"Worst Economy Since Hoover" Sets Dow Record High!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Amazing! We should be erecting monuments to Bush for reviving the "worst economy since Hoover" to the point of breaking Dow's all-time record high. And in such a short time, too! Just a couple of years ago, all we heard was how bad things were, and now... we are setting a record high in the Dow! Whatever Bush is doing, must be working phenomenally.
 
The Dow in 9% higher, that the day Clinton left office almost 6 years ago

A growth rate of 1.5% a year! Yay!

Victory for Bush!
 
Cypress said:
The Dow in 9% higher, that the day Clinton left office almost 6 years ago

A growth rate of 1.5% a year! Yay!

Victory for Bush!
Click to expand...

Compared to a DJIA growth rate of nearly 100% in the first six years of the clinton adminstration

100% growth 1993-1997
9% growth 2001 - 2006

Victory for Bush!
 
The president doesn't control the economy. The recent big boost has been because of the feds decisions and the low price of oil.
 
Republican theory....

Republican President, Bad Economic news = President does not control economie. (Bush I)

Republican President, Good Economic news = President should be credited. (Regan)

Democratic President, Bad Economic news = President is to blame. (Carter)

Democratic President, good Economic News = President does not control economie. (Clinton)
 
The President can do little to effect the economy. He could appoint a total incompetent boob to the Leadership of the Fed, he could appoint another excellently qualified person to the Fed, or he can raise or lower taxes, if he can get Congress to vote for it. That's about it...

Saying that the President is Responsible for it regardless of which party they are from is deliberately misleading the sheeple. Those are the only ones fooled by this type of rhetoric.
 
A big boost to the dow was money moving from home building to the conventional market. How the market does is not a total picture of the economy.
 
Damocles said:
The President can do little to effect the economy. He could appoint a total incompetent boob to the Leadership of the Fed, he could appoint another excellently qualified person to the Fed, or he can raise or lower taxes, if he can get Congress to vote for it. That's about it...

Saying that the President is Responsible for it regardless of which party they are from is deliberately misleading the sheeple. Those are the only ones fooled by this type of rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Whether he is responsible for it or not, he is held accountable for it. If you are going to criticize a president on the economy, you have to also give him credit, you can't blame him for a bad economy, then when the economy is good, claim he has nothing to do with it. That is what's misleading.
 
Dixie said:
LMAOooooo.... Spin it Demies! Spin it!

LOL!
Click to expand...


Bush vs. Clinton

*Clinton, first 5 years on job, 1993-97: 14.7 million jobs created.

*Bush, first 5 years on job, 2001-2006: 1.9 million jobs created

U.S. Bureau of Labor, statisticshttp://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls


* 9 Years of Bush41/Bush43 = 6.7 million new jobs

* 8 Years of Clinton/Gore = 22.7 million new jobs.
 
For the first time in his administraiton Bush finally backed away from the war rhetoric for 3 weeks and look at what has happened, gas prices have fallen precipitously and the Dow has set a new high. Imagine where the Dow and gas prices would be, not to mention the debt and deficit, if he hadn't gone into Iraq.
 
Dixie said:
Whether he is responsible for it or not, he is held accountable for it. If you are going to criticize a president on the economy, you have to also give him credit, you can't blame him for a bad economy, then when the economy is good, claim he has nothing to do with it. That is what's misleading.
Click to expand...
I have never blamed the President for a bad economy. I don't give him credit or blame for such a thing.
 
Remember the butterfly's wing!!!!! Just because some effect is multiply-determined doesn't mean that the leader of the free world has no causal relationship to it. If you believe that your bubble is bigger than Bush's.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Me neither. Only people who are ignorant of economics laud or criticize a President for economic health of a naiton.
Click to expand...

Whew! I'm glad you straightned me out on that one.

There were several thousand PhD economists who led me to believe that a government who runs up a 10 trillion dollar debt, launches an unneccessary war costing half a trillion, and decides to de-invest in basic scientific research and electrical and transportation infrastruture, can have a detrimental afffect on the nation's long term economic health.

Thanks for clearing that misconception up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top