With the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing virtually unchanged at 11,842 today, it is interesting to note that the index is now up a mere 8.8 percent over President Bush’s seven and a half years in office, or less than 1.2 percent annually. By comparison, the average annual returns for Republican and Democratic administrations has been 10.5 and 11.7 percent, respectively. Indeed, over the past century, only Herbert Hoover has presided over a worse stock market than our current pro-business president.
I’m just sayin’.
I made a lot of money the past 8 years in the market. Indexes, like the S&P or Dow, are measures. However there have been plenty of Gold Nuggets if you were a wise investor…particularly in Oil Stocks.
It may get worse under O-blah-blah if he raises capital gains to 28% and taxes Qualified Dividends @ 28%.
Part of the market dropping is directly attributable to the market psychology of that KLOWN being President and implementing his Socialist ideas.
The market always anticipates Goldy.
Get a job so you have something to invest other than what your family gives you in exchange for you moving away from them in Philly!
@1 In other words, you have no rebuttal other than to let loose with yet more vapid and insipid bullshit.
Man, Wall Street folks must be brilliant to foresee in 2001-2006 that Barack was going to be president in 2009!
Wingnuts are hilarious. Or, they would be if they weren’t so dangerous.
Better than Hoover? Bush can’t even build a dam.
Speaking of Hoover… If Obama is elected and he puts in place his new taxes and new tariffs, you can say hello to a New Depression.
Even the Chamber of Commerce members are starting to wise up to the misnomer of “Pro-business Republican”, which in actuality means the administration picks a few businesses to throw public money at while letting the vast majority of businesses wither from neglect. This has been a great 7 1/2 years if you happen to own an oil company or sell war materials to the Pentagon. Unfortunately for the rest of the business community you simply get the pleasure of paying taxes that end up as subsidy for the aforementioned oil and defense companies.
1
The market is not rational. Those who contend otherwise are (a) delusional, or (b) liars.
If the Hoover administration had lied to invade some third world country, got bogged down in a quagmire of an occupation, fucked up the DOJ and every other government department and agency, outed our own spies, tortured our enemies, presided over record deficits, shot a friend in the face, and strummed a guitar while an American city was destroyed, well, then there might be cause for comparison between the Hoover and Bush administrations. So, no, this is the worst administration ever.
9/11!
@1 I’m going to unload my oil stocks before you humans become extinct, and I suggest you do the same, Mr. C! And keep in mind that electing Republicans speeds up the extinction process, so if McSame wins, you might want to sell sooner rather than later. What did you get for your NOV when you sold out? It’s up $7 today to 91. I’ve still got mine. =:-D
@2 That’s about the size of it.
While I agree with the general sentiment of Goldy’s post, my numbers are a bit different.
I couldn’t go back any further than the Carter administration, because my source for historical DJIA quotes didn’t go back that far. Obviously, I don’t have Hoover’s numbers. But here’s what I do have:
Carter (4 years): Starting 959.03, ending 950.69, difference -8.34, ratio -0.87%, avereage p/year -0.22% (minus one quarter of one percent). A bad result due largly to uncertainty over Iran, record fuel prices, and high interest rates.
Reagan (8 years): Starting 950.69, ending 2235.36, diffference 1,284.67, ratio +135.13%, average p/year +16.89% (touted by Republicans as the “Reagan Economic Miracle”.)
Bush I (4 years): Starting 2,235.36, ending 3,254.03, difference 7,333.56, ration +45.57%, average p/year +11.39% (Bush lost to Carter amid cries of “It’s the Economy, Stupid!”).
Clinton (8 years): Starting 3,254.03, ending 10,587.59, difference 7,333.56, ratio +225.37%, average p/year +28.17%. A record which will be hard to beat.
Bush II (7-1/2 years): Starting 10,587.59, ending 11,842.36, difference 1,254.77, ratio +11.85%, average p/year +1.58%. Dismal performance over eight years.
So, the Bush administration performance over 7 and 1/2 years is certainly “dissapointing” to any invester in the core industries which make up the DJIA. They would have done far better to put their money into T-Bills, muni-funds, or even a federally insured savings account, for that matter. Generally a 10% annual return in the stock market is considered to be a respectable, safe earnings over time. If George W. Bush were CEO of a large company, he would have been sacked years ago.
But his performance over eight years IS marginally better than Carter’s. Of course, I would argue that Bush had several advantages that Carter did not, including eight years to even out problem years, wheras Carter only had four. But the way things are working out, Bush’s last year in office is looking more and more like Carter’s: foreign affairs disasters, rapidly escalating oil crisis, expensive natural disasters.
You gotta wonder what those mid-westerners are going to think about the current administration when they go to fill their oil heating tanks for next winter. The administration may be praying that predictions of global warming will become true (at least through the first week of November). Those types of economic issues usually end up punishing whoever is in charge, and I doubt McCain can avoid this any more than Ford was punished for Nixon’s Watergate misdeeds.
Of course, the stock market didn’t move much today – everyone is waiting for the Fed to announce what it will do (expected tomorrow, or possibly Wednesday). It may raise interest rates to combat fuel-price induced inflation, which should drive the DJIA even lower.
re 5: “The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with installment credit for fear of losing their jobs, and not being able to pay the interest. As a result, industrial production fell by more than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929.”
The Hawley-Smoot Tariff of 1930 did not create the depression. It was a reactionary, reflexive response to the depression. I’ll thank you to quit raising this canard, as it is becoming quite wearisome.
You are also a welcher.
So, Mark @ 1 seems to be saying that the guys with the big money are betting that Obama will be elected. I don’t agree with his reasoning, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and he may have stumbled upon the correct conclusion this time – Obama will indeed be our next President.
Brainless, witless, feckless Lucy @ 13
1. What kind of source is that??!! Some kid writing a high school paper? Geocities? Gimme a break. Cite something real (that hasn’t also been dissected and discredited on other websites). You want me to start citing Wikipedia without the footnotes?
Smoot-Hawley strangled trade and drove the country into a deeper financial mess.
Obama + taxes + tariffs = New Depression
2. As Goldy has already stated HERE recently, I had no part in whatever bet is causing you to bunch your panties.
rhp @ 14 “Mark @ 1…
Are you off your meds again?
Not only did I not post @ 1, but my only post number with a “1” in it came after your post @ 14. On top of that, your post makes no sense — regardless of whether you’re responding to Mr. C’s post @ 1 or my post @ 5.
@15
“Obama + taxes + tariffs = New Depression”
Wishful think on your part? Are you also hoping for a terrorist attack on our soil to maybe up McCain’s poll numbers?
“Cite something real”
Umm, sure. Or maybe do like yourself – make shit up without citing anything at all.
I can see the ad already.
Video shots of gas lines, shots of gas station price boards, shots of children playing in a green grass field. Cue in some music that starts with rubato orchestra segueing into a hard rock guitar oriented tune, quarter note =120.
The democrats have been blocking the drilling of oil in our own country for years, for decades. The democrats have been against building new refineries. [insert quote of obama talking about the good of high gas prices]
paid for by Americans for Energy independence
Ouch. You don’t see many on the left admit that their party is weak on terror.
Re 15:Here’s another source WELCHER. I could do this all day.
“False Prosperity
overdependence on mass production, consumer spending, advertising, welfare capitalism, high tariff, “invisible hand”‘
Mark @ 16: I was referring to Cynical @ 1.
This glib tarriff meme is laughable. But simpleton reasons for complex events is a Republican Specialty.
Re 15: You are a WELCHER.
@18 The Republican’s energy plan was to invade Iraq. That one didn’t work out so hot, now did it? So now you resort to making shit up again. It’s all Libs fault. Americans are fed up with the wimpy, whiny, bullshit coming from the right. No wonder Dems are steamrolling your ass.
#19, because a terrorist attack after an 8 year Republican presidency means the Democrats are weak on terror?
A terrorist attack could conceivably help Republicans only because Republicans are shameless fear mongers.
@19 I admitted no such thing. Like the commie-fascist troll you are, you just make shit up as you go along. I’m just pointing out your commie-fascist fantasies and delusions. Weak on terror? Here’s some reality for you. Americans are sick and tired of the Republican “Stupid on Terror” program. That’s just one reason why you’re getting your ass kicked by Democrats again.
Loosey-Goosey @ 20
Read your own source, you idiot!
“6. Trade Collapse”
“Hawley-Smoot tariff” under “7.”
Hell, read the line you quoted: “…high tariff…”
re: 22 and everywhere else: You are an IDIOT.
Yeah, let’s blame Bush for inheriting a recession when he took office in 2001.
Yawn.
@26 One reason the Republican party is on its way towards total and complete irrelevancy is because of people like you – an America-hating, commie-fascist traitor to the core. You belong in the backwaters of American society, asshole, which is exactly where you’re headed.
@27 Delusional. Take a pill and come back and try again.
Bush II (7-1/2 years): Starting 10,587.59, ending 11,842.36, difference 1,254.77, ratio +11.85%, average p/year +1.58%. Dismal performance over eight years.
—————
When Bush took office on Jan 20, 2001, it was at 10,686, for a 10.82% gain through today according to my math. To be more precise the annual gain must also be compounded and factor in inflation: similar nominal gains can look very different if inflation over the periods is much different (and I’ll leave that analysis to someone with more time).
In all fairness, the Nasdaq and Dow (to a much less extent) where distorted by the market bubble in the late nineties.
Finally, any comparisons are also dependent on the index. The S&P 500 today is actually below where it was on Jan 19, 2001.
These types of comparisons aren’t worth a lot in my view. Over the last 7 years there has been tremendous opportunity to make money, depending on where you placed it.
@17 Steve “Are you also hoping for a terrorist attack on our soil to maybe up McCain’s poll numbers?”
@19 Marvin “Ouch. You don’t see many on the left admit that their party is weak on terror.”
McCain disavows aide’s comment about terrorism
By GLEN JOHNSON
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
FRESNO, Calif. — A top adviser to John McCain said another terrorist attack on U.S. soil would be a “big advantage” for the Republican presidential candidate…
The wingnuts can only slam the Bushies for trying to ram through a guest worker program and a Raygunesque amnesty.
31 Elizabeth Cheney (Big Dick’s breeder daughter and erstwhile Undersecretary of State for Near-Eastern Affairs) was recently asked straight out by Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC about the prospect of an “October surprise”. She merely replied, “It is absolutely clear that neither the United States nor Israel can tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran”.
Also, Bill Kristol is apparently blabbering about how Smirk may be more eager to push an attack on Iran before the election if it appears McCain is likely to lose.
31
Deep down, I think most rock-ribbed Republicans are hoping for a terrorist attack to help McCain. The reality is that I don’t think such an attack would help him at all. Republican incompetence infiltrates every aspect of governance, from domestic affairs to foreign policy to how they handle their own administrative matters. And, I believe the American people are on to them. I should say most Americans. People like Marvin Stamn reside in their own world, a world protected from reality, a world where accountability, responsibility, and honor are foreign concepts.
It’s also interesting to note that in the last week or so the DHS has been making a big show out of their new program of inspecting pleasure boats for possible radioactive material, including the use of detection devices so sensitive that they’re set off by pacemakers and granite counter tops. At the same time, the government is steadfast in its refusal to mount a program to inspect all but a few incoming cargo containers.
@34 I’m sure that the trolls would be dancing in the streets, especially if it was a coastal city that was hit. They seem to think that everybody living on the coasts are either gay or dirty fucking hippies – both expendable in a terrorist attack in their minds.
It’s, “Party before God and country”, as far as these commie-fascists are concerned.
36
You got that right, the unpatriotic bastards.
@15 “Smoot-Hawley strangled trade and drove the country into a deeper financial mess.”
That’s the conventional wisdom, but …
“There is not universal agreement about the effect of the tariff. … Smoot-Hawley’s effect on the entire U.S. economy may have been small, compared to the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve System.”
(From Wikipedia, without the footnotes)
@1: Stock market wisdom? Like your touting Wells Fargo recently for its 5% dividend? A fool’s play, if you ask me.
Dividend adjusted, right now it’s a loser since your impersonation of Jim Cramer.
@18 According to your buddy Bushie’s own Energy Department, U.S. refinery capacity grew steadily while Clinton was president.
In any case, refining capacity is not the bottleneck, dummy! Gas prices are high because crude production has been flat since 2005 while demand shot up.
You know, it’s really funny to watch all these wingnuts post here claiming to have made a killing in the market, even during the anemic Bush years. Statistically, this is a probability bordering on the non-existent. As for their much self touted “creating wealth”? Well, trading pieces of paper does not contribute to the output of the real economy.
Zip. Nada. Nothing.
@19 yawn
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need.” — Posted by GOP legislative candidate Mark Griswold on Sound Politics at 10:52 AM on November 8, 2006.
Republicans are the party that wants more terror attacks.
@5: “Speaking of Hoover… If Obama is elected and he puts in place his new taxes and new tariffs, you can say hello to a New Depression.”
Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not sure what “new tariffs” you speak of here, but no matter. However, if the economy goes deep into the tank starting this fall, just who are you gonna’ blame? The Democratic Congress? I’m pretty sure you will.
Somehow, I am not suprised.
@40: Republicans are totally unfamiliar with the concept of productivity, unless they are trying to justify a greater share of economic output to the rentier class.
Which they do. Unceasingly.
Wingnuts think American workers should compete on equal terms with foreign countries that have no environmental laws, no minimum wage, no health care, no pension, and pay their workers $1.25 a day — and they expect American workers to vote for them?!!
President Obama should impose a 100% tax on theft. That will put the GOP out of business.
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
–Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
–Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs — Republicans 36,440,000.
–Per Year Average: Democrats 1,825,200, Republicans 856,400.
–Republicans had 9 presidents during the period of whom 6 presided over a depression or recession.
–The Dow Average grew 52% more under Democrats.
–GDP grew 43% more under Democrats.
SOURCES – Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic Policy Institute Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003)
Bush did a fairly good job keeping the economy afloat after inheriting 20 terrorist who fully trained under his predecessor. That’s how history will remember GW.
And that’s how Osama Bin Ladden will remeber GW too.
Yet, the leaders of these foreign countries are endorsing obama. Go figure.
From Harding In 1921 to Bush in 2003:
–Democrats held White House for 40 years and Republicans for 42.5 years.
–Democrats created 75,820,000 net new jobs — Republicans 36,440,000.
–Per Year Average: Democrats 1,825,200, Republicans 856,400.
–Republicans had 9 presidents during the period of whom 6 presided over a depression or recession.
–The Dow Average grew 52% more under Democrats.
–GDP grew 43% more under Democrats.
—————–
Of course, the devil’s in the details. It would be interesting, for example, to see the jobs data broken into various sectors, including fed government and military recruitment. In the latter case WWII (especially), the Korean War, and Vietnam would have been significant factors.
Steve @29: delusional?
Um.
All I stated was the undisputed fact that Bush inherited the 2001 recession. The stock market was going to hell in 2001 and following because of economic conditions that preexisted Bush’s election, let alone his assumption of office.
Feel free to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
It’s like if a pilot puts his plane into a dive and passes out, and the co-pilot takes over at 10,000 feet. He brings the plane out of its dive at 2,000 feet, and brings it back up to 11,000 feet. The delta between 10,000 and 11,000 is not the whole story, obviously: we have to look at peaks and troughs, and how we arrived at each one. And the trough in 2001 was, clearly, not Bush’s fault.
The facts show it unequivocally.
Of course, Presidents do not have nearly as much control over the economy as Congresses or the private sector do. But if we are going to assign blame to Presidents, the blame for the 2001 recession would lie with Clinton, not Bush. The proper way to measure the economy of an administration — if we must resort to such base calculations — is to give the first year to the predecessor, so 2001 would belong to Clinton: not only does it take time for new policies to take effect, but even more obviously, FY2001 — which ended in September 2001 — was Clinton’s budget, not Bush’s.
Again: just the facts here.
JamesC: same point to you. For recent years, anyway — not sure how budgets were done under Harding! — most of what happens economically in a President’s first year is influenced far more by his predecessor than himself, especially in government itself, as it is operating under the predecessor’s budget for most of that year.
JamesC: same point to you.
———–
Pudge, my only point was one can’t take (selected) data (@47) on face value. For example, WWII would have been a big contributor to job creation. And that would have been under Roosevelt for what that’s worth.
Let’s see – gas was $1.85 when the Bush Regime took over the White House. We had a budget surplus. President Clinton created more jobs in his eight years than in any period in our country.
When Bush took over, he managed to help raise the price of everything, start a recession, create the largest budget deficit in US history, create the largest trade deficit in US history, create a country where people have less equity in their homes than at any point since the Great Depression and, if that wasn’t enough, has managed to reduce the working wage of average Americans and virtually eliminate the concepts of savings since most Americans now live paycheck to paycheck.
Yes the conservative financial values of the GOP have been great NOT! If you really want four more years of this shit vote GOP. You deserve whatever you get.
Bush’s equivalent of bread and circuses- tax cuts and Iraq War- has driven this economy to deficit and debt. The Chinese can laugh at us.
By the way – Bush has hidden the cost of the bullshit war in Iraq when reporting on the economy so if you factor that in, things are even worse. This is a national security issue and the Bush regime has made us LESS safe.
JamesC: I didn’t mean anything by it, I wasn’t attacking you or anything. I just looked at your data quickly and saw that it gave the first year of each presidency to the current President, when it should have gone to the previous President if anything.
I don’t really care what the numbers end up being … I just care that we assign the right years to the right people. :-)
All I know is that for the last 7 years, I have dutifully saved in my workplace 401k. I make a very good six-figure income. I have limited investment options (can’t ‘gamble’ on specific stocks and industries). The gains have been nominal at best. All the while, Bush and the then-GOP-controlled Congress ran up the national debt (which I and my kids will eventually have to repay) to give tax breaks to the super rich while spending, spending, spending. They also failed to shore up social security and health care (I pay a ton of dough for insurance for my healthy family) with the Clinton surpluses they inherited.
In sum, Bush’s economic and fiscal policies have destroyed my potential for a reasonable ROI on invested savings, added to my share of the national debt, and left the safety net of Social Security on the brink of disaster about the time I will retire. Thanks a lot you GOP assholes.
rod:
The national debt has been run up even more with the Dem Congress under Bush than the GOP Congress under Bush. I won’t defend the spending, just saying, I expect it to be far worse under Democratic President + Democratic Congress.
ESPECIALLY if they give us the health care you want. My goodness. You will be paying, with your six-figure income, MORE than you are paying for health care NOW under a universal health care plan.
EVERYONE got tax breaks, and the “super rich” actually got less of one than the rest of us (that is, their tax liability as a percentage of their income went down less than everyone else’s, etc.).
As to Social Security, Bush tried to “shore it up,” and the Democrats blocked him. Social Security is unsustainable as-is. It’s a Ponzi scheme. Starting next decade we will be taking money OUT of the General Fund to pay back the securities in the SS Trust Fund, which means HIGHER deficits. And the Democrats refused to try to fix it.
And as for Clinton “surpluses,” they didn’t exist for Bush. They were wiped out by the recession that Bush inherited (we had a very small surplus in FY2001), and 9/11 (which cost us a lot more than the surplus remaining in FY2001). You can have your own opinions, but not you own facts.
@pudge you get those talking points from Lush Flimbaugh today? Cause nothing you said is remotely true and all the polls show that the public no longer believes the Rovian lies your side is telling about the economy.
Bush had the power of veto and could have vetoed any bill that passed in the last two years. In you look at OMB numbers, the GOP Congress on a year by year basis outspent Dems by 34%.
You should learn that saying – you can have your own opinion but not your own facts. In your case, both your opinion and facts are wrong and the American people know it looking at the 15 point lead President Obama has in the polls.
Pudge –
Where were the Bush vetoes? Where were they???????
Bush wiped out the clinton surpluses with his huge tax cuts. Even McCain wanted to have a “suspend trigger” built into that package in the event the deficits returned. Remember that? Do you?! Go check “the facts”. Best they could do was sunset the package. GOP wouldn’t agree to the suspension amendments. They chose tax cuts for the rich over sound fiscal policies. They voted for deficits and debt – consequences be damned.
And what the hell is wrong with paying back the IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund? But for all that GOP spending coupled with tax cuts, the program could have been righted in 2000-01. But that opprtunity was blown in favor of immediate self-gratification. Those are not conservative values — but they are GOP. values.
Looking back further at the facts you’re apparently so fond of, please identify the Republican that voted for the 93 deficit reduction package. You can’t bcause there wasn’t one. Not one GOP vote for the responsible fiscal policy that turned around the disastrous GOP fiscal program of the Bush I years. Your ilk should quit jawboning until you’re ready to deliver on your party’s supposed “principles”, including fiscal responsibility.
As to health care, it would be virtually impossible to have a less efficient system than we have today. I’m already paying for all the uninsured and under-insured to get the most expensive (emergency) care. It could not get more expensive.
In sum, take your unsupported, fiction-based opinions and stuff ’em up your ass.
@62
And what the hell is wrong with paying back the IOUs to the Social Security Trust Fund?
————————–
It has to come from somewhere.
@The Real Mark,
The Depression’s already here. As to whether President Obama and the hugely Democratic House and Senate will fix it we’ll have to wait and see.
Considering the House Dem’s recent vote to spend 162B more dollars that we don’t have I’m starting to think the they wont fix things.
While we are on the subject let’s talk about the GOP getting religion on the oil crisis overnight. For six years – six long years, the GOP controlled the Congress and the White House. What did they do about the oil crisis then? I’ll tell you – they worked out secret deals with WHATADICK Cheney’s secret energy committee to run up prices in return for big fat contributions.
When that AWOL asshole George Bush tries to blame Democrats for the current crisis, I wish one – just one reporter would have the balls to remind Baby Bush that…
1) He’s the President (or so he claims) – what’s HE doing about the problem?
2) What did his party do for the six years that they had a chance to fix this?
ByeByeGOP:
Um. Actually everything I said is true. What part do you think isn’t? I can provide data. I linked to some of it already, the part where Bush inherited the recession.
But go ahead, tell me just one fact I said that was wrong.
rod:
Again, no, you are wrong. The surplus Bush inherited in FY2001 was $128b, and the cost of 9/11 — in direct costs, and in lost revenue — was much more than that. Further, the cost of the tax cut from 2001 was much LESS than that, closer to about $70b. So the tax cut alone, without 9/11, and all other things — including the slumping economy he inherited — being the same, we still would have had a surplus.
But FY2002 saw a $158b deficit, because the cost of the recession plus 9/11 alone were enough to drive us to deficit, and the cost of the tax cut was not.
Those are the facts.
Also, I never said anything was wrong with paying the debt owed to the SS Trust Fund. I only noted the fact that when those securities come due, it will mean even bigger deficits. And the Democrats refused to try to prevent this. Worse, Obama’s only plan to “fix” it is to tax people like YOU. And he doesn’t want to cut benefits to “super rich” retirees. Literally, Obama wants to raise YOUR taxes to pay Social Security to Warren Buffett.
Those are the facts.
How does that make you feel?
And no, it is easy to have a less efficient health care system than today: just read Obama’s “Blueprint for Change.” He wants to have MORE regulation — he says so explicitly — and MORE government control, which WILL increase the cost of care. But even if it didn’t, YOU would still be paying more, because you make six figures.
Those are the facts.
It’s remarkable to see the wingnuts who still adhere to supply-side economics. Indeed, tax cuts cure all ills, right? Especially tax cuts for the top of the income-earners. The ideology/religion of supply-siders is remarkably vacuous, something which no serious economist supports. Yet, Bush, and the puppy-barbecuers who follow him, still, profess that more tax cuts are in order. How much nonsense can any one nation handle?
Tell me what FDRs numbers would be if you stopped at Jan. 1941. That’s when he would have served his second term and WW-II wouldn’t be a factor.
Goldy,
lets add some bitters to the broth by dedecting the 33% devaluation of the dollar during Bush’s eta and another 40% or s for the real inflation over this period.
It is FASCINATING to me that the economics team that BHO is building so clearly reflects the legacy of Robert Rubin. This suggests that in economics, as in education, defense, and many other areas we can begin to see Obamism as a sort of progressive pragmatism.
Imagine eight years of reality based government! Seems like heaven!
SeattleJew:
I still can never tell if you’re dishonest, or stupid. It’s tough.
One thing’s for sure, though: no one honest and intelligent would attempt to blame the devaluation of the dollar, which is based largely on FED and trade policies decades old, primarily on Bush. Same basic thing with inflation. He has had more impact on inflation than the dollar because some of the oil price has to do with Iraq, but most of inflation is beyond his control, or Obama’s.
“Reality-based,” my ass. You have no clue what reality IS.
@Pudge quoting proven liar Matt Drudge or impotent gas bag Lush Flimbaugh is not a fact. And what part of my post didn’t you understand. I said NOTHING you said was true. It’s all bullshit. It’s not fact based. It’s talking point based. The facts are simple. But you have an ideology so facts aren’t important to you.
By the way – if you want to bet on your so-called facts helping your guy get elected, go for it. Nobody believes the lies spewed by Rove and company anymore. It doesn’t work. Check the last three special Congressional elections in heavily, long-held republican districts – all went Democratic for a reason. How that must sting!
Ah – and one more thing. 9-11 happened on Bush’s watch. Bush family friend Osama bin Laden was also in the sights of a Predator drone and Bush wouldn’t kill him. And Bush STILL can’t find the real culprit behind 9-11. Osama STILL roams free – again on Bush’s watch. Bush and the GOP can’t find Osama. They are incompetent and Americans overwhelmingly say so.
I can see why you don’t like facts. They destroy your argument.
Notice how none of the right wingers here want to touch the fact that Bush and the GOP controlled the entire federal government and never once even tried to do anything about oil prices?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25217565/
Want more of this? Vote to continue the Bush/McCain economic plan.
Pudge, Dearest
Your point is? So the Bush rule is NOT resposnible for inflation and devaluation? Oh? Are these utterly natural events, you know like earthquakes or collissions with asteroids?
Both devaluation and inflation reflect Bush policies that have encouraged divestment by Americans in our own capiatl base and caused loss of confidence in the dollar.
Look at it in terms only of Iraq. In effect Bushella took a trillion dolllars out of America’s internal cash flow and non productively burned those dollars in public. If you were the Central bank of Richistan, what woiuld this do t your confidence?
To finance this pagan orgy of sacrifice, the MBA from Texas redistributed income, using the tax system, from consumers to the very wealthy. What did those folks do? They LOST huge numbers of dollars on real estate and stock market speculation. Can you spell H O O V E R?
Here is a simple challenge, tell me a single example of a step Bushie has taken to increase American productivity. There are NONE.
During the same period, Europe, Brazil, China, Japan, and India have invested heavily in infrastructure, education, alternative energy, etc. Even across the border, while Bush racked up records debts, Canada balanced its (socialist) budget.
Nuff?
lets add some bitters to the broth by dedecting the 33% devaluation of the dollar during Bush’s eta and another 40% or s for the real inflation over this period.
——————-
Devaluation against what? Inflation is occurring worldwide, with much higher increases in China and India. Where I would fault this administration – and Congress – is the failure to create an energy policy that weaned us our dependency on oil. Oil has risen relentlessly for 6 years yet only recently did we enact higher mileage standards. The silver lining in these developments is we’re being forced to make basic changes now, though that’s creating new battle lines regarding offshore and shale oil drilling.
During the same period, Europe, Brazil, China, Japan, and India have invested heavily in infrastructure, education, alternative energy, etc. Even across the border, while Bush racked up records debts, Canada balanced its (socialist) budget.
———————–
China’s development is supported by large scale construction of coal-burning power plants that are emitting dangerous toxins and CO2. Emissions have been detected in our mountains. Technology to effectively trap C02 from these plants and elsewhere does not exist yet.
ByeByeGOP:
And what part of my post didn’t you understand. I said NOTHING you said was true. It’s all bullshit.
OK, fine, then rebutting you is easy: I already linked to proof that Bush inherited the 2001 recession. You say that is not true. It is. NO one denies it, who looks at the facts.
You lose. Now, if you want to admit you were wrong about Bush not inheriting the 2001 recession, and point at something specific that you think is wrong, feel free. But if you’re going to say everything I said is wrong … well, I just proved otherwise.
SeattleJew:
Your point is? So the Bush rule is NOT resposnible for inflation and devaluation?
Did I stutter? Yes, he is not primarily responsible for those things. Devaluation is primarily due to trade deficit and debt, which were both huge before he took office. Uf not for the tech boom, it would have happened sooner, under Clinton.
Inflation is primarily due to, along with being contributed to devaluation, FED policy that goes back decades, and which the President does not control at all (though he probably should), and oil prices. Granted, Bush has contributed to oil prices, but then again, almost every major Democrat at the time said invading Iraq was the right decision (Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Rockefeller, and so on), and further, Iraq does not account for even a majority in the increase in oil prices.
Here is a simple challenge, tell me a single example of a step Bushie has taken to increase American productivity. There are NONE.
Well, frankly, if you think he caused devaluation of the dollar, then that is certainly one, since it has encouraged and increased exports.
During the same period, Europe, Brazil, China, Japan, and India have invested heavily in infrastructure, education, alternative energy, etc.
Bush has increased spending in all three areas … especially education. So now you’re arguing against yourself. Pitiful.
No pudge you offered no link that matters. Anyone can make a link. Here’s a link http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c.....arres.html
See that proves Bush wrecked the economy.
You offer not ONE link to a real relevant fact to refute what I posted so YOU loooose as does your party.
Must suck to be a republican.
Oh not that Pudge cares about or would even recognize a fact, but the current US trade deficit is the highest it’s ever been under Bush. Higher than ANY previous president.
And if you want an unbiased source for facts that prove Bush has worsened the economy and that President Clinton’s numbers are better – look at this. Hardly a Democratic friend. Where Pudge quotes impotent hate radio jocks, I quote legitimate news sources. Quit while you’re behind Pudge. While I didn’t think it possible, you’re actually making yourself look worse than you already had.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.c.....arres.html
“The Clinton years were more prosperous than those under Bush. Gross domestic product growth in Clinton’s term averaged better than 3.7 percent, compared with 2.4 percent in Bush’s presidency so far. Incomes rose faster — weekly earnings were up 6.4 percent, compared with 1.3 percent under Bush — and Clinton left office with a $128 billion budget surplus, while the Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of $357 billion for 2008.”
Let’s see if I have this straight: We should have Dems in the White House because they’re better for the rich, capitalist bourgeoisie-pig-dogs on Wall Street?
I thought you Neo-socialist types hated anybody who might be financially successful. I don’t get it.
Mon cher pudgella
Pray tell, when did we bhring Clinton into this discussion? I thought it was about L’Era de Bush.
Sorry to tell yhou this but devauing the dollar does not increase productivity .. though it does cheapen it. The central force in productivity is capital investment. Bush has encourged capital investment .. in China.
If Bush has increased spending in alternative energy in your universe, we must be using string theory for this discussion. The US highway fund is broken. The NIH (where I work) is nearly out of funds, tuition ocsts have gone through the roof while federal fiunds for scholarships have sunk, as for alternative enrgy … Bush has literally blown that one. Hydrogen?
Devaluation is NOT primarily due to the trade deficit. We could go on indefinitely with a trade deficit if our net value supported it. Devaluation occurs when the capital value of a country, the ultimate backing of its currency, falls relative to other countries. Out another way, Bush’s USA ain’t worth a full greenback.
As for invading Iraq for fiscal reasons, your dimesnion must not have seen the same war we did here. In OUR version, Bush made a decsion then managed to fight his war with inadequate forces, Powell, McCain, Clark, etc. all suported invasion BUT screamed about the folly of an inadequate alliance, not enoguh troops and NO plan for after the war. This was less an invasion than it a form of masturbation.
While I too dislike Clintonomics, Rubin’s tax policies were a blessing. May they come again.
RBW @ 68: It doens’t help to try to include or exclude figures based upon a special circumstance. For one thing, the effects of any fiscal event spread beyond areas of contemplation, and are difficult to measure. For another, the presumption that the event would have only a positive or a negative event with respect to statistics is not accurate, it depends in large part upon how the event is handled. For the third thing, you get into arguments as each side tries to manipulate the figures one way or another by each excluding every negative thing that happened within their party’s administration, saying it shouldn’t count, to the point where the numbers are meaningless.
So when I reported my numbers (up towards the top of the this thread), I just reported the raw figures. Apparantly somebody thinks Bush’s starting figure should be a bit higher, which only works against his averages. I chose the DJIA over other markets because it is more of a broad-based indicater of economic strength, rather than the unstable NASDAQ and commodities markets.
Could we give the first year of any Presidency to the credit/deficit of the previous President? Sure, except that there ARE steps Presidents take in their first year which may have an immediate impact upon the economy. In the case of Bush I, that would make Reagan’s figures look even better, and his numbers look even poorer – especially if you take away the first year of Clinton’s Presidency, when he was combating a rescession HE inherited from Bush I.
Personally, I’m a big fan of Jimmy Carter – I think he got a lot of underserved blame for trying to come to grims with economic circumstances which had their roots in the previous decade of fiscal and defense policy. He had to completely re-build a military which was broken by Vietnam into a professional all-volunteer force, paying for a lot of R&D off-the-books which he couldn’t publically detail (M1 Abrams Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Stealth technology, cruise missles, modern attack helicopters, etc.). But the DJIA DID end up slightly lower than when he took over the Presidency four years earlier, so I reported that fact.
So,Mark the Welcher, did you notice any of the other reasons? You found a minor thing (a tariff)that was enacted well INTO the depression and may have exacerbated it a little, but you ignore all the other reasons — because they don’t fit your meme. You are like a fourth grader with a snare drum marching around the political neighborhood making a lot of random and meaningless noise.
Here’s the link again, Welcher.
Here’s a question, Mark (heh!) the Welcher, that may help you clear-up the flaw in the way you think: If a motorist runs into a tree that is by the side of the road, is it more likely that the tree caused the accident, or the motorist?
If a tariff is enacted AFTER a depression has begun, is it more likely that the policies of the party in power caused the depression, or the tariff.
Cart before the horse — dope.
Actually, I’ve had some nice gains with my mutual funds since I bought them in 2002. The market has been pretty good. The downturn we are experiencing right now is temporary.
ByeByeGOP:
Riiiiiiiight.
You keep ignoring the fact that the recession started under Clinton.
Come to grips with that fact and perhaps I will care about anything else you have to say. I am not going to play your stupid move-the-goalposts game. Any further post you say that does not include a concession to that effect — or hell, at least some substantive argument about GDP decline and so forth — will be ignored. Cheers!
SeattleJew:
Um, try to keep up: GOLDY, not me, brought up ALL past administrations.
And no, a devaluing dollar absolutely does increase productivity as it creates a greater demand for exports. You fail Econ 101.
And no, I didn’t say devaluation is primarily due to trade deficit, I said it is primarily due to trade deficit and FED policies. And it’s true. Hell, even Democrat Warren Buffett says the trade deficit is a prime factor in the dollar’s decline. He proposed fixes to our trade deficit problem in order to prevent a declining dollar.
As for invading Iraq for fiscal reasons, your dimesnion must not have seen the same war we did here.
I never said anything about that. You’re the one living in another dimension. What I said, quite clearly, is that the most significant effect Bush had on inflation was that the invasion was a partial cause of our increased oil prices. I never said, implied, or hinted, in any way, that this was a CAUSE for invasion: I was, quite clearly, speaking in terms of EFFECTS.
87 “You keep ignoring the fact that the recession started under Clinton.”
Nope…YOU ignore the fact that that was Clinton’s recession. Now we have a brand spanking new one, rapidly spiraling into a depression, and it’s got Bush’s greasy fingerprints all over it.
re 87: That’s the way to take responsibility: Blame Clinton — and the Repulican congress.
ArtFart:
I ignore a fact that a. wasn’t brought up and b. isn’t a fact?
Using the same definition of recession as the one we’re using for the 2001 recession (which I will not call “Clinton’s recession,” as that’s silly, it simply started during his presidency, or, at the latest, just after he left office, due to conditions that existed while he was President), we are not in a recession now.
And we’re not even CLOSE to a depression.
A recession, by the standard definition (there is no one correct definition) requires consecutive quarters of negative GDP. We have not even had ONE quarter of negative GDP, let alone consecutive ones, and we are probably not going to have any. And while you could argue that we have a recession according to other definitions, one thing’s for sure, we can’t have a depression without negative growth, which we don’t have.
headless lucy: I didn’t blame Clinton for the recession. Ever. I simply pointed out the fact that Bush could not be blamed for it, since it started before he took office. I don’t believe it is rational to give primary blame for recessions to Presidents, but if you ARE to assign blame, then Clinton is the one to blame for that one. I don’t blame Clinton at all, as it was a confluence of factors mostly out of his control, such as the bursting of the tech bubble.
(And of course this also implies that the temporary growth spurred on by the tech bubble was not to Clinton’s credit, either. But as he didn’t invent or market any computer technology, or provide any significant assistance to those that did, I’d say that’s fair.)
I think it’s hillarious the way the wingnuts are STILL trying to blame all the economic problems under Bush’s SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS on the Clinton administration, and area already starting to blame any future problems on the future OBAMA administration. I guess they would like to pretend that the Bush administration never happened.
I guess if I were faced with such a disastererous showing on so many different levels, I would be looking for a hole to bury my head in the sand, also.
By the way, in the news today: The U.S. ambassador to Albania has been implicated in the rather strange contract to supply expired Chinese ammo to Afganistan forces friendly to the U.S. The contract was held by a company which consisted primarily of a twenty-something fellow with little prior experience in government procurement. As Deep Throat advised… “Follow the money….”
rhp6033:
I think it’s hillarious the way the wingnuts are STILL trying to blame all the economic problems under Bush’s SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS on the Clinton administration
Yeah, that’s funny. Who did that? I must’ve missed it. Point it out so I can laugh at it too!