Statistics-Just for the Record.

[Zil]

My mistake. Stock market on:
Jan18, 2001 10678 (Clintons last day)
Sept 10,2001 9605

Link to where I got my data is HERE

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying presidents have nothing to do with the economy?

No, I didn't say that nor imply that in my post. I was curious why the unemployment rate went down when Clinton was in office and why it went up when Bush is in office? Can you explain that? (Please don't give me the Clinton = good guy, Bush = bad guy thing)


Oh and btw, the DOW dipped to 7,286.27 (9-Oct-02) during Bush's presidency and now is within reach of the high it was when he came into office. Looks like something is working right. I'd say he did better than Clinton, bringing it out of the slump after the terrorist attacks.

[jitBob]

Oh and btw, the DOW dipped to 7,286.27 (9-Oct-02) during Bush's presidency and now is within reach of the high it was when he came into office. Looks like something is working right. I'd say he did better than Clinton, bringing it out of the slump after the terrorist attacks.

If I understand correctly, the slump started long before the terrorist attacks. Bush is boring.

[silencio]

No, I didn't say that nor imply that in my post. I was curious why the unemployment rate went down when Clinton was in office and why it went up when Bush is in office? Can you explain that? (Please don't give me the Clinton = good guy, Bush = bad guy thing)

The best example of why a 3.4% employment rate is unsustainable is to look at all the failed interent companies built on smoke. Look at all the people employed by them, and other companies riding that wave who also have to spend more in salaries for workers who have low or no productivity. It's not a presidential thing. It's a technological revolution thing. Looking back I'm suprised the resulting downturn wasn't worse.

[Ya_know]

No, I didn't say that nor imply that in my post. I was curious why the unemployment rate went down when Clinton was in office and why it went up when Bush is in office? Can you explain that? (Please don't give me the Clinton = good guy, Bush = bad guy thing)


Oh and btw, the DOW dipped to 7,286.27 (9-Oct-02) during Bush's presidency and now is within reach of the high it was when he came into office. Looks like something is working right. I'd say he did better than Clinton, bringing it out of the slump after the terrorist attacks.

That's right!

Some statistics to think about there Techs!!!

[Ya_know]

If I understand correctly, the slump started long before the terrorist attacks. Bush is boring.

Right, judging by your statistics alone, it looks like the bubble busted (in your words here as well) under Clinton's administration, it just took as many months to really spin down, by then Bush was left holding the bag.

Don't blame Bush!!! My new campaign!!!

[Commander Klarg]

I'm not really sure why I'm posting this since Techs will call it bulls#!+ propaganda swill put forth by the Evil Bush administration to sway votes in his favor to continue his master plan to singlehandedly ruin evey American and control the world like Aardvard Ratnick (Daffy Duck reference)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4652107/

That IS good news. Let's see if that job growth can be sustained. If it isn't, it will hurt the Bush campaign.

What techs posted is cold, hard fact. That is undeniable.

Is it totally Bush's fault? No.

Did his policies bring these job losses? No, we were already on a slippery slope at the time of 9/11/01. On the other hand, his policies didn't stop the job losses, either.

Things are picking up, because there is less fear, uncertainty and doubt now than there was post-9/11/01. Businesses are ready to spend, and need to make up for what wasn't spent for two years. Is Bush responsible for the recovery? That is debateable; I don't think he has had much effect at all, IMHO.

The biggest issue that I see right now is outsourced jobs overseas. The Bush Administration needs to deal with this problem, be it stopping the jobs from moving, or by helping the displaced workers. If he fails to do this, his chances of being re-elected are a lot worse.


My $0.02... YMMV

EDIT: Wow, I shouldn't take so long to compose a post.

[techs]

Now THAT is democratic thinking. The tax cuts are actually borrowed from the government and we'll need to pay that back? LOL! How about cutting spending with money they don't have? How about approaching the subject with the fact in mind that no-one is "making" money with a tax cut. They're just getting their own money back.

No the tax cuts are money borrowed from Japan, China, etc. That's what the government does when it runs a deficit. It borrows money. In this case the government has borrowed money to give you money. IOW the government has cut the tax RATE without a corresponding cut in spending. This is what you thing is your tax "cut". It is paid for 100 percent by money the government has borrowed FOR YOU. It is a loan. It will have to be paid back, with interest.
Bet you didn't know that.

[silencio]

Another thing about the tech pendulum swinging back, look at how much big business has been spending on refreshing their infrastructure in the last few years. Through most of the boom there were big advances. Windows 3.1 through 2000, each upgrade period was short and offered substantial improvements. The same holds true for hardware. But at this point, from a business perspective, how much is it worth to upgrade from a PIII 1Ghz machine with Windows 2000 to a PIV 3Ghz machine with Windows XP? And what about the jobs that go along with those rollouts? Bye bye sales guy. Bye bye contractors ghosting machines. Bye bye to all those who make their living supporting those people.

I wonder where the next boom will be. Nanotech? Will there be another boom as revolutionary in this decade?

Personally, I'm thinking that security is going to drive the next massive wave of spending. I'm hoping that IPV6 or some other combination of technologies is going to drive a whole infrastructure upgrade. And I bet it will come with a new security model based on individual identification. But who's going to control it?

[meatwad]

No the tax cuts are money borrowed from Japan, China, etc. That's what the government does when it runs a deficit. It borrows money. In this case the government has borrowed money to give you money. IOW the government has cut the tax RATE without a corresponding cut in spending. This is what you thing is your tax "cut". It is paid for 100 percent by money the government has borrowed FOR YOU. It is a loan. It will have to be paid back, with interest.
Bet you didn't know that.

If that's true, then there never was a surplus. We just never paid these countries back the money we owed them. Right? And I take it that none of these countries owe us any money for anything?

[silencio]

No the tax cuts are money borrowed from Japan, China, etc. That's what the government does when it runs a deficit. It borrows money. In this case the government has borrowed money to give you money. IOW the government has cut the tax RATE without a corresponding cut in spending. This is what you thing is your tax "cut". It is paid for 100 percent by money the government has borrowed FOR YOU. It is a loan. It will have to be paid back, with interest.
Bet you didn't know that.

Yes, I did know that. But you might want to look at how much those same countries borrow from us. I wish I had a link but I remember from college back in the early 90s that there's was a confusing mish mash of borrowing between countries. We owe Germany 1 trillion but they owe us 750 million etc etc. It didn't make sense at the time and only does now if you consider how that fable of us owing money to another countries and having a huge deficit is used as an argument to raise your taxes.

[Zil]

No the tax cuts are money borrowed from Japan, China, etc. That's what the government does when it runs a deficit. It borrows money. In this case the government has borrowed money to give you money. IOW the government has cut the tax RATE without a corresponding cut in spending. This is what you thing is your tax "cut". It is paid for 100 percent by money the government has borrowed FOR YOU. It is a loan. It will have to be paid back, with interest.
Bet you didn't know that.

You missed the point, ALL the money the goverment has, it has taken from us. IT'S OUR MONEY FIRST. Now they are just taking less of it.

If there is a deficit, the government should learn to do with less, not take more money from us to cover their mistakes (one flaw of Bush is that he HAS spent alot of money on government programs, not just necessities like Homeland Security).

[techs]

You missed the point, ALL the money the goverment has, it has taken from us. IT'S OUR MONEY FIRST. Now they are just taking less of it.
NO. The government is still taking it. They just took less in cash now but they took out a loan for the rest that you have to pay back later. It is like me charging all my food and gas for a month. I didn't get a pay increase even though I now have more cash in my pocket. I actually owe MORE cause I have to pay off the credit card Plus the interest.
And might I add it is to the Republicans parties shame that when they have control of all three branches of government they are spending just as much on pork as the Democrats did.

[ilovetheusers]

No the tax cuts are money borrowed from Japan, China, etc. That's what the government does when it runs a deficit. It borrows money. In this case the government has borrowed money to give you money. IOW the government has cut the tax RATE without a corresponding cut in spending. This is what you thing is your tax "cut". It is paid for 100 percent by money the government has borrowed FOR YOU. It is a loan. It will have to be paid back, with interest.
Bet you didn't know that.

Just FYI about half is owed to them and the other half is owed to ourselves (SS funds, bonds, pensions, etc.).http://home.att.net/~mwhodges/debt.htm

I do agree that national debt is increasing and must come down. You obviously failed to read my posts before so let me tell you how it works again. Please don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that debt. must be paid, it's just that the economy needed a push and I support that and there's a reason why it makes sense.



A tax break was needed to stimulate the economy. With a better economy comes more jobs and even at the lower tax rate the the $$$$ floods in then. If at that time we paid down the debt things would go well. But, both Demipublicans and Republicrats both spend, Spend, SPEND!!! During the clinton years the spending went up tremendously instead of paying down debt while things were good. you are looking at the wrong guy in terms of paying things back because right now were are in a downcycle.

If you want the debt paid down vote 3rd party cause it's not going to happen otherwise. We need to stop spending, not start taxing. But warhawks who need a 400 billion budget and people who wants social projects 550 billion. SS is a whale of it's own. And, something damning my argument I will post anyway, is the crushing debt interest we have to pay. http://www.federalbudget.com/

[cisco2]

Bush is no more responsible for the .com bust than Clinton was for the .com boom. Anyone recall Y2k? Every one and every company was spending for IT like there was no tomorrow (some thought there would be no tomorrow). Combine that with the rise of the internet and wireless communications and you have a huge boom. The stock market went up with a surging economy. None of this has anything to do with any administration. Y2k comes and goes, poof, nothing. No one spends a dime on tech. All the companies have poured every dime they can into their IT departments. Now they don't want to spend any more, understandably. So now this booming market is without any sales. The .com boom goes south with the disappearance of billions of flowing dollars. Stock market dumps. Jobs are lost. Nothing to do with any administration.

Inflation is not a problem. Interest rates are low. Housing starts are booming. Aside from the lost jobs (a concern to be adressed to be sure) and the dumped stock market (that has rebounded) our ecomony is not in a slump. I haven't seen any bread lines, I haven't heard about record number of bankruptcies. Sports and entertainment are booming and full of new millionaires who are paid by your surplus spending (advertising dollars).

Those who bear the greatest tax burden got the greatest tax relief. Kind of a linear relationship there, not hard to follow.

Bush does concern me with federal spending (budget deficit), I do worry about his close affiliation with the religious right. He's done a damn good job of defending our country though he probably could have handled international relations a bit better. I don't think he lied about WMD any more than anyone else who was concerned about those a year ago did. We need to take a close look at our intelligence community, find and fix the failures there. I've no doubt Bush believed, as did Clinton that Saddam was very dangerous and did possess WMD.

[NooNoo]

Techs you may wish to look at the UK economy of before and after effects.

Before the rich paid 70-95% tax on income.
It was cut to just 40% flat rate

What happened over the next 15 years?