All the information you could ever need to prove the ineptness of Dumbya's economic policies is in this article.  His budget director even has the audacity to rationalize the record $455 billion deficit by saying that Shrub's tax cuts have generated strong economic growth which has helped to "improve" the budget situation, even after the article states the actual growth rate was less than what the administration was projecting.  They also said the budget deficit announcement was still "good news" because the deficit is actually LESS than projected.  A record deficit GOOD NEWS?  ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!

The article also says the record deficit contrasts to Shrub's original projection for 2004 (made in 2001, before his tax cuts went into effect) of a $262 billion surplus.  That is a swing of $717 billion in additional spending, while at the same time reducing the taxes of the rich.  You can't blame the Democrats in Congress for it, because the Republicans control both houses.  Democrats have long been criticized for "tax & spend" policies; how can Republicans justify this "not tax, but spend anyway" policy?

Clinton's final 4 years resulted in budget surpluses each year; Shrub's 3 years have been all deficits.  Factor in fewer overall jobs now than when Dumbya took office (by about a million, including mine), a recession, an unjustified war, other nations having more hostility towards the U.S. than at any time in our history (a good reflection of Dumbya's foreign policy), and the worst attack ever successfully executed on U.S. soil, and attempt to explain to me how anyone could possibly support this utterly incompetent excuse of a "leader"?

Shrub makes Herbert Hoover look like Abraham Lincoln.

I mean, we've had three years of straight 1 percent interest rates.  I don't think that has ever happened before;  

We've sent a few hundred thousand people overseas, taking them out of the domestic economy;

We're running a war-time economy;

We've run record deficits, and deficits are usually what a government does to generate jobs;

And of course, we had the Bush tax cuts.  

And job growth only turned up recently after being completely dead for three years.

How strong is this economy when it barely responds to that much stimulas?  

/Zin

That this administration can try to portray this as good news because the deficit is lower than their earlier projections proves to me that they think the average American is stupid.  Of course they have FOX News promoting their spin, so at least that segment of this country that listens to FOX will believe it with all their hearts.

The record deficit is ONLY $445 billion, not $455 billion (I misread the figure in the article), which makes the 2004 spending difference ONLY $707 billion in projected vs. actual, not $717 billion.  I guess I should give the Shrub administration "credit" for an additional $10 billion of "good news" to the American people.

For that they should get credit!

Witless passed Carter as the worst President of my lifetime (in order, Clinton, Nixon, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, George XLI, Ford, Carter) in his first year, and I'd bet a lot of money that 100 years from now, he'll still be considered the worst President in American history (excepting white supremacists/born again Christian nut cases/billionaires).

Carter was a lousy President, but in mitigation, had a very difficult one. He probably is too decent a guy to be President. Witless, OTOH, took prosperity and stuffed it in the trash bin so his cronies could profit.

He is most likely to be remembered for the war in Iraq, unfortunately for him.

I think it is fair to say  he will be remembered as an incompetent,a liar,a cheat and a thief!

I'll admit Jimmy Carter really struggled when it came to the U.S. economy, and that was his downfall in his attempt to get re-elected (not to mention the hostages).  As you indicated, he also may have been too "nice" to really succeed, which is a shame.  There is one area of his presidency that I think is overlooked a bit is his desire for peace and his work for human rights.  The Camp David accords will always stick out in my mind as a success of his presidency.  To this day, Carter still is committed to the pursuit of peace and human rights, and often goes abroad as a missionary of sorts to support it.

As more time passes, I think Carter's term in office will be looked at a bit more favorably than it is now, because of his underrated human rights work.  He won't likely ever be looked at as a great president, but not incredibly awful either, unlike what Shrub is creating for himself.

Reagan, who is touted as one of the greatest of all time, whose adoring fans want to put on Mt. Rushmore, on a coin, etc., immediately started lining his pockets with outrageous fees for speaking engagements. Carter, on the other hand, has worked tirelesly for Habitats for Humanity, has won a Nobel Peace Prize, and has in general been a good will ambasador abroad for the U. S.

The thing that I remember about Jimmy Carter was that he was the only president in my lifetime who tried to seriously deal with the issue of how we would sustain our energy needs in a rational way.  He actually called for sacrifice in the short term in exchange for more energy independence as a nation in the long run.  His request upset me when I sat in a cooler than desired but comfortable classroom then, but now I better understand what he was asking us to do.
    This nation really has to get it's hands around the energy situation, some of that will involve some new drilling but more will involve developing cheap sustainable energy sources.

-- Modified on 8/2/2004 7:04:51 PM

And most economic indicators are looking better (I won't use the cheesy "turn the corner" slogan of Bush's).  I also doubt that the president has much to do with either an economic boom or an economic downturn (which doesn't stop them from taking credit when times are good and placing blame elsewhere when times are bad).
 One more question: hasn't Kerry been in the senate nearly 20 years, and Edwards nearly six?  Where is the Kerry/Edwards economic stimulation legislation or the Kerry/Edwards law to stop the outsourcing of jobs overseas?

You have listed the three things that govenment can do to stimulate the economy have been accomplished (interest rates, government spending and tax cuts)

So where in your opinion has Bush gone wrong on the economy?

IMHO, the "assholes" or strong personality types are often more effective leaders.  Examples are too numerous to count.  I think Carter is a smart man and a good humanitarian, but I just don't think he was a very effective leader.
 And, by the way, I really don't believe the president has much power over the state of the economy, good or bad.  I don't blame Carter for the bad economy of his term, just like I don't give Clinton credit for the economic boom of his terms.

For example, cut them for corporations that create domestic jobs.

Also, wontonly sending the nation to war, and spending hundreds of Billions in a foreign land, rather than domestically, is generally pretty bad for the economy.

Actually, Clinton pretty much implemented the type of fiscal policies that the Reagan and Gingrich revolutions had been clamoring for, for well beyond the previous decade.  Clinton's certainly as deserving of the credit as Reagan is, based upon the policies that he implemented.  Your denial of the credit to him is simply an example of bias, it's not based on any merit.

You might wish to blame him for actually super-heating the economy from late '98 thru early 2000, which resulted in a precipitous drop for the next year, but the growth which we experienced from '92-'98 was deservedly on Clinton's watch, and clearly beneficial to our nation.

And I should think that Clinton would also qualify as being an "asshole", which you seem to think is a necessary condition as well.

He could balance the budget only because the booming economy brought in tons of revenue.  Once the economy took a downturn, surplus went to deficit.
 I never said Reagan should take credit for the 80's economy, sdstud.  Again, I think economic downturns and upswings are largely not due to a president's actions.  Did you read my post?