Originally posted by: Engineer
Does that mean that all of those that mentioned "Clinton's bubble" (in this thread) are wrong?
The first person to refer to it as Clinton's bubble was you.
You don't think 2008 is an unprecedented and one-of-a-kind event? Greenspan has called it exactly that.
You didn't make any points; that's just rattled off a list of nonsense.
The idea that the president is responsible for the stock market results and the economy as a whole is stupid, it's basically the way the uninformed public looks at it because they have no understanding of how the economy and the markets work. Anyone with half a brain would know that the president does not act in a vaccuum, so you'd have to look at a lot of factors, not just "R" or "D" president. That's idiotic.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Does that mean that all of those that mentioned "Clinton's bubble" (in this thread) are wrong?
The first person to refer to it as Clinton's bubble was you.
But I never stated that Presiden't aren't responsible for the economy in any shapre or form either. Others are stating that they are not, but when it's the other guy (like Clinton), they are responsible. Which one is it? Either they all aren't or they all are. I say they all are repsonsible and drive the economy with fiscal and monetary policy "encouragement".
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
If you think was I wrote was nonsense, that evidences that you don't understand it. What part of tax policy doesn't affect an economy in-term? How about fed policy?
Big difference between 2001 and 2008 - 2008 had entirely preventable economic causes. 2001 was an unprecedented attack on American soil. Do you really see no difference there?
Now he deserves at least part of the blame. But if you claim that the indexes are down for his Presidency.....well, there was little he could have done from Texas to stop the initial freefall.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Piss poor fiscal and monitary "encouragement" for 7 years didn't help. Nearly doubling the national debt (might get there yet) doesn't help either, but of course, Bush is no fiscal conservative anyway. He's a social conservative and a piss poor domestic economy guy.
S&P 500 in August 2000: 1517
S&P 500 on September 10, 2001: 1092
The markets were tanking well before 9/11. Unless you're referencing tax policy he had yet to implement, and a fed chairman he had yet to appoint for 4 years.
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Engineer
Does that mean that all of those that mentioned "Clinton's bubble" (in this thread) are wrong?
The first person to refer to it as Clinton's bubble was you.
But I never stated that Presiden't aren't responsible for the economy in any shapre or form either. Others are stating that they are not, but when it's the other guy (like Clinton), they are responsible. Which one is it? Either they all aren't or they all are. I say they all are repsonsible and drive the economy with fiscal and monetary policy "encouragement".
You're entitled to believe they all are. Which obviously means that Bush cannot be responsible for the initial decline of his first term, since he hadn't actually done anything yet.
His term still has 3 months to go, doesn't it? It's not unlikely that we won't crack that 1092 barrier.
Yeah, I guess that 300% growth over 5 years should have continued indefinitely.
Don't worry, your boy will be in office 4 months and you'll be eating your words. By the way, the S&P broke even during Kennedy's term and fell during Nixon's.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Why will I be eating my words? He should have at least two or more years to start a recovery based on Bush and those that state that the first downslide and recession was on Clinton's shoulders. Hell, some are stating that the current situation is on Clinton's shoulders. Obama gets a free "Bush Pass" for a few years! :laugh:
Oh, so the chart in the OP is wrong on Kennedy?
Well, if you're going to give him 2 years, the S&P was at around 850 in Jan 2003, 2 years after Bush took office. That's about 150 lower than it is today.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
LOL. It was sarcasm, and even it weren't, 17% over 6 years is a really stellar return, isn't it? Dollar cost average over those years and see what your "real" rate of return is.
Trying to make the douchebag look good is making you look bad! :laugh:
So let me get your thinking straight. If Bush had been shot in October 2007, would his policies have been a success? Was Reagan's 1981 tax cut a success? Was Kennedy's 1964 tax cut a success?
You made a really poor response IMO.
My review of the figures was done a couple years ago, and did not rely on GWB.
A lot of issues are next to impossible to resolve through debate. You can explain away a bad economic situation with 10 excuses, or a good one with another 10.
You just end up with people listing their 10 reaosns and little progress on agreement.
What you can do though is say put aside for a moment the spin, and look at the facts.
You also need to look at enough data to avoid the circumstances unrelated to the president affecting the numbers.
But when you take 70 years of data about evenly split (or a century for that matter), and you see a very clear pattern, you start to run out of excuses that it's 'coincidence'.
At the least, it *disproves* pretty much the Republican propaganda that the Democrats are economic disasters who destroy the economy with their communist desires.
It *at least* proves that the democratic policies, however terrible, allow the nation to have a good economy. As to whether they actually help? You can form your own opinion.
The reports I've seen say that ACORN has never been found to have committed ANY election violations.
So, bottom line: Republicans are suppressing voters, lying.
Now, I had barely heard of ACORN if I had at all before recent weeks, so I don't have the facts to say 'first hand', but I found her explanation of interest and credible on its face.
If workers submit invalid forms, and ACORN properly reviews them and investigates them and turns them in as required by law, and notes the suspicious ones, they did fine.
If a voter commits voter fraud by turning in several registrations with different addresses and such and each appears legit, and happens to do it through ACORN people, that voter, not ACORN, committed the voter fraud; he could have done the same thing through other places registering voters.
People are welcome to post facts if any of Rhodes' explanation is wrong.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
I don't know. I guess it depends on when you conveniently define the start of his "fiscal" term (like I said above, sarcasm). Whoever took over would have had to shovel the shit from the WH though.
1,342 to 1,565 during that span. 16.6% in 6.5 years. Great returns there too.
My INGDirect account has averaged a better return by far over the last 6.5 years.
Yes, they are. Unless of course you attribute the internet bubble to the person that had the original idea as DealMonkey says, who of course was Al GoreOriginally posted by: Engineer
Does that mean that all of those that mentioned "Clinton's bubble" (in this thread) are wrong?
I'm sorry, you said things that "can influence markets". I asked HOW a president enables high stock market returns. Obviously only democrats can do it, so obviously you can point directly to their policies that caused it. The burden of proof lies on you. Or do you believe correlation = causation?
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
I've been posting similar numbers for months, and completely agree with you. Republican Presidents spend more than Democratic Presidents and grow the economy less. Without fail. The only thing left of the Republican party are the social conservative crazies and some diehard economic conservatives who just can't bring themselves to admit that the Republican party simply is NOT economically conservative.
Yaknow, from my experience, it's like managing a salesforce. You go by the numbers. The numbers never lie. So if the numbers aren't where they should be, then you gotta call in the laggards and go over with them what they're doing wrong and how we can fix it. If their only answer is that the numbers are wrong and they're not doing anything wrong and they won't do anything to change or work with you, then it's don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter