Bravo, President Bush and his TAX CUTS!
:)

The strongest freakin' economy in the universe!!!

Well yes the Dow has gone up about 20% (11K to 13K) durring the 6 years of Bush rule, a whopping 3.3% per year. Of course the value of the dollar vs the euro has gone down by 50% from $.85 to the euro all the way to $1.35 the stock market has gone up largely because of the higher value of the euro/yen foreigners can buy our country on the cheap !!

uggg.. where to start. Very interesting way of presenting your figures Mark..

of course there complete non-sense..

(a) unemployment in 2000 was lower than it was ever in the Bush presidency

as well - you need to take into account inflation! So

(b)the GDP is essentially always increasing - the question is the percentage of growth - which was an annual average of 2.5% under Clinton and 1.6% under Bush

(c)Personal income growth is generally always increasing again its the rate that matters - again here there is no comparison - considerably higher under Clinton than Bush (it was actually negative under Bush for the first time in 40 years during one period)

Corporate profits - are of course up - because Bush gave business and the rich tax cuts...

So we have established that you don't understand science, politics, or economics, what else??

there -> they are ... sorry

We’ve also established that k can cut-n-paste without understanding what she’s pasting.

Don’t get carried away, keefer; this is the most robust economy of my lifetime but there are problems on the horizon.

The recovery from the 2001 recession has been remarkable, but the recovery in 1994-1998 was stronger. Before the usual suspects start touting Clintonomics (whatever that was) I need to point out that the recovery starting in 2003 began with a different economy than the one in 1993; as an economy accelerates, just like an automobile, at greater speeds the ability to “go faster” becomes problematic; it’s easier to double your speed from 30 mph to 60 mph, but 60 to 120 ~ not so much.

The problem isn’t the debt; that is manageable as a product of GDP as long as the economy continues to expand, and especially since the world markets are also expanding. The problem isn’t the housing market; since the bulk of the sub-prime loans were refinance loans, not first time buyers’ loans. The problem isn’t international loans since the lenders have an interest in the stability of our economy, or else they don’t get paid back at a profit. And the problem isn’t inflation, since the Fed has done a good job of hedging inflation by backing off interest rate hikes. No, the big problem on the horizon is Social Security.

Bush has tried to get cooperation on reforming the system; to the democrats howls of privatization. Speaking of which; since the market has outperformed all other investments since the 1980’s; why would private investments be a bad thing? My average ROI from my 403(b) has exceeded the 0% return on Social Security by posting an 11.09% annual return for the life of the fund; and that’s just the equity fund; even my bond funds have returned 8.75% annually over the life of the fund. The 403(b) Personal Savings Account? 5.65%. The total return for the last two years alone has exceeded the combined return of the previous 12 years. Why in the world would I want the government to take my Social Security money and return 0% or worse, no return at all should I die before collecting, over simple long term investing that anyone can do?

The Government will soon start paying out massive amounts of money to keep the Social Security promise; even to people that don’t need it, didn’t pay into it (illegal aliens) and don’t deserve it (congressmen). All because demented BDS’ers refuse to allow Bush to take credit for fixing the Social Security mess. Democrats would be well advised to heed the advice that Reagan had on his wall while Governor of California; More can be accomplished if no one cares who takes the credit.

Don’t get carried away, keefer; this is the most robust economy of my lifetime but there are problems on the horizon.

I was just being me, DL--just as Dr. Rerun was just being k, posting her talking points...

btw, DL, Dr. Rerun--kblack--has a PhD, so we must not question her...

A PhD, really?
Well then she must know that at this point in the Clinton administration, GDP had increased less than 1.6%, and unemployment was at 5.1% .

“the GDP is essentially always increasing” WOW!!! That bit of economic news will brighten the faces of some of our NATO allies that have had decreases over the past decades; and in the Pacific region; the (0.9%) decrease Japan saw during their recession must have been a mistake; she'll have to call them and give them the good news. Do ya s'pose they'll get a refund from their investments when she tells them?

btw,
Another woman with a PhD backed her SUV into my brand new Volvo S80 the other day. Just goes to show ya'; you can send a jack-ass to college and they'll still be a jack-ass.

The White House has had very good news on the economy for the last few years. Their problem is they dont know how to brag about it.

kblack,

But you really have to take into consideration the bottom-out caused by Clinton's dot-com bubble, Clinton's corporate accounting scandals and Clinton's incompetance in fighting the War on Terrorism which led to 9/11...Clinton inherited a recovering economy in 1993 while President Bush inherited a recession. If you average it out over the years of the Presidencies then, sure, it still looks like Clinton did well...though you can't stop in 2000 because Clinton's fiscal policies continued until September 30, 2001 (so, really, until about mid-2002 it was still all Clinton)...but if you take, say, Oct 1, 2001 as your benchmark, then President Bush has far outperformed Clinton's economic performance...and without a stock market bubble or corporate accounting scandals.

Mark - you can come up with any set of complicated reasons why you should ignore the facts when they are inconvenient for you - and why you should tout them when they agree with your point. But - the facts are the facts...
perhaps if you would learn the facts first - then make an informed decision - rather taking a position a priori and then screening the facts that you like and ignoring the ones that don't - you would make more sense...

numbers don't lie Mark, only you

kblack,

Provide me a single fact which controverts anything I've said.

I JUST DID, see above post

kblack,

That nonsense? Oh, puhleese! As I said, you're comparing different things - for Clinton, you're giving him credit for things he didn't do, for Bush you're not taking into consideration the much worse situation he inherited and the monumentally more difficult times President Bush has experienced.

You know what else is up besides the Dow since Bush took over? The poverty rate, up around ten percent I believe. You Bush-loving Christians so love the poor that you favor creating more of them, millions more of them in fact. Oh, one other thing is up, the federal deficit. Fiscal responsibility for a Republican politician involves spending more than you take in (sort of like a teenager with a credit card). Trouble is, the rest of us our paying interest on the federal deficit that you Republicans brought about.

Hmmmm...funny you should credit Bush's tax cuts for this.
But I believe the last time we had a surplus was in, like, 2000, and we had it thanks to Clinton's deficit reduction package which RAISED taxes on the rich by 1%. And the Office of Management and Budget said (just before Bush's inauguration):

"If current policies [clinton's tax raise] remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in FY 2011"

In fact, things were so good, Alan Greenspan warned the US not to pay off the debt TOO quickly, because of problems that might cause.

Thanks to W, the mere potential of these problems occurring has been currently reduced to zero. I would argue that Bush adding $2 trillion (with compound interest) onto the nat'l debt is bad. Very bad. But, you are free to disagree.

ThELefTYFoOL

Mark, if President Bush's plan for reforming social security through private accounts had passed, we and our children would now be getting 10 percent on our money instead of 1.5 percent. All of us would have had the choice to put our social security money in a low cost balanced fund, such as Vanguards Wellington Fund. The dems could not tolerate minorities checking their growing stock/bond funds on a daily basis, because that would have ended the dem party. I am so tired of the dem party continually hurting this country. The dems have hurt us, our children and all future generations, especially minorities who would have especially benefited. God bless you President Bush, the greatest president in american history, and presiding over the strongest economy in american history.

Here's a chart of the Dow from 1993 - present.

http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart3:symbol=^dji;range=19930104,20070402;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;logscale=on;source=undefined

Under which president did it perform better? Looks like even after the crash, the Dow Jones was more than triple what it was when Clinton became president. Do you really consider an 18 percent increase over more than six years is good?

Clinton didn't have any corporate accounting scandals. It was private corporations that did.

Mark,

Which president was warned that Osama bin Ladin was planning to attack the U.S. in August 2001?

S&P 500 Annualized Total Return (%)
17.4% Bill Clinton
17 % Gerald R. Ford
15.6 % Harry S. Truman
14.9% Dwight D. Eisenhower
14.4% Ronald Reagan
14.4% George H. W. Bush
12.4% John F. Kennedy
11.2% Jimmy Carter
10.2 % Lyndon B. Johnson
1.7% (approx)George W. Bush 2001-April 2007
0.6% Richard M. Nixon

Close immediately after Bush takes office January 20, 2001:

S&P 500: 1,342.90
Today 1,484.35

I JUST DID, see above post

Mark, as I said to DL, you can't argue with Dr. Rerun--she's got a Phd!

Dr. Rerun, in all seriousness--just because you type up some b/s, doesn't make it so. Your girlfriend, Elsie O'Donnell spews b/s every day, and only nuts such as yourself believe her. Clinton had all these magic numbers, surpluses on paper, projections, and what happened? The dot-com bubble burst, and put us into a shallow recession. Why so shallow? Some might say that Bush's economic policies kept it shallow. I know you won't, but you're Dr. Rerun, PhD, knower of all things b/s.

Amp, thanks for the redundant post. You trot out the same one every time. S&P suffered, as did the Dow, during Clinton's dot-com collapse and recession. Did you attend the same college as Dr. Rerun? I can recall ads on matchbook covers for colleges--my bet is you both attended one of those "universities..."

I notice that most of the facts and statistics on this article are coming from the left. Hmmmm....

ThELefTYFoOL

Kefeer,

Any real economist will tell you the S&P500 is a more relevant indicator of economic performance then the Dow. But why only mention of the dow here?

Face it compare bush's economic performence to any post-WWII president and he's near the bottom

Amp,

You trot out the same chart whenever there's a thread on the economy. I realize out economy's a fragile thing, even in good times. However, given what we've been through the last decade or so, I would contend that it's doing fine. Maybe just for now, but it's doing fine.

The problem with trying to discuss the economy with liberals is that they have a classic misunderstanding of cause and effect. The two econo-ramouses here amp and kblack, think they have the “solid” answer to complex questions.

Kblack makes the absurd statement, “unemployment in 2000 was lower than it was ever in the Bush presidency.” ignoring the simple fact that the unemployment after 6 years of Clinton was 5.1%. Where will this economy be in another 2 years? In far better shape than the one Bush inherited.

Then kblack poses that “GDP is essentially always increasing” which, in itself is far from true. One need only look at the GDP for the period in 2000 when the recession was spurred by a lackluster GDP that was negative 1.6% in the third quarter. Factually, the GDP for that entire period was weak to constrictive. Hardly what one would proffer as proof of the previous administration’s economic skills. The final year of Bush 41 the GDP growth rate was 4.1%, the final year of the Clinton Administration was 1.15%.

Amp trots out the same old S&P analysis without reading what is actually in the percentages. Did it ever occur to poor old amp that the best rate of return in the history of the S&P was during the Great Depression? Why in 1934 alone the nominal return was 139.8%! Adjusting for inflation that was a 143.5% return.

I don’t know what “real economist” would tell you that S&P is an indicator of a strong economy; in fact, the two best years for the S&P return ever was in 1929 and 2000! Together, these periods account for 13 of the 50 best recorded performances for investments made in the S&P 500. 1929 alone accounts for 8 of these top inflation-adjusted rates of return, with 1999-2000 accounting for the remaining 5.

The significance of these two dates is the Stock Market “bubble” that preceded a catastrophic drop in valuation. How proud you must be of Clinton-omics.

Oh, and can anyone here tell me what Clinton did to improve the economy?

More lunacy from the left; “Clinton didn't have any corporate accounting scandals. It was private corporations that did.” Hence the name “corporate scandals”. I don’t suppose it occurred to you the GAAP is governmental in essence; that Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was government oversight as a result of the accounting scandals, that the DoJ from the Clinton era prosecuted not one offender and left the enforcement of existing law to the Bush DoJ?

For lefty, who doesn’t realize that the Clinton tax increases in 1993 had little to do with deficit reduction. Of the $126 billion decline in the deficit between 1992 and 1995, $71 billion is accounted for by a continuation of the business cycle, $21 billion by swings in deposit insurance outlays related to the S&L problem, and $8 billion by spectrum auctions. These three factors account for $100 billion of the $126 billion decline in the deficit. When the effects of these three technical and economic factors are filtered out, the decline in the deficit is a much less impressive $26 billion.

I should also point out that Clinton submitted a budget he didn’t believe in, and was sorely disappointed when the budget was adopted. As reported by Bob Woodward in The Agenda, President Clinton was bitterly disappointed with his budget plan even before it had cleared Congress. "Clinton did confide that he was deeply unhappy with his economic plan. 'I know this thing is a turkey,' the president said." Woodward also wrote of Clinton advisor Paul Begala: "He realized, somewhat painfully, that he had become a salesman for a plan that neither he nor Clinton really believed in." President Clinton's recent glowing statements about his budget, while perhaps not surprising, are sharply at variance with his real views at the time of its enactment. Hypocrite, thy name is liberal.

And, oh yeah, there was no “surplus” in 2000.

Das,

You are trying to say the S&P 500 is irrelevant ?
-LOL

the only example you can give to show this is back from 1934(the year after the gold standard)? There was no S&P500 in 1934!!!! get a clue
-LOL

I understand you don't like to discuss the S&P500 because it doesn't go along with what you bushbots want to believe (that everything is great in Bush America)

I keep rolling out the S&P because it is more relevant then any other indicator discussed here (DOW a better indicator then S&P500 ??). When I get a relevant response maybe I'll stop

Little ampie one note,

Data on S&P goes back to 1871.

From Robert J. Shiller’s data mine, “ the statistics provided sorted through these thousands of points of data to find the best, worst and average annualized rates of return for each of the various holding periods. For example, the single best one-year holding period rate of return is 139.8%, and represents an investment made in July 1932 and sold in July 1933! Meanwhile, the worst one-year holding period rate of return is -63.8%, which represents an investment made in June 1931 and sold in June 1932. The average of all 1,601 one-year holding period investments initiated in each month from January 1871 through December 2004 in the S&P 500 is 10.8%.”

You keep rolling out the S&P because you're too stupid to come up with anything else.

Oh DAS

You proclaim to be an expert yet your grasp of history is severly lacking

S&P 500 was introduced in 1957 prior to that there was an S&P 90 so how could you possibly comment on a non-existance index from 1871 or even 1932?

-LOL
The US was still on the gold standard in 1932 - are you seriously trying to compare that economy to that of Post-WWII or even todays???

Experts agree that the S&P500 is one of the leading broad indicators but apparently you disagree with the experts. On what basis I still don't know

Libsbane,
I asked an economist here about amp’s contention that the S&P500 is more “more relevant indicator of economic performance then the Dow", and here’s what he said,

"The SP 500 is always a good indicator; but it must be viewed during appropriate time periods, and in conjunction with the Dow and other indicators. Right now S&P is at the highest sustained level in the history of the index. It’s higher than it was during the Clinton years and higher still than it was during the Reagan years.”

amp,
Read the first line of both of the links Bane gave you;
"we calculate the real rate of return from purchasing the S&P 500 index
from 1871 through 2001.

And the table lists every quarter since 1871!

You revel in your ignorance! 1957? Truman (1945-1952) and Eisenhower (1953 - 1960) are on your list. Truman? My money's on Libsbane, loser.

"non-existance index from 1871"

Do you mean this non-existent index?

TRUMAN! Good catch, Rat ... that's what happens when you move the goalposts so many times you forget what game you're playing.

Don't bother responding to this idiot any more; he's going to continue to bring up this chart because he doesn't understand how he's misusing the information.

Truman, too funny!

Das

In a past post you summed several years investment returns to determine a ROI for one year

In this post you are quoting an index that didn't exist.

You claim to be involved in government accounting and finance but you don't seem to have your facts straight. My advice is - stop trying to refute that Bush's economy is any better then below average ( you just keep making yourself look bad) and just accept the truth

Your reading comprehension hasn’t improved; I quoted the increase in return. You’re just too stupid to understand that.

Do you know how to follow a link, moron? Hold the mouse over the words “Do you mean this non-existent index?” and click. Jesus, you’re so lame you can’t navigate a web page, try cutting and pasting this link http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data/ie_data.htm, can you manage that? Truman? Idiot!

Hey Das

How's this for cut and past

NEW YORK, Feb. 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- When Standard & Poor's rings The Closing Bell(SM) at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: MHP) on March 5th, it will be doing more than celebrating the S&P 500's 50th birthday. Standard & Poor's also will be acknowledging the crucial role that the S&P 500 has played in shaping the financial markets since it was launched on March 4th, 1957. Since then, the S&P 500 has become synonymous with the health of the global economy, and has spawned the creation of numerous investable products as evident by the $1.2 trillion directly invested in the index.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-28-2007/0004536425&EDATE=

After you figure out what the S&P500 actually is come back and talk to me

Rathhaven,

speaking of ignorant:
The 90-stock Composite was calculated from 1926 through February 1957 when S&P introduced the S&P 500 stock average including 425 industrials, 25 rails and 50 utilities, weighting the index substantially in favor of the industrials. S&P did not calculate the 500-stock index prior to March 1957, but used the old 90-share index (as well as the old 50 industrials, 20 rails and 20 utilities indices) to extend the data back to 1928. The daily closes listed in the Security Price Index Record consist of the 90 stock averages adjusted to the new 1941/43 base from 1926 through February 1957, and the 500 stock averages starting in March 1957.

Is there something missing in Bush supporters calculations? If the economy, like Iraq is doing so well for thoase who it supposed to benefit, then what is the problem? What did the average voter see that Bush and his supporters did not see in November 2006?
What do they continue to see? Voters must look at something more than the DOW for Bush does not get very high marks on taxes specificly or the economy generally.
Where is the weakness in Bush as seen from the viewpoint of the average voter? Their views must taken into account if Bush and his supporters hope to have his party regain Congress and keep the White House in 2008.
Perhaps we could begin in one of four topics:
1)Today, it was announced that Toyota sold more cars than GM did in the last quarter, becoming the largest carmaker in the world.
2)Deficit/Savings rate for the US is the lowest among the industrialized nations. Our last federal budget saw 10% of funds dedicated to paying interest on the deficit.
3)American logos maybe everywhere but manufactures are harder and harder to find.
Look forward to your responses.

Sorry about the 4th topic. Here it is: Job security, and benefits(including retirement).
My apologies for spelling those "thoase" in the previous post.

Taxpayer,
The economy isn’t a popularity contest. The lame stream media reports the economy the way amp (TRUMAN) and kblack see it; find some obscure indicator and report it as the gloom and doom of Western Civilization. Because, like Iraq, the only way for democrats back to power is disaster for America.

Conventional thinking has it that if the President doesn't get credit for the economy, Republicans will lose more seats. But, let’s look at the real statistics, in 2004 46% of voters approved of Bush’s handling of the economy; Bush won reelection and the Senate and House remained Republican.

In 2006, 46% of voters approved of Bush’s handling of the economy and Republicans lost the House for the first time since 1994, and the Senate for the first time since 2002.

The overall approval ratings and approval of handling the economy seem to track together; as his approval rating goes down, approval of the economy goes down. Not much he can do; those that know give his fiscal policies credit; those that don't know, don't.

As to your questions;

1) Simple, build a better mouse trap~ as the Japanese did with Toyota. The American automotive industry has been slipping down a black hole of inefficiency and waste since the 1960’s. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda.
2) Interest isn’t paid on a deficit; it’s paid on a debt. And, as long as you bring it up, lowering the payments to service interest on a debt is a good thing. Because we have no trouble funding the debt, we receive the best possible interest to service the debt.
If you look for a bank with the highest interest rate to borrow from, you’re France.
3) American logos indicate American investment and American technology.
4) Sorry, I don't have time today to look into these issues. Maybe later.

I just realized that you stuck two divergent concepts together in question # 2. Deficit reduction has been addressed, and the deficit is falling.

As to Americans personal savings; the government doesn’t mandate savings. That’s not the job for which I hired legislators or administrators. You may want the government to tell you how much to save, or for that matter, how many pieces of toilet paper you're allowed to use per visit, but I say no thanks. Savings mandates? Move to France.

Dasein,

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my queries. However, whatever poll you mentioned, didn't seem to have any impact on the 2006 elections. I come back to my original question, which Bush and his supporters must address if they hope to have his party regain control of Congress and keep the White House in 2008: What did voters see in 2006 that turned them away from Bush in 2006?
Could it be that the DOW number mentioned, and the unemplyment statistics frequently cited by Bush really don't mean anything to the average American in terms of the items mentioned in my previous post?
Could it be that there's a stadium mentally in citing the dow and unemployment statistics?
That is simply counting the nember of people in attendance rather than the way they are situated in the stadium as the game goes on.
In a baseball game, for example, the best seats are held by those in the skyboxes, the next best in the section behind home plate, and so on. The worst are the nose bleed seats behind center field.
The people in the skyboxes, in addition to having a best view of the game, will meet the players after the game. Indeed the skybox people decide WHO plays the game, and how people in the rest of the stadium are seated depending on their level of influence.
They also decide what services are made avilable to the rest of the people in the stadium, at what cost, and what level of availability. After the skybox people, services obviously go to the people behind home base, and so on till the nose bleed seats are served.
While the services are priced the same for everyone, the people in the skyboxes and behind first plate can easily afford them, and access them. The further you get from the best seats, the harder it is for people to afford, and access the services offered at the stadium. The people in the nose bleed seats obviously have the hardest time affording and accessing services.
If the DOW represents the score of the game, as it does in our economy, it seems to have little value to anyone outside the skyboxes. While they may entertain the fans, they represent nothing the fans have produced. There is no industrial output. Few items are produced here.
That tranlates into an increasing number of jobs that are nosebleed seat positions. What's more, more of the positions behind home plate are going to noncitizens because the people in the sky boxes feel that the education system produces fewer and fewer citizens with the skills they need to fill the positions behind home plate.
(Immigration is, perhaps a seperate issue here. However as it relates to the education system and jobs isn't. Bill Gates et al want an open quota for immigration for postions Americans would want because the education system here isn't producing enough people with the skills they need to fill their best jobs.)
People in the nosebleed seats also notice that an increasing number of people in the skyboxes are foreigners.
The Chinese and the Japanese, in addition to their prodigious industrial output, have enough financial muscle to gain control of a considerable portion of the stadium. Many of the skybox people have noticed that they are incresingly dependent upon them for their prosperity, and sometimes, the skybox people find themselves increasingly locked out of hightech deals made between the Asians and Europeans.
The TGV rail system is an example. Recently setting a world speed record at 357 mph, the French, Germans, and Japanese have inked deals with the Chinese to help them build 7500 miles of high speed rail. No US firms need apply.
China is also looking to build 50,000 miles of freeway similar to our interstates. No doubt they'll get the cement from Mexico, and the cars from Japan, as we have no cement, and Toyota just became the worlds no 1 auto maker. China is also becoming a major producer of photovoltaic panels. No doubt there will be a few new skyboxes in a few years populated by people selling Chinese cars and solar cells here.
Of course the balloon that everyone depends to keep this growth going, skybox people included, is the credit we get from the rest of the world. Right now the debt costs 250 billion dollars a year to service. That's with no paydown of principle. What percent of the budget does it have to before this is problem? Twenty percent? Thirty percent?
God knows what would happen if we couldn't make interest payments on that debt. Because people have followed the Feds example, and borrowed to the hilt. One result was the subprime mortgage meltdown. Housing sales were down 11% from this time last year, due to foreclosures being put on the market, as well as people wishing to avoid foreclosure.
In this economy, people are beginning to notice the number of nosebleed seats increasing, and they don't feel very secure about their positions. Even those who aren't worried at the moment about their positions worry about access and affordability of services.
In comes Bush saying everything is fine, no need to worry, look at the attendance at the game today. Look at the happy people in the skyboxes. You could be one too, he says. Jets fly overhead, an inspiring sight. Till you realize that no one ever paid a dollar to ride in a jet fighter, or an aircraft carrier.
On with the game. Bush goes back to his sky box.
Sorry for the length of the post, but is this what bothered people, in part, in 2006? What continues to bother them now?