For Bush, Huge Federal Deficits May Be One of His Legacies

That would involve READING and HARD WORK.

WHEN will the MSM (i.e. cable news) report this?????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1325488

:argh:

Look at the deficits, unemployment rates, the stock market, since 1980 (that's what I'm most familiar with). You'll see that Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush*2 did a crappy job, and during President Clinton's tenure every indicator was much better.

that it IS "A Bunch of rightwing propoganda"!

The Presidential Puzzle:
Political Cycles and the Stock Market

ABSTRACT

The excess return in the stock market is higher under Democratic than Republican presidencies: nine percent for the value-weighted and 16 percent for the equal-weighted portfolio. The difference comes from higher real stock returns and lower real interest rates, is statistically significant, and is robust in subsamples. The difference in returns is not explained by business-cycle variables related to expected returns,and is not concentrated around election dates. There is no difference in the riskiness of the stock market across presidencies that could justify a risk premium. The difference in returns through the political cycle is therefore a puzzle.

http://www.personal.anderson.ucla.edu/rossen.valkanov/Politics.pdf

All studies have shown similar results. This particular study did not include the bubble years during Clinton's second term or any of the years during Bush's presidency. If those years were included the difference would be even more pronounced.

As for fedral deficits under republican and democratic presidents, there is a huge difference. See my post #21 below.

The estimated population of the United States is 295,701,551
so each citizen's share of this debt is $26,308.41.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.35 billion per day since September 30, 2004

Remember? Last year during the campaign, he said over and over again that he would cut the deficit in half, and responsible medial outlets like the AP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and all the networks simply repeated it as if it was somehow going to be true.

Now, two months into Stupidhead's second term, the media suddenly wake up and say, "Hey, you know sumpin? I don't think the Bush plan can possibly work!"

Oh well, too late to do anything about it now that Stupidhead has his man date. We're left with "hoping" for a financial market collapse or foreign investment fleeing the country. Thanks a fucking heap, media whores.

This is 2005, and the meme is "DESTROY EVERYTHING FOREVER!"

:grr:

9/11 changed everything.

from the Poodle Press?

but they sure are pretty

does Bush seem to care about this "legacy"? As he marches his sorry ass to yet another "news" conference, and starts blabbing away about "democracy", "freedom", "Iraq", Social Security, bla bla bla.

That's the most important question. Bush doesn't give a shit. If he did, he'd be doing something about it (he's not).

In his world, he pictures himself as a Lincoln - he's compared himself to many great presidents, and is always talking about how the history books will prove him right (or something like that). He is a legend in his own (little) mind.

He actually BELIEVES his own mind, and since he does not stand for dissent, he rarely hears anything but good things about himself. The guy lives in a freaking bubble. Thus, the cancelling of the Social Security disaster tour - he was seeing dissent, and we can't have that in his world.

We have a delusional man, who thinks he is a great man, destroying the world, yet believing (and I think he honestly believes it), that he is doing great things. He needs to be in a padded room where he can no longer harm anyone, or destroy anything. He definitely should not have power of any kind.

the deficits are part of the equation

Don't expect the stenography corp, or the righ wingers, to wake up to this reality any time soon though

is that his corporate cronies have been enriched with billions of our tax dollars. Anyone who thinks these robber barons care about the future of this Nation are naive or downright stupid (see freepers).

:crazy:

around the world, and to the Middle East in particular. It's a small price to pay for all this. After all 9/11 Changed Everything!

And, there's always our wealth in Home Appreciation, which will offset any inconvenience of the Deficit...

:puke:

that presidents incurring x amount of $national debt$ shall bear the responsibility of paying off that debt, the debt passed on to subsequent generations as well.

Let us take it back to Preston. Good for you, Bush family! There is much for you facists to be proud of. You've been incredibly successful.

Can't wait to see you all in hell!!!!!!!!

:eyes: We are being systematically stripped of everything we stood for as a nation of free people.

g

A comparison of government spending and the annual federal deficits accumulated since 1960 under republican presidents and under democratic presidents shows that republicans are bigger spenders and run much larger deficits than democrats. Bush has been about average as a big spender for republican presidents. If Bush was a democrat he would be the biggest spending democrat since WWII.

The Kennedy/Johnson administrations accumulated deficits of $53.5 billion or $269.9 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 18.8% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Nixon/Ford administrations accumulated deficits of $265.5 billion or $798.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 19.9% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 2 times.

The Carter administration accumulated deficits of $252.7 billion or $519.4 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 21.2% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Reagan administration accumulated deficits of $1,412.2 billion or $2,082.3 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 22.3% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 7 times.

The Bush the Lesser administration accumulated deficits of $1,035.8 billion or $1,241.5 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 21.9% of GDP and the annual deficit exceeded 3% of GDP 4 times.

The Clinton administration accumulated a surplus of $62.5 billion or $15.9 billion in constant 2000 dollars. Annual spending by the federal government averaged 19.6% of GDP and the annual deficit never exceeded 3% of GDP.

The Bush the Liar administration has in just three years accumulated deficits of $947.5 billion. and projects additional accumulated deficits during his administration of $1,612.5 billion. Annual spending by the federal government has averaged 19.7% of GDP (19.9% with the current fiscal year estimate) and the annual deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP 2 times and will again this fiscal year and the next.

Thus, of the slightly more than $3.9 trillion in accumulated deficits since 1960, more than $3.6 trillion has been accumulated under republican presidents while only about $244 billion has been accumulated under democratic presidents. In constant 2000 dollars the numbers are more than $5.8 trillion in total accumulated deficits with about $5.1 trillion accumulated under republican presidents and about $700 billion accumulated under democratic presidents. And of the 15 times since 1960 that the annual deficit has exceeded 3% of GDP, every single time it was under a republican president.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/sheets/hist01z3.xls(Note: The first year of a presidential term operates under the budget and appropriations of the last year of the preceeding presidential term, except for any supplemental appropriation bills passed during such first year. The summary above does not include any such supplemental bills.)

That stat is a hammer.

Since the whole economy is going to collapse, this is going to be just like the depression, when my grandfather told me that they had no money, no jobs, no nothing, and they had to go steal coal off of the coal cars in the train yards to keep from freezing to death in their house...
Maybe we can use some of the lumber in the White House for warmth, too.

****.

And ever month he's been in office the **** just kept getting piled higher and deeper.

So it doesn't matter who pisses on what electric fence.

Those who survive will either call * a madman. Or a hero.

Discuss.

since they limit the amount that can be invested by the private sector.

Without increases in private savings these deficits (which go back as far as Reagan) also imply that we'll need to borrow from the rest of the world to finance our public spending and private sector investments.

We have yet to see how exactly far down the sewer he'll take us.

"He's gonna eat 'em all
Rapture
Be pure
Take a tour through the sewer"