Shhhhhhh....

[sirs]

Of course, since anything postive would be a postive for Bush.  So, in the midst of ever increasing positives in both the economy and the Iraqi surge, must either keep it quiet in the media, or consider it "mixed", that way we can keep bashing Bush on how terrible a President he's supposed to be     

Why is it that you think the universe revolves around President Bush?

You're asking the wrong person Js.  Need to focus that question on those who blame Bush for practically everything that goes wrong in this world.  And FYI, I've never equated "economy" with how good a president is.  Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.  That's how Clinton inheireted such a good economy from Reagan & BushI, while Bush was saddled with a recession upon his taking office.  Point being, that many people "perceive" economy with President, which is why you had that Clinton pitch angle of "It's the economy, stupid".  When Clinton was in office, you could hardly get stories to discuss anything "mixed".  Point being that it's the left who is constantly trying to downplay this economy, then blame Bush for that.  It wasn't but the last Presidential election cycle of Democrat ads portraying this economy as the worst since Hoover, worse than even the depression.....then point a big finger a Bush.  The former being a baldfaced distortion, with the latter being the attempt to connect the popular perception. 

[_JS]

Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.

LOL

Whatever works for you man. 

[sirs]

Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.

LOL  Whatever works for you man. 

Historically, it's whatever works for the country.  3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs.  Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy.  Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy

[_JS]

Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.

LOL  Whatever works for you man. 

Historically, it's whatever works for the country.  3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs.  Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy.  Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy

So the DOW nosedive is something you blame on Bush?

[sirs]

Ususally the economy is about 3+years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President.

LOL  Whatever works for you man. 

Historically, it's whatever works for the country.  3yrs, 4yrs, 5yrs.  Point being when Bush took office it was still Clinton's economy.  Now we can definatively reference it as Bush's economy

So the DOW nosedive is something you blame on Bush?

No.  You?  You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act?  Wow.  Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??

[_JS]

No.  You?  You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act?  Wow.  Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??

First, it has been far from a single day. Second, I've already answered that (no, I don't). I was just trying to apply your odd arbitrary rule.

[sirs]

No.  You?  You actually blame the President for a single day's economic act?  Wow.  Can we "blame him", when it rises 100, 200, even 300points in a day??

First, it has been far from a single day.

The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday.  Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.

Second, I've already answered that (no, I don't). I was just trying to apply your odd arbitrary rule.

As I've already said, not my rule.  It's what the Dems do everytime there's a negative hiccup in the economy, then turn around and blame Bush (or whatever other GOP president is in the WH) for it...."Worst economy since the depression" I was hearing during the last Presidential election cycle.  Last I checked, over the "rule" I was applying, the stock market has been steadily climbing over the last 3+yrs.

[_JS]

The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday.  Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.

At least deal with facts.

The DJI closed on 14,000.41 on 19 July.

It lost 149.33 points on 20 July. It lost 226.47 points on 20 July. It lost 312.22 points on 26 July. It lost 208.10 points on 27 July. It lost 146.32 points on 31 July. It lost 281.42 points on 3 August. It lost 387.18 points on 9 August.

During the entire time period between 20 July and 10 August (today) there was one period of three days of positive gain (which included a paltry 35 point gain) and one period of two day gain. Those were 1-2 August and 6-8 August. In that time period the DJI lost 729.73 points.

If nothing else Sirs, at least use facts. Though I fully expect a complete weaseling out on your part, even when faced with actual data.

As I've already said, not my rule.

"Ususally the economy is about 3+ years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President." Those were your words, not anyone elses.

[The_Professor]

Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.

[_JS]

Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.

Oh, I agree Professor. I think I've said that two or three times in this thread actually.

[sirs]

The "nosedive" was 1 day yesterday.  Prior to that there had been substantial gains with some losses.

At least deal with facts. The DJI closed on 14,000.41 on 19 July.  It lost 149.33 points on 20 July. It lost 226.47 points on 20 July. It lost 312.22 points on 26 July. It lost 208.10 points on 27 July. It lost 146.32 points on 31 July. It lost 281.42 points on 3 August. It lost 387.18 points on 9 August.

Facts are largely were I congregate.  So shall I add how many points the Dow has gained on specific days as well??  Bottom line being that it's been consistently going up.  Where was it on Dec 31, 2002?  2005?  now?

If nothing else Sirs, at least use facts. Though I fully expect a complete weaseling out on your part, even when faced with actual data.

Been trying to.  It's not I trying to distort those facts with intermittent points of time pulled out to skew the discussion along your inferrence.  Think trees/forest kind of thing

As I've already said, not my rule.

"Ususally the economy is about 3+ years behind whatever policies were implimented by that President." Those were your words, not anyone elses.

Yea, you're the 1 that referenced some nosedive, analogus one big precipitous fall.  Something occuring short term, not over the 3+years I was referring to, since over that 3+yr period the dow has done anything but have some drastic nosedive

[The_Professor]

Actually, JS, the "nosedive" of the market centers around credit lending policies. These policies predated GWB.

Oh, I agree Professor. I think I've said that two or three times in this thread actually.

I know, just reinforcing a point for the less enlightened.

[Plane]

It is up for the year still.


I don't think I want the Presidency to include so much power thathe actually controlls the market.

But  , thee are several things that the Government can do to spoil a good thing.

Why did the Economy falter under Clinton? Was it something he did or not?

[_JS]

Guys, obviously the DJI and NASDAQ will go up just out of sheer inflationary pressure. If it doesn't at least match inflation (and preferably slightly lead it given the ease of capital borrowing) then the economy is truly in trouble.