It appears that one of the latest talking points on the Right is that we Liberals™ can't name a single specific Economic Policy of George W. Bush™ that caused the economic meltdown of Q4 2008 and the resulting Great Recession, nor draw any specific causal connection between the former and the latter. The narrative over there is that the Economic Policies of George W. Bush™, particularly his supply-side tax cuts, were working just fine, as evidenced by the low unemployment numbers (and mere nine-figure budget deficits) from 2001 through the end of 2006, viz., the end of Republican control of Congress. In other words, the latter has a direct and exclusive causal relationship to the former; the Bush tax cuts alone directly caused low unemployment. Anything that went wrong economically during that period was obviously the result of 9/11.
Everything was fine as of December 31, 2006; deficits were fine, housing was fine, employment was fine, the economy was fine, and none of these were in any danger of collapse.
Then, suddenly in 2007, the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress unilaterally enacted Massive New Spending and Stimulus™, which ruined everything; exploded the deficit, drove unemployment up, caused the housing collapse, financial meltdown and recession. There was nothing President Bush, congressional Republicans, or any of the financial regulators in the Executive Branch, could do to prevent it.
For the life of me, I cannot remember any debate in Congress or in the media about, let alone the passage and enactment of, the Massive New Spending and Stimulus Act of 2007. I'm being facetious, of course, to the extent of making up the name of a fictitious Act of Congress to encapsulate the talking point, but seriously, what Massive New Spending and Stimulus™ was enacted in 2007, let alone passed, vetoed by President Bush, and overridden by the Democratic Congress during that calendar year? To be more precise, what Massive and Immediate New Spending and Stimulus™ was enacted in 2007?
2007 was the year that the main provisions of Medicare Part D took effect, viz., the year that law really started costing money. (The law itself took effect on January 1, 2006 but did not start costing serious money until 2007, when over 20 million people were enrolled.) Most of the increase in federal spending during 2007 (compared to 2006) is attributable to that. Note that Medicare Part D was passed in 2003; it didn't take effect for three years and didn't start costing money for four. Any Massive New Spending and Stimulus™ enacted by Democrats in 2007 would not only have to have been signed into law by President Bush, but would have to have taken effect immediately.
Every time I have this conversation with a GOP fan, and ask him or her to identify what Massive New Spending and Stimulus™ was enacted in 2007 by the Democrats in Congress, the person falls silent and disappears. [Here is the most recent example; expand the thread under Roger Ramjet's comment to read my contribution.] But I would really like to know. I'm really trying to find out exactly what they think happened in 2007, exactly what they believe the 110th Congress did, with no meaningful help from or involvement by Republicans or the Bush administration or any of the financial regulators in the Executive Branch, to put in place Massive New Spending and Stimulus™ during 2007, or the first eight months of 2008.
Does anyone else remember any Massive New Spending and Stimulus™ enacted by the 110th Congress between January 2007 and August 2008? Can anyone point to an Act of Congress passed during that time that qualifies as Massive New Spending and Stimulus™? I honestly don't remember that happening, and I certainly don't remember Republicans, their fans or media enablers complaining about it.
Please refresh my memory. Thanks.