax cut, I would definitely be closer to a “believer”. It still would not change my views on fiscal restraint though.

P.S. I just like the sound of “hardy har har” as a sarcastic type laugh, but showing that it’s all in good fun. Have a terrific weekend!

The Clinton thing isn’t an attack on him or his presidency, it is a defensive tactic in response to the recession (2000) being widely, broadly, and often blamed on Bush.

I must confess that I don’t know what the annual growth rate was for the economy in the Clinton years. Was it greater or lesser than the post WWII average (which I understand to be the average for all the years since WWII) and was it greater or lesser than the 3.9% they cite?