Harry Reid Claims The Bush Tax Cuts Cost America 8 Million Jobs

Per the congressional record, on Tuesday of this week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that the Bush tax cuts had lost the country 8 million jobs:

My friend talks about no new taxes. Mr. President, if their theory was right, with these huge taxes that took place during the Bush 8 years, the economy should be thriving. These tax cuts have not helped the economy. The loss of 8 million jobs during the Bush 8 years, two wars started, unfunded, all on borrowed money, these tax cuts all on borrowed money; if the tax cuts were so good, the economy should be thriving.

Eight million jobs? That’s a lot, and it would certainly be an indictment of Bush-era economic policies…if it were true. Unfortunately for Reid, it’s not. In fact, what is true that is the country lost 8 million jobs during the Democrat super-majority in Congress:

During Bush’s eight years in office — January 2001 to January 2009 — the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)

This isn’t remotely close to what Reid claimed. Reid’s office didn’t respond to our request for information, but we think we know what he was referring to.
From the economy’s peak to its low point, the nation lost 8.75 million jobs. Here’s the problem: The peak for jobs came in January 2008, while the low point for jobs came in February 2010.

This means the starting point for Reid’s measure came seven years into Bush’s eight-year tenure, and the low point occurred about a year into Barack Obama’s tenure.

In other words, Reid had a point in saying that there was a “loss of eight million jobs” — but it didn’t come “during the Bush eight years.” The loss of eight million jobs occurred during a roughly two-year period shared more or less equally between Bush and Obama.

And remember, according to Jay Carney, the White House doesn’t create jobs. Which is technically true. The private sector creates job when the Congress/White House lets it.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • http://randysroundtable.blogspot.com/ Randy G

    Senile old ba$tard. He lies every time he opens his dingy mouth.

  • Neiman

    This is a Propaganda War, it is sound bites, it is making the facts fit the message, it is not about the truth and do you know what, these lying liars are very, very good in the art of Propaganda. If they repeat over and over such lies, at least the Left will be satisfied, they will stand with the Democrats.

    By the way, were the wars fully funded during the Bush years? Did the GOP over spend during those years? Are they in the slightest way responsible for the recession at the end of the Bush years? If they answer is Bush and the GOP were not acting like conservatives in how they handled our economy, where are the people on the Right opposing the lies by the Left and comparing Bush era mistakes to the gross, horrendous econiomic mistakes under Lord Obama? If only the Left are talking, who has a better chance of selling their message?

    • Jvette

      You are exactly right here. As we see from Reid’s comments and those of a certain poster here, one can take the raw numbers and twist them to fit the lie they want to propagate. Unfortunately too few people will take the time to investigate what the numbers actually mean or the context of the statistics.

      The problem is that “8 million jobs lost during Bush’s eight years in office” is all most will ever hear.
      To explain the reality takes time and with the attention span of a gnat, the majority of the public will not sit still to hear it.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    At first I thought that he was jealous, considering his own efforts, but … yawn … just lying … again.

  • Bat One

    Harry Reid, meet Hannitized.  Dumbass liar, meet dumbass liar!

    • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

      BatOne, meet BatOne:

      BatOne in Dec, 2007

      “… the threat to our financial system isn’t the individual homeowner behind on his payments, but rather the creditworthiness of all those institutions whose zest for a greater return in a low interest rate environment led them to buy CMOs, SIVs, and other sub-prime mortgage backed derivatives which they should not have purchased.

      Likewise, your prescription for the future, outlawing adjustable rate mortgages, is simplistic, misguided, wrong-headed, and of dubious constitutionality. It also does not solve the problems you purport it would. The problem isn’t the mortgage product itself, but the misapplication of that product, usually by borrowers who refuse to acknowledge, despite the warnings, the difficulties they are getting themselves into. No one held a gun to these folks heads.” – BatOne

      BatOne commenting on his comment:

      “Since no one has suggested that the individual homeowner has anything to do with this, your inclusion of him, behind on his payments or not, is itself incorrect and stupid.  As for the rest of your statement, mostly it’s just ignorant.  Willfully ignorant.

      Blaming the institutions which bought the mortgage-backed securities (I wonder if you know how to distinguish between those which are totally derived from sub-prime mortgages and those which are only partially so?) is simply a convenient excuse for not getting to the inconvenient root cause of the sub-prime catastrophe and instead going only part way down the food chain. As I pointed out above, the sub-prime mortgage business has been a small and successful part of the overall mortgage industry for decades.  The question is, what caused that niche market explode to such proportions that it caused the collapse of the housing market, the
      mortgage market, and quite nearly the world’s credit and financial system?” – BatOne Aug, 2011

      • robert108

        Little hanni: your cherry-pick doesn’t prove what you think it proves.

        • Neiman

          He doesn’t care, even with amplification and more discussion, he has concluded what he has concluded and to his deranged mind only he knows the truth.

          • Bat One

            The truth is exactly what he DOESN’T know.

          • Neiman

            Like most liberals he honestly thinks he does know the truth, for him truth doesn’t require facts or any consistency at all. I have seen him time after time take what is written and even when the original author offers amplification to clarify a point and offers sound reasonable facts in his own support, everything is ignored by this seriously emotionally impaired human being except his original accusations, baseless as they always are; and that is a mental derangement, it is an inability to talk rationally and concede points that he cannot prove, what matters to him and most liberals is the brilliance in their own minds of their accusations and that is all. Those accusations alone, to them, are unassailable truth, while any accusations against them cannot possibly be true the facts be damned.

            This is not a joke, these are the people we face in trying to make a course correction for America, they are not in touch with reality, they are self deluded and as such they are wholly unable to engage in rational debate. How do you compromise with such people? How do you as the Bible suggests, come and reason together with them? I think liberalism is a debilitating, dangerous emotional disease that is self destructive, a state of severe delusions and it borders on insanity.

        • Bat One

          Indeed it does not.  When he first started posting that quote, a couple weeks ago I believe, I suggested a timeline might be in order.  The suggestion, nor surprisingly, was too subtle for the boy.

          The comment was made in December of 2007, fully 9 months before the near collapse of Bear Stearns and AIG and the collapse of Lehman Bros, Fannie and Freddie.  The actual subject of the thread was a post on the suggestion by the Bush administration to force lenders with adjustable rate mortgages on their books to modify those mortgages for the homeowner/borrowers.  It was that plan that I criticized as being unlawful and unconstitutional since I could see no constitutional authority for the federal government to force a change in the terms of a valid legal contract, regardless of the circumstances.  To say that the institutions with too much mortgage paper of dubious value on their books should not have bought it and thus represented a threat (and to have said it 9 months before the crash!) is not the same as properly laying the blame at the feet of those whose policies caused the explosion in sub-prime mortgages, the bubble in housing prices and the subsequent bursting of that bubble and the collapse of the housing, mortgage, and credit industries.  But bear in mind, because so much of the sub-prime paper was Fannie/Freddie approved, it carried the implicit guarantee and backing of the “full faith and credit of the United States.”

          The “affordable housing” initiatives for “underserved communities” of the Clinton era Democrats was akin to lowering the drinking age to 16, mandating free drinks for females on Friday and Saturday night to attract paying male customers, and then bemoaning all the traffic deaths reported in Sunday’s newspaper, while blaming the beer distributor.

          As for those homeowner/borrowers and particularly those with adjustable rate sub-prime mortgages, someone who has no knowledge of mortgages or the mortgage process, such as Hannitized, wouldn’t know this, but Federal law (RESPA) mandates that the borrower read, and acknowledge by signing disclosures which detail the type of mortgage loan, the terms of the loan, and if it is an adjustable a best estimate of what could happen to the rate and payment at the time the loan adjusts.  The RESPA disclosures are reviewed and signed at application, at approval, and at the closing.  Furthermore, the originating mortgage company, the closing attorney/escrow company, and the entity buying the loan such as Fannie or Freddie, all review these documents separately to ensure compliance.  For every homeowner that later claims he didn’t know the details of the loan he took out, I can guarantee there’s a signed disclosure document on file that says differently.

      • JustRuss

        All of the various viewpoints Bat has expressed, are not mutually exclusive. Yes, he appears to be arguing against himself, but all of his points are valid and all lead back to one culprit.

        CRA forces banks to change lending practices or be investigated for racism in lending.

        People who have no clue what they are getting into, and barely (and in some cases NO) ability to pay the mortage, are getting one because banks cannot apply stringent lending practices. Many of these people are minorities.

        The government recognizes the problem they have created, Fanny and Freddy buy bad debt to encourage banks to continue lending against their better judgement.

        Banks and Financial Institutions invested in bad paper (subprime repackaged debt)

        A slight recession in 2007/08, (coincidentally once BHO, who has stated how he wants to fundamentally change america, becomes the front runner for the Democrat Nomination) starts a cascade of morgage failures, which leads to a global financial crisis, deepening the recession and leading to layoffs and lower hiring across the entire economy

        Rather than let banks and businesses file for bankruptcy or fail, the government see’s what they have done and has to bail them out, because its not fair.

        Rather than reorganizing, cutting out the cancer within their system, banks and business are placed on life support, extending the recovery period from the now Great Recession.

        In response to the “unfairness” and “needs of the people” government deepens entitlement spending at the same time as more and more people are entering the system. 

        Lenders, and Borrowers, and institutions that were greedy and bought the repackaged debt (which became toxic assets)  Everyone was at fault, but the root of the problem was Government Meddling.

  • NDSuperman

    I wonder why then, if this was such bad economic policy, he voted for the extension of the tax cuts?

    On Dec 15 2010, after the passage of the bill, Reid had this to say: “A tremendous accomplishment,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of
    Nevada declared shortly before the vote Wednesday. “Whether you agree
    with all the contents of the bill or not, everyone should understand
    this is one of the major accomplishments of any Congress where two
    parties, ideologically divided, have agreed on a major issue for the
    American people.”

    But don’t take my word for it:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2013690449_taxes16.html

    What’s the best way to see which way the wind blows?  Wet your finger and stick it in the air…or maybe pick some grass.

  • WOOF

    When’s the last time GW Bush stood next to a Repub running for office?
    Neither prayer nor time has washed away Junior’s sins from the nation’s memory.

    • Neiman

      It doesn’t matter to you that is was a lie, does it? I mean as a liberal, don’t you believe the ends, no matter how vile, justify the means no matter how foul?

    • donwalk

      Obama has washed away all financial history, and any chances of a financial future for our children and grandchildren, period!
      Good Luck in finding a Democrat who will stand next to B.O. during the 2012 campaign.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bikebubba

    One would figure that if 8 million jobs were lost “due to the Bush tax cuts,” we would see an inflection point in 2002 instead of in 2007, no?  To put it mildly, Reid’s sense of cause and effect is….weak.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    During Bush’s eight years in office — January 2001 to January 2009 — the nation actually gained a net 1.09 million jobs. (Because there were gains in government jobs, the private sector actually lost 653,000 jobs during that period.)

    Socialism!!!  Bush knows how to kill the free market with his stealth Communisim….or some stupid sh!t like that, right my right-wing-nutball “friends”?

    • robert108

      If you only knew the meaning of the words you use…

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        So nothing about Bush’s gains in government jobs while 653,000 private sector jobs were lost, BigGovernmentR180??

        Aren’t you going to squawk about socialism and stealth communism, you hypocritical little parrot?

        • robert108

          You’re the one who wants big govt, lying little hanni.  I proposed neighborhood electricity generation, and you started whining about State electricity.
          Again, you complain about President Bush’s numbers, which were at least positive, while failing to get after obama’s numbers, which are all negative.
          I express my own thoughts, it’s you and your liberal girlfriends who do the parroting.
          BTW, since you know nothing about economics, the only excuse for creating govt jobs is positive economic growth, which characterized the Bush administration until the last two quarters, and that was the result of Dem redistributionism and the Pelosi/Reid Congress.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            But what about the fact that Bush only created government jobs while private sector jobs were lost?  That’s Socialism and stealth Marxism…..right BigGovernmentR180??

          • robert108

            You should really look up the definitions of the words you use, little hanni.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Cmon BigGovernment R180, nobody can spot Socialism and Stealth Communism like you can.  Don’t you have any criticisms for Bush creating only government jobs and losing 653,000 private sector jobs????

          • robert108

            You really need a dictionary, little hanni.  You’re making a fool of yourself, as always. Govt doesn’t create jobs; even obama’s crew of crooks and liars admits that. You should also check out the spending, taxation and regulation of the Pelosi/Reid Congress, if you’re looking for what you try so hard to describe.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Bush destroyed private sector jobs and replaced them with government jobs, that’s stealth Communism he put in place for his socialist agenda, right BigGovernmentR180?

            You don’t have to keep pretending, we know you are a closet Socialist.

          • robert108

            I realize you’re desperate to change the subject away from Reid’s big lie, but you just sound like an idiot.  You really don’t know what “socialism” means, kid.

        • donwalk

          How many jobs has this created?
           
          The bill to increase the federal debt limit that has been put before Congress today would increase that limit by up to $2.4 trillion, which would be the largest increase in the debt limit in U.S. history by a margin of half a trillion dollars, according to records published by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service.
          In fact, according to records published by the Congressional Research Service, if the current bill is passed and the debt limit is increased by $2.4 trillion, the two largest debt-limit increases in U.S. history would come in back-to-back years, both during the presidency of Barack Obama.
          Up until now, the largest increase in the debt limit was the $1.9 trillion increase passed by Congress and signed by President Obama on Feb. 12, 2010. That law increased the debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
          Up until now, the second largest historical increase in the debt limit was enacted on March 27, 2003, when President George W. Bush signed a law that lifted the limit by $984 billion—from $6.400 trillion to $7.384 trillion.
          The third largest historical increase in the debt limit was enacted on Nov. 5, 1990, when the senior President George Bush signed a law that lifted the limit by $915 billion—from $3.230 trillion to $4.145 trillion.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The stimulus stopped a free-fall economy and averted an economic disaster.  It provided funds for infrastructure that even the political republican recipients boasted about.  It didn’t provide jobs and the bill was rushed through, but it’s not the socialist bogey man you make it out to be either.

          • robert108

            Five more ignorant lies from you, little hanni.

          • Jvette

            I don’t believe the stimulus was socialist. It was a slush fund for Obama supporters and unfortunately, there were a few idiotic Republicans who hoped to gain from it after it passed.

            Those funds for infrastructure and “shovel ready” jobs? Bogus or spent on worthless “beautification” projects or used to prop up the state and local budgets.

            We can never know what would have happened without it and it is simple BS to continue to push the meme that it saved the economy from disaster considering the current state of things in this country.

  • Spartacus

    Bush’s tax cuts expired. Obama signed on to continue them so by default 0bama must have cost 8 million American their jobs. Democratic party campaign slogan for 2012: “Destroying all hope with change since 2008″.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com Mountainmouth

    This is a new approach – Blame Bush. 
    They must not have any new ideas at Dem HQ.

Top