this chart shows the stock market performance dem vs rep
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/3022
now lets hear from the right saying "the president has no impact on the market"...lmfao
2006-09-15 14:49:21 · 18 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I dont think economy depends on these two persons!
2006-09-15 14:59:59 · answer #1 · answered by Beauty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think anyone doubts that financially the country was better off under Clinton. His handling of world affairs and internal affairs inspired confidence in business which helped the stock market and economy. Bush has had the opposite effect.
2006-09-15 21:52:25 · answer #2 · answered by Ginger/Virginia 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Based strictly on the link then it would be Clinton by far since he is #1 on the chart. and by personal exp. i believe it was bette When Clinton was in office also not to mention better unemployment rate which has a determining factor. And it is notjust the fact that Bush is in the office but also that we have a senate and congress majority being republican. You have to have a balance and we do not have that right now. But thats just my opinion
2006-09-15 21:56:51 · answer #3 · answered by Errol A 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush's economy, for all the reasons stated by jstaguy58. Clinton's economy was all smoke & mirrors as he tried to ride the gravy train created by Reagan, and the libs bought his act. He couldn't hold it together (remember the Dot Com crash? Funny how libs tend to forget that little fiasco), and libs (as usual) are blaming Republicans & Bush for Clinton's and the Democrat's mistakes.
2006-09-15 22:03:03 · answer #4 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I remember those Clinton years .... internet was blooming, stock was unbelievable "hot" and profitable. One of the news, a father gave $1000 to his son, and his son put his money on one stock and in a week, that son made $100,000 !!! I heard a lot after that....
Now .... ???? dream on .... !!!!
2006-09-15 22:32:59 · answer #5 · answered by lily s 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets hear it for the Federal Deficit! ...I'll take Clinton for 100 Alex.
2006-09-15 22:05:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush's
He had to build it from scratch.
Clinton just rode on Reagan's.
The economy started going down badly before Bush took office.
Greenspan warned us back in 1998.
The stock market went down in 1999.
After less than a year in office, 911 erupted.
And now we are back to where we were.
2006-09-15 21:55:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
well... according to my memory and statistics... Clinton...
justaguy: there was a guy between Clinton and Reagan... and there was a reason he wasn't elected... he ruined the Reagan economy!... huge unemployment rates... high gas... recession... remember the elder Bush at all?
Clinton's starting economy was TWICE AS BAD as Bush's... go look at the numbers please...
2006-09-15 22:04:07 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Easy, Bush's economy.
2006-09-15 21:59:02 · answer #9 · answered by ginaforu5448 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Under Clinton's administration our family did very well financially.
2006-09-15 21:53:02 · answer #10 · answered by daljack -a girl 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋