|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 7, 2011 14:31:16 GMT -5
I like a president who leaves me with more retirement funds than I had when he was inaugurated. Hasn't happened lately. Only Reagan comes to mind. Do they raid your fund? What does a president have to do with your retirement fund? I missed this post but if it was a real question, the President tends to move the markets when he speaks and his department heads do too. The President is responsible, IMO, for the economy. The last one in my memory who left in an upturn was Reagan. The rest left in a recession with the markets going down.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 7, 2011 15:00:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 7, 2011 15:03:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 7, 2011 15:03:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 7, 2011 15:05:49 GMT -5
crap. google Dow during Clinton presidency or google Dow during Reagan presidency. Or google historical Dow.
Or google Girls Gone Wild. It might take your mind off the stock market miseries.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 7, 2011 15:26:10 GMT -5
They're making a mini-series about the stock market?
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Oct 7, 2011 15:31:59 GMT -5
crap. google Dow during Clinton presidency or google Dow during Reagan presidency. Or google historical Dow. Or google Girls Gone Wild. It might take your mind off the stock market miseries. Wasn't the surge during the Clinton years due to the DOT-COM boom that went bust after only a few years. Pretty much a false economy. Alot of money on paper that wasn't really there.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 7, 2011 15:56:24 GMT -5
![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) What's false? If the Dow is the measure, the Dow rose over 7,000 points during the Clinton administration. Yes, it boomed briefly to 14,000 and then settled back at 12,000. That is still a 7000+ gain in one of our chief economic indicators. And, to be noted, eight years of Bush was unable to raise the Dow a plugged nickel from where Clinton left it. Bush lost ground. If you want another measure of the Clinton economy, pick one. Inflation? A+. GNP growth? A+. Wheat and soybean yields? A+ What do you want? They were good times. The best of times.
|
|
|
Post by fatstrat on Oct 7, 2011 15:58:00 GMT -5
![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) What's false? If the Dow is the measure, the Dow rose over 7,000 points during the Clinton administration. Yes, it boomed briefly to 14,000 and then settled back at 12,000. That is still a 7000+ gain in one of our chief economic indicators. And, to be noted, eight years of Bush was unable to raise the Dow a plugged nickel from where Clinton left it. Bush lost ground. If you want another measure of the Clinton economy, pick one. Inflation? A+. GNP growth? A+. Wheat and soybean yields? A+ What do you want? They were good times. The best of times. I'd say Bush did pretty good considering the body blow our economy took from 9/11. The thing about the DOT COM boom was that the money wasn't real. People became millionaires overnight, and not only lost it just as fast. But were in debt. It was all imaginary credit.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 7, 2011 16:27:10 GMT -5
Whatever. I was never much interested in the DOW. I only paid attention to my statements. I was dumb and bought diversified mutual funds, buy and hold you know, so when part of them went up another part went down so the gain was minimal. At first, in the 80s, I was at least gaining but went back to even in 92 and again in 2001 and again last year. I had made some back this year but lost 15% in the past month and said the hell with it and went to cash.
|
|
|
Post by majorminor on Oct 7, 2011 16:50:06 GMT -5
Have to agree - as an adult the president in office for the era I prospered most in was indeed Slick Willie. Though this NAFTA hangover 10 years later is a bit of bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Oct 7, 2011 17:56:33 GMT -5
I'm holding out for Fred Thompson. I think Fred is running a landscaping company, Lawn Order.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 7, 2011 18:05:30 GMT -5
crap. google Dow during Clinton presidency or google Dow during Reagan presidency. Or google historical Dow. Indeed. All we need to do to replicate that is to come up with the next thing that will do for the economy what the metastatic expansion of the internet did back then. I know. Lets subsidize "green energy" and re-make the economy based on increasing energy costs by a factor of 10. That'll work, right?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 7, 2011 18:56:35 GMT -5
crap. google Dow during Clinton presidency or google Dow during Reagan presidency. Or google historical Dow. Indeed. All we need to do to replicate that is to come up with the next thing that will do for the economy what the metastatic expansion of the internet did back then. I know. Lets subsidize "green energy" and re-make the economy based on increasing energy costs by a factor of 10. That'll work, right? +! I kept trying to think of a concise way of saying that. Additionally, though Bush was handed a "surplus", he was also handed a stagnating economy that most were saying was teetering on the brink of recession even back then. That's why, for better or worse, whether it worked or not (that can be argued -- but not reasonably with people who would calculate "jobs saved" as a measure of Obama's success, but would not pull a similar rabbit out of their hat for Bush) the bipartisan "Bush Tax cuts" bill was called the "Economic Growth" bill.
|
|
|
Post by Phil N. Theblank on Oct 7, 2011 19:40:06 GMT -5
You know, upside down, the 999 plan is 666.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 7, 2011 19:42:27 GMT -5
A fascinating interview with Cain.Lawrence O'Donnell all but says "You were black in the 60's, and we expect black people in the 60's to have behaved in a certain way. Why didn't you behave the way good black people did?" It was a stunningly racist interview, and Cain handled it extremely well.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 8, 2011 13:59:27 GMT -5
I believe that events a president has no control over can make or break his tenure. Economic spurts and bubbles are events that are bigger than a president (insert curling analogy: The president does have a broom to sweep with, but the rock toss he has to deal with, whether tossed well or poorly, is an event beyond his control)
My only point here is that if you are going to lionize (or partisanaly praise) Reagan for the economy of his tenure (measured by a 1365 gain in the most commonly tracked economic indicator, then it's only fair to credit Clinton for the 7535 gain that was registered during his.
The decision to credit either, and the degree of that credit, is up for argument. But whatever degree of presidential influence is applied to one is fairly applied to the other. And by any economic measure generally given credit, the halcyon days of Reagan were trumped thrice over by the Clinton good times. Economically, if you like Reagan, you should love Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2011 14:55:24 GMT -5
Just for the record, I don't lionize Reagan or Clinton. I happen to be part of a very small minority who think that the economy has thrived in spite of US government. I think the biggest factor in economics for the past thirty years has been technology. Hands down. It's even given government a HUGE amount of rope with which to now hang both them and unfortunately us.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Oct 8, 2011 15:57:23 GMT -5
I believe that events a president has no control over can make or break his tenure. Economic spurts and bubbles are events that are bigger than a president (insert curling analogy: The president does have a broom to sweep with, but the rock toss he has to deal with, whether tossed well or poorly, is an event beyond his control) My only point here is that if you are going to lionize (or partisanaly praise) Reagan for the economy of his tenure (measured by a 1365 gain in the most commonly tracked economic indicator, then it's only fair to credit Clinton for the 7535 gain that was registered during his. The decision to credit either, and the degree of that credit, is up for argument. But whatever degree of presidential influence is applied to one is fairly applied to the other. And by any economic measure generally given credit, the halcyon days of Reagan were trumped thrice over by the Clinton good times. Economically, if you like Reagan, you should love Clinton. No, no, no. You haven't been listening. Pay attention here. (I know, I've been taking notes.) If the economy tanks under a Republican president, it's due to events out of his control. If the economy improves, it's all due to his magnificent management. And vice-versa for Democratic presidents, of course. Write it down, there will be a test.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 8, 2011 16:02:31 GMT -5
If the economy tanks under a Republican president, it's due to events out of his control. If the economy improves, it's all due to his magnificent management. And vice-versa for Democratic presidents, of course. Write it down, there will be a test. This seems sort of simplistic, but if you say so, who am I to argue?
|
|