Maggie's Farm

>The stock market is at a new all-time high

Over any extended period, the stock market can be expected to reach an all-time high. That's just what US stock markets do. However, the Bush era has been an unusually weak one for stock growth.

For example, in the 50 years before Bush took office, the S&P 500 grew from 21.36 to 1,342.54. That's a bit over 8.63% annualized growth. On Bush's watch, it has grown from 1,342.54 to 1,430.51 (current as of this posting). That's a bit under 1.07%. In other words, the market's been growing at less than one eighth of its average historical pace!

>America's 401 K's are back.

A 401(k) investment in a generic S&P 500 index stock, back the day before Bush took office, would actually be worth LESS, today, after inflation, than it was six years ago! That's highly unusual for a period this long. Of course, 401(k)s have still been growing, thanks to people putting contributions in them, but unfortunately so has consumer debt, such that the US has actually had a negative savings rate on Bush's watch, which is rare indeed.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean a return to stock growth rates that compare favorably with historical averages. It would mean a return to 401(k) and other savings growth rates that outpace consumer debt growth, such that the population grows more financially sound over time.

>Unemployment is at 25 year lows.

That's simply inaccurate. The unemployment rate today is 4.5%. At the end of 2000, the unemployment rate stood at 3.9%. Not only are we not at a 25-year low, we're not even at a six-year low. You need to check your sources, so you won't make such laughably foolish assertions in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A net decrease in the unemployment rate. It's up on Bush's watch, despite plenty of people dropping out of the labor market (which would typically push unemployment rates lower).

>Taxes are at 20 year lows.

Taxes on the wealthy are, indeed, at incredible low points, and the result has been sky-rocketing budget deficits. That means that we're running up debt we'll have to pay back, with interest. Since the poor and middle class pay a greater overall percentage share of the tax burden now than they did before the cuts, this means that unless tax balances shift, they'll wind up, over the long term, paying amounts that would have been paid by the wealthy if we hadn't postponed that tax liability, with IOUs, thanks to the tax cut. In essence, the tax cut will be a net transfer of wealth from the middle and lower classes to the upper class.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction means shifting that tax burden back to the wealthy, where it was before.

>Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.

Over any extended period, federal tax revenues always hit new all-time highs. With a growing population and growing productivity, that's an inevitability over any sufficiently extended duration. What isn't inevitable is that tax revenues will keep up with normal spending growth. Just as a growing population and a growing GDP mean growing revenues, they also mean growing spending requirements: the government has to spend at higher levels just to provide the same level of services, when the population and economy grow. Sadly, since the tax cuts, federal tax revenues stopped keeping pace with normal spending growth. In fact, even with spending growth having been slightly less than the historical normal rates, tax revenues growth rates have fallen drastically below that level. The result has been the squandering of a record surplus and the creation of a record deficit. Those are ultimately sums we'll have to collect more taxes to pay, plus interest, in the future.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A return to federal tax revenues rising at a normal pace, so that by keeping spending growth a bit below normal, we can return to a balanced budget.

>The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as
>predicted over last year.

A year-to-year snapshot allows for some appetizing cherry-picking, by Bush apologists, but the obvious question is what is the snapshot leaving out. If you take a step back and look at the full Bush era, a very different picture emerges. The move from a record surplus, in FY 2000, to the deficit we ran in our last full fiscal year (FY 2006), is a shift into red ink of unprecedented speed.

But even the snapshot you're providing is simply inaccurate on its own terms. According to the most recent CBO numbers I could find:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7634/
10-10-Cyclical_Measures.pdf

See Table 1, line 1. The deficit went from $318 billion in FY 2005 to $260 billion in FY 2006. That's an 18% decline, year over year, not "almost 50%". Moreover, we're currently in FY 2007, and you'll see that far from declining 50%, the deficit is projected to expand 10%.... even if you don't assume Congress will fix the AMT.

>A new direction from there means. what?

Well, maybe it's being a bit aggressive, but on Clinton's watch, we went from record deficits to record surpluses. That would certainly be a nice direction to see us go in, rather than our current direction, where deficits are headed up recently (FY 2007 vs. FY 2006), and over the Bush era as a whole.

>Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5
>years.

Unfortunately, that's largely as a result of gimmick loans, which have allowed people to run up incredible amounts of debt in buying homes, inflating the market without inflating equity. In fact, average equity is down over the last several years. In essence, foreign savers own bigger portions of our homes, by way of mortgages, so that even with higher paper values for the homes, our own value in them is lower, on average.

>A new direction from there means, what?

A new direction would mean home prices driven by rising income levels (they've fallen on Bush's watch), rather than by cheap debt. On Clinton's watch, home values grew at a very good pace, but so did incomes. People didn't need trick loans and record-low mortgage rates to afford their houses... they could do it with rising household income. Returning to consistently and substantially rising household income would be a great step in the right direction.

>Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.

Inflation has been in check since Volcker's Fed policies had their effect, back in the early-to-mid 80s. Although I certainly don't want to see a change of direction there, I don't think there's much risk of it as long as Fed policy stays as it is. The problem, though, is that interest rates may need to rise more to keep inflation in check, if we don't get federal debt under control.

>Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since
>9/11/ 01.

Yet again, a simple factual misstatement. It completely disregards the Anthrax attacks, which were terrorism by any reasonable analysis. Republicans consistently ignore or forget those attacks... presumably because they seem to have involved right-wingers targeted Democrats. There have also been a great many hate crimes, some of which rise to the standard definition of terrorism, along with attacks like the Beltway sniper, which may or may not meet your definition of terrorism.

>A new direction from there means, what?

Well, considering on Bush's watch we had the worst terrorist attack in our history, and then al Qaeda also successfully carried out arguably the worst terrorist attacks in the history of Indonesia, the UK, and Spain, I'd say a new direction would be an era in which these major terrorist attacks weren't happening.

>Osama bin Laden is living under a rock in a dark
>cave

We don't know where Bin Laden is living, do we? Despite Bush announcing we'd get him, dead or alive, we haven't, for well over five years now... and Bush has actually publicly stated that he doesn't much care. Meanwhile, we've distracted ourselves with a pointless war in Iraq. A new direction would be keeping our eye on the ball, hunting down the man responsible for 9/11, and bringing him to justice.

>Just as President Bush foretold us on a number of
>occasions, Iraq was
>to be made "ground zero" for the war on terrorism

Yes. Iraq, which had some of the fewest ties to international terrorism in the entire middle east, has, in fact, been transformed into the number one breeding ground of terrorists on Earth. Obviously, a new direction would be nice, as a sizeable majority of Americans would agree (including Bush, whose major policy initiative right now searches for a new direction in Iraq).

While we're on the subject of areas where a new direction would be nice, there's the utter collapse of FEMA as an effective agency, there's the weakness of the dollar, there's the record trade deficit, there's the increased poverty rate, there's the rising gap between rich and poor, there are record consumer bankrupcies, there's the rising murder rate, there's the frittering away of dramatic Clinton-era social improvements, there's the sub-par GDP growth rate, there's the record-awful job creation rate, there's the destruction of America's good name around the world, there's the torture of detainees, there's the indefinite imprisonment, without trial, of anyone the President feels like labeling an enemy combatant, there's the major foreign policy setbacks in Russia, North Korea, and Iran, there's the warrantless wiretapping of US persons, in direct contravention of US law, there's the lack of any progress in reining in illegal immigration, there's run-away global warming, there's the slippage of the US's leadership position on biotechnology, there's the healthcare crisis, there's the US's third-world numbers when it comes to education, infant mortality, and childhood immunizations, and there's the near-total stagnation of the US's efforts on high technology and space exploration.