The Bush Boom Was a Complete Bust
visit bonddad blog for more on the economy
Either we're in a recession or we're about to start one. Either way, the latest expansion is over. While there may be some question about when it happened (the expansion, that is) the reality is it was the least impressive expansion since WWII. Below I will explain why.
Before I move forward, let me address specifically any readers who still think the last expansion was "the Greatest Story Never Told." I am going to use facts to demonstrate why the latest expansion was terrible. If you don't like the facts please feel free to present you own facts. In fact, please do so. But please only use facts from reliable sources. Reliable sources would be the government agencies that collect and present this data. To sit at this table, you must bring data (properly adjusted for inflation) that is from sources used by all economists not from sources whose credibility is non-existent.
That being said (and I can't believe I even have to address this issue).
Let's start with the consumer side of the equation. First , job growth during this expansion is the weakest of any recovery since WWII. (This information comes from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Bureau of Labor Statistics)
As a result, real median household income (income adjusted for inflation) is now lower than it was at the beginning of this expansion (this is the first time this has happened in 40 years) (This information comes from the Census Bureau).
So -- where did the money for consumer spending come from? Part of it came from savings. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of U.S. national savings. Notice this number has been decreasing for the last 25 years and is currently hovering around 0%.
Debt is the real source of funds for this expansion (this information comes from the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds report and the Bureau of Economic Analysis).

As a result of this increased debt load, a larger portion of consumer's income (which has been stagnant for this expansion) is going to debt payments:
So looking at the consumer we see the following picture emerge.
1.) Job growth was the weakest of any post WWII recovery.
2.) Real median income actually dropped for the duration of this expansion.
3.) To sustain consumption, consumers went on a mammoth debt acquisition binge, so that now
4.) Debt payments are as high as they have ever been on a percentage of disposable income basis.
So after 7 years of economic expansion we have lower incomes and more debt.
However, the consumer isn't the only person who ran up a ton of debt.
The Bush White House has again run up the national credit card.
Here is a list of total debt outstanding at the end of the government's fiscal year:
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
The current debt outstanding is $9,437,425,175,221.31
Notice that since 2002 the Federal Government has issue over $500 billion of net new debt per year. And yet, we have continually been told the budget deficit is getting better. Let's ask a fundamental question: if you continually spent less than you made, would you have to borrow money?
As the US has become more reliant on debt financing it has also become more reliant on foreign governments for its financing. Here is a chart from the St. Louis Federal Reserve of the total U.S. debt held for foreign investors:

In short, growth at the national level is dependent on the issuance of debt. And we are now reliant on foreigners for an increasing percentage of our growth. A former Federal Reserve Chairman (Paul Volcker) explains why this is a bad development:
More recently, we've become more dependent on foreign central banks, particularly in China and Japan and elsewhere in East Asia.
It's all quite comfortable for us. We fill our shops and our garages with goods from abroad, and the competition has been a powerful restraint on our internal prices. It's surely helped keep interest rates exceptionally low despite our vanishing savings and rapid growth.
And it's comfortable for our trading partners and for those supplying the capital. Some, such as China, depend heavily on our expanding domestic markets. And for the most part, the central banks of the emerging world have been willing to hold more and more dollars, which are, after all, the closest thing the world has to a truly international currency.
The difficulty is that this seemingly comfortable pattern can't go on indefinitely. I don't know of any country that has managed to consume and invest 6 percent more than it produces for long. The United States is absorbing about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. And at some point, both central banks and private institutions will have their fill of dollars.
Finally, the US trade deficit has exploded. Here is a chart of from the St. Louis Federal Reserve:

The St. Louis Reserve published a report in late 2006 that showed how important oil was to this figure. This indicates how important energy independence would really help with the trade deficit.
So let's sum up.
1.) The weakest job growth since WWII led to a declining median family income.
2.) In order to keep spending the U.S. consumer continued to save less and borrow more.
3.) At the national level, the U.S. government has issued over $500 billion dollars of net new debt per year since 2002. This has led to an increased reliance on foreign investors to finance our way of life.
4.) The trade deficit has continued to expand, although oil is responsible for a fair amount of that increase.
5.) In short, the U.S. continues to consume more than it produces.
At some point, we will have to pay the bill.
This is the end result of the "Bush boom" or "the greatest story never told."
If the story was so great, we wouldn't need people to remind us of how good it is.








The private sector is not
The private sector is not the salvation of the government. All it wants is freedom from regulation. It is inherently feudal in nature. It will bring us back to the medieval era. To give public jobs to private enterprise via tax cuts and contracts is neither wise nor-cost effective. There are a lot of things that are much better run by government than private companies when put into large scale. The army. Supplying the army. Schools (private schools are only good if kept small and exclusive). Health care (the reason Medicare is going downhill now is because so much of it is being contracted out to private companies and it can no longer negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies, thanks to the Republicans). Energy...the most effective energy companies are utility districts run by local governments. Private companies need to be regulated because of their monopolistic nature, or they will gouge the public into poverty.
I don't believe that the business model is an effective model on which to run a society. It has only one goal: profit. Every thing else is subordinated to that goal. It will blindly destroy the very society it feeds off of in order to make a profit.
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 13, 2008 - 1:44pmmichtou
You seem to have it backwards. The feudal system was the people being used by the elites, for the elites sole benefit. And what exactly are PUBLIC JOBS? What, pray tell, are these jobs that the government does better than the private sector? And when has the government ever been "cost effective"? Your schools analogy is a good case in point. The public school system is a mess, even though they spend twice as much per student then does the private sector, and they do a much better job. As well as providing a safer learning environment. Re: health care. Before the 60's the government wasn't providing healthcare. Since then, its gone to hell. You don't see a correlation, there? And the Kennedy fix, of the eighties made it even worse. Re: energy. You got to be kidding. Look what happened a few years ago, when calif made those bad energy deals. Just saying, big government is not the solution. I do agree that public utilities can function better than probably leaving it to market forces, as evidenced by how it used to be, when they where mainly run by local government. Its when the feds take over, things go bad. Please, rethink your position on big government, ala the feds. There was a reason the founders sought to limit its power. Over site and redress are one thing, but running things is another.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 3:00pmFailure by design.
The public school system is a mess by design. Ever since the Republicans took over, they have had as a goal the destruction of public education. But every instance where a private company took over a public school, it has been a worse disaster. NCLB is set up to make schools fail. If private schools were to be put under NCLB scrutiny, they too would fail. Expecting all kids, even handicapped and new English learners, to be proficient by 2013 is ridiculous. And the reasons that schools are told they have failed are generally because too many kids in one subgroup are absent (like if there is a flu epidemic) or if the kids in one subgroup don't do well. In our district is the new language learners and the special ed kids that are keeping our school from achieving "adequate yearly progress." Yeah, like you can make those kids "proficient" in a matter of a year or two. Some will never be proficient.
Private schools can keep out people. I think if they are given a smidgen of public money, they should be forced to abide by all NCLB requirements. Otherwise any comparison is not realistic.
Health care has gone to hell because health insurance companies are no longer required to report to the government, since Reagan, and hospitals are now "for profit" organizations, since Reagan. Before that insurance company records were open to public scrutiny and hospitals were operated as non-profit organizations. Medicare is, since Bush, more and more under private operation...costing more and more and giving less and less.
You are living in a la-la land. The Republicans have set up a deliberate failure of anything providing public services. Then the public will blame the government. But it will have a deep and long-lasting backlash against the Republicans, because it happened under their rule.
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 13, 2008 - 4:42pmobama says
small town america is bitter and clings to their guns and religion. he also says they hate immirgrants because of the bad economy.
- Email this page
By mrhillaryoneApril 13, 2008 - 4:50pmmichtou
Your ignoring the fact before NCLB, the public schools where failing. Thats why Kennedy and Bush got together to implement NCLB. All children should know the basics, you know the three R's. Public education has failed our children long before Bush came into office. And if these children are able to attend regular school, they all should be held to the same standard. For those who have "learning handicaps", then they need to be placed in specialize schools, that are designed to educate them based on their respective abilities. Thats why I am for local control of schools, not a one size fits all type of system. You can't have it both ways. NCLB is a federal program. You say its flawed. I say that by its very nature, any and all federal education system would, by its very nature will be flawed. By your logic, you want to make private schools be as flawed as public schools are, instead of taking the private model and using it in the public schools. Thats ass backwards. All in all, you seem to want to get rid of NCLB, because it doesn't work, but want the feds to continue dictating how schools are to educate our children, even though, by your own words, they do a piss poor job of it. I'm a libertarian.
And on health, tell me, prior to the invention of medi-care, when did the insur. companies have to report to the government? You keep thinking that the Nanny state works. It doesn't. Local control does. It is more responsive to the needs of it people. I, for the life of me, can't understand why you fail to see this. There will always be flaws in any system, but government from the top down, has always failed the people, all through history. Thats one reason the founders sought fit to limit the powers of the federal government. You always want to blame the Republicans, and not the democrats. To my way of thinking, both parties are complicit in societies failures, as its been both parties, historically, who have created the mess we are in.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 5:07pmmichtou
Though I don't live with in its border, I do consider myself a citizen of: THE FREE STATE OF JEFFERSON.
As described in an April, 2003, American Journalism Review article:
The "state" is diverse politically, with a mixture of conservatives and liberals. Many share the Westerner's common disdain of government and politics. "Politicians and diapers need to be changed often for the same reason," reads one bumper sticker. And many also share a desire to hang on to the landscape that draws both residents and tourists to an area that stretches from the stunning Oregon coast to ethereal Crater Lake and down to California's towering Mt. Shasta.
The region retains this identity reinforced by institutions such as Jefferson Public Radio.
Jefferson is commemorated by the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway between Yreka and O'Brien, Oregon, which runs 109 miles along State Route 96 and U.S. Forest Service Primary Route 48. Near the California - Oregon border, a turnout provides scenic views of the Klamath River valley and three informative display signs about the republic.
As of July 2004, if Jefferson were a state, its population would be 423,005, which would make it the smallest in population of the country's states. However, there have been proposals in adjacent Eastern Washington and Eastern Oregon to create a State of Lincoln, which borders Jefferson on its northeast corner. Like Jefferson, Lincoln's creation has been proposed out of frustration with the urban-dominated governments of those states. If these two entities were to be combined into one big state, it would create a state with one of the largest land areas in the country.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 5:16pmYou want a vulture state.
I want private schools to remain private. I would go into a lengthy discussion, but I think this article sums it up best:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2007/03/09/why-johnny-can-read-simpsons-p...
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 13, 2008 - 7:21pmmichtou
I started reading it and got down to the bottom, and decided it's a bunch of double talk. One: the cost of private school, on average is half the cost, per pupil than public school. That 50,000 per year is absurd, thou I'm not saying some schools don't charge that, say in Bel Air, or Beverly Hills, or the Hamptons. But that BS about 4th grade scores, is really controvoluted. In my mind, the measure of educational success is whether or not a student can read and write when he graduates. Does he have grasp of history. of science, of civics. etc. You know, is that student educated. Also, the drop out rate for those in public schools is horrendous. Less than 50% or so actually make it to graduation.
You seem really to be a concerned citizen, so I ask you to actually look into the matter, at your local level. I believe in public education, as a concept, but I also believe that it is, as now executed, in many communities, especially in large cities is deeply flawed. And the only way to fix it, I believe, is on the local level, not on the federal level. This is a matter that is near and dear to my heart, for obvious reasons. I have experienced the good and the bad, and believe me, the more the feds get involved, the worse things get.
WHATS THIS VULTURE STATE YOU REFER TO?
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 8:41pmYou really didn't read it .
You really didn't read it . You skimmed it, decided because he said save yourself 50000 it was bull, and dismissed it. You think it's really only 2300 a year to send a kid to a private school? Try to find one that's decent for that cost.
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 13, 2008 - 11:17pmbonddad
Are you familiar with the "churchill" quote: There are three kinds of lies.One: LIES TWO: DAMN LIES THREE: STATISTICS.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 2:58pmHow absolutely predictable, yet hilarious
Someone goes to great trouble to provide you with the government's own statistics, statistics that are the only real, impartial description of the economy, and you prefer to think it is a pack of lies. As bonddad says, if you dispute any of it, come up with proof from reliable, non-biased sources. That has always been far beyond your capabilities or inclination, so I doubt if you will actually respond with anything. Once again, absolutely predictable and hilarious.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 14, 2008 - 11:57amuffdaguy
Keep up. Me and Michtou have been discussing education. Public vs Private. And it has been civil until you and sjerseyindy butted in.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 12:08pmGo right ahead and debate public education
You are proof of its utter failure.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 14, 2008 - 12:33pmuffdaguy
Thats exactly what I've been saying. Public education is a utter failure. See, Michtou, even those on your side agree with me on that.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 3:20pmAnd your solution is private school for everyone???
Your repub masters wouldn't like that. Their kids would be forced to mingle with the rabble! Shock and horror! To actually have to speak to, and spend time with the people they need to dupe into voting for them in the future would be completely unacceptable, I am sure.
Public education isn't bad by its nature, as public education in much of the rest of the industrialized nations of the world proves. Ours has gone downhill because christian fundamentalists have done all they can at the local level to water down the science curricula so that it doesn't conflict with their bible beliefs, and corporations have tried to eliminate everything that interferes with producing unquestioning drones to plug into their job openings.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 14, 2008 - 3:59pmuffdaguy
No, thats not my solution. And you are wrong, wrong, wrong about why our public schools are failing. Read the link I have provided. It offers information regarding some of the problems faced by public education. Its 72 pages long, so it may take you awhile. And I don't expect you to believe or buy into everything it says. But, its a start, and should get you to think about it. Right now, judging by your response, you appear to be placing ideology above the welfare of our children.
Stop letting your socialist masters dictate each and every response you have to every issue.
I am not a Republican and have never been a Republican. I am a Libertarian.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 4:27pmFirst of all, I don't have "socialist masters", or any other
masters for that matter. I know that you are absolutely terrified of socialists as well as muslims, which is why you call anyone who disagrees with you a socialist, or islamic terrorist sympathizer, but they are as laughable as most of your other ideas.
I guess your libertarian beliefs are why you are so pro-business. I had a boss years ago who went from being a repub to a libertarian precisely for that reason. He had been listening to a steady diet of right wing radio, from Rush to Hannity to Liddy. I think he felt that none of them were conservative enough for him, so he went libertarian. From what I have seen over the years from him and Boortz and others, being a libertarian seems to mean believing that business and individuals should be able to do anything they damn well please, especially business. It seems to be basically anarchy with a strong pro-business bias. I have listened a lot to Ron Paul, and nothing he has said has changed my perception of libertarianism.
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 15, 2008 - 11:16amuffdaguy
And I don't have Republican masters. And I am not terrified of socialists. I just think they're misguided, ill-informed and brainwashed. When someone posts something that is socialistic, I call them a socialist. I have never, ever, in the hundreds of posts I have written, ever called anyone a islamic terrorist sympathizer. Ever. I am not pro-business, nor am I anti-business. I don't listen to right wing radio. When I do listen to radio, I usually listen to music. You just seem to want to define others, via your own biases.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 15, 2008 - 11:38amYou call me a socialist, yet I don't recall ever expressing any
socialist views, nor do I support socialist agendas. So, if you think I am a socialist, prove it. Give me some examples in my posts that show I am a socialist. As for socialists being misguided, ill-informed and brainwashed.....you seem to have described yourself quite eloquently with that description. So does that make you a socialist?
- Email this page
By UffdaguyApril 15, 2008 - 12:00pmuffdaguy
Seems to me you do. You seem to always ask, what should my country do for me, as opposed to what can I do for my country. Kudos to JFK.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 15, 2008 - 7:56pmuffdaguy
By the way, I usually look at any issue, and try a determine what the Founders response would be, to that issue. You, on the other hand, seem to want to redefine America. I don't. I like how the system is set up, I do have some reservations, regarding certain issues, but I don't want to redefine America into the "Ideal" socialist state, like you apparently do.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 15, 2008 - 11:42amAnd just so you all know,
Its not the governments role to be in "Business".
- Email this page
By hateyApril 13, 2008 - 4:14pmYes and it is..............
Not business' role to be in government, but they are and they control most of it with their big money lobby people. Which do you think is worse?
THE COMMON WORKING GUY SPEAKS!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, WITH THOSE IN CHARGE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU DON'T COUNT........
- Email this page
By common_workingc...April 14, 2008 - 9:09pmcommom_working c
Wrong. Most business are owned and run by the common people. You're saying they have no right to participate in the political process? Especially when the political process effects their business. And don't forget, everyone that works, works for a business, so you want to shut everyone out of government, by your logic.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 9:16pmNo, I want a government..........
Made up by people who want and can do the job, not ones bought and paid for by big money. I want the voice of people that don't have the connections or the money to be in government, to be heard for once. I want to shut everyone out of government that is in it for the money. I do not believe that there are any big businesses that are run by common people. I work for one and it is not run, by any of the common people that work for them or have worked for them on the ground floor. The company is run by people that are connected to the big share holders and not one of those big share holders ever moved a yard of dirt that the common people do for them every day. They were born to money or connected to it, from their very beginning. They own the stock, they are in charge.
Common people indeed. I bet they would love to invite you to join them for dinner sometime, just like the common folk............that's sarcasm...........in case it don't soak into your so called logical mind. Reality sucks.
THE COMMON WORKING GUY SPEAKS!!! IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, WITH THOSE IN CHARGE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU DON'T COUNT........
- Email this page
By common_workingc...April 14, 2008 - 9:24pmcommom_working c
Then you don't want a big Federal government, you want a strong local government. I suggest you find out why the founding fathers wanted a weak federal government and a strong state government. I'll give you a hint. There thinking was a lot like yours.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 9:40pmcommom_working c
You could write whole books on that question and many people have. To put it in a nutshell though I think the founders wanted to create a government that would be strong enough to protect the states from foriegn invasion and domestic disturbance but weak enough that the people of the several states could continue to govern themselves without interference from the central government. Michael Montagne
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 9:44pmcommom_working c
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/FAQ/1812
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 9:47pmmichtou
Private school costs in san francisco.http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html And I did read your link. It dissolved in justifying why tests scores where really the same, when you calculate this and you figure that, when my concern is are our children being educated. And the answer is no. Not in public schools in metro areas. The reasons etc really come down to justifying not doing the job properly, for various reasons. Please read the link, especially the chart showing the costs of private education in various city's. Please note the cost in San Francisco.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 12:21amYour link is outdated
Your link compares 1993 -4 figures for private schools to 2008 figures for public schools! In 1993-4 the state of California was spending $1425 per student.
And as I said, try to find a DECENT one for 2300. Just because they exist doesn't mean they do a good job. .
Also, if you'd go back and read my link, you'd see that the author quotes studies showing that adjusted for parental income and education, kids do pretty much the same in private and public schools. The reason kids come out better in private schools is because the parents of private schools students are richer and better educated. They are the same kids who come out of public schools on top. The bottom kids in private schools are usually kicked out and go back to public schools.
But you don't want to think this through, so I'm not going to continue this discussion. Believe what you want. You don't want facts, you want the myth.
- Email this page
By MichtouApril 14, 2008 - 9:55ammichtou
Then why do students in the inner city, who go to private schools, excell over those in public schools? Are their parents "richer and better educated". You need to look at metro area schools, not schools in counties like yours. And I don't think you looked at the entire report. Here's the current, 72 page report. Don't forget, its mostly minority students who the public school system is failing, moreso than white students, in white public schools. To even think that public schools are by and large equivalent to private schools is just ridiculous. The success or failure of education does not come down to comparing stats, but whether or not kids actually complete the 12th grade, educated. Everything else is just "blowing smoke".
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 11:33ambonddad too?
It's the invasion of the hatemongering, hate-filled DFHs!
And rightwingnut heads everywhere begin to explode...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyApril 14, 2008 - 11:51amsjerseyindy
I see you care nothing about the education of inner city children. Your a brainwashed elitist.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 11:56amBy hatey April 14, 2008 - 11:56am
.
"Your VS. You're"
.
Consider it my effort for the day to educate an inner-city child who survived a hanger to the head...
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyApril 14, 2008 - 12:06pmsjerseyindy
Make yourself useful. Why don't you become a school teacher in the inner city, so that future generations will learn when to use your/you're properly.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 14, 2008 - 12:12pmBy hateyApril 14, 2008 - 12:12pm
Is YOUR daughter still hookin' down at Hollywood & Vine while YOU'RE busy getting righteously reamed by Cecil over at Glide Church?
Who could have possibly envisioned an erection -- an election in Iraq at this point in history?
--George W. Bush - 01/10/2005
Freudian slip defined...
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesApril 14, 2008 - 9:46pmguy Fawkes
I'm sure happy that people with your hate filled, home-phobic, racist, mind set aren't running anything but their mouths.
- Email this page
By hateyApril 15, 2008 - 5:24pmBy hateyApril 15, 2008 - 5:24pm
I like the way your daughter's mouth runs. It's definitely worth the 50 cents.
Who could have possibly envisioned an erection -- an election in Iraq at this point in history?
--George W. Bush - 01/10/2005
Freudian slip defined...
- Email this page
By Guy FawkesApril 15, 2008 - 6:47pmBy Guy Fawkes April 15, 2008 - 6:47pm
"There's no place like home!".
.
.
BOO!
____________________
"It's all been satirized for your protection." --Maher
- Email this page
By SJerseyIndyApril 15, 2008 - 6:51pm