or just fiscally retarded.
heres the chart so save the whining bushbots.
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/3022
2006-09-15 15:06:35 · 12 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the economy is the best its ever been. they are not retarded, they are smart.
2006-09-15 15:08:25 · answer #1 · answered by Ah Ha 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
people didn't support bush because they thought rationally, they supported a president who's policies were crafted by his very shrewd campaign manager, Karl Rove, who knew how to pull on the emotional strings of the religious populous.
People voted for Bush because of the polarizing issues of Gay Marriage, Abortion, and getting revenge on the Arabs by going to war in Iraq (even tho' Iraq had absolutely positively nothing to do with 9/11.) They certainly didn't vote with their pocketbooks, as most of the people who voted for Bush, essentially, voted against their pocketbooks.
However- I don't hold Bush responsible for the Stock Market. But the budget deficits- now that's something under his control. What kind of a Republican administration allows such fiscal irresponsibility???
2006-09-15 15:20:43 · answer #2 · answered by Morey000 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Historically the market does better in democratic presidencies.
I remember Louis Rukeyser saying it was one of the mysteries of the market. All the logic would indicate the opposite.
My principal investment favor war time economy. So I don't care who is in the White House as long as they start a war.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-15 15:16:22 · answer #3 · answered by 43 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I make 218% under Clinton and 131% so far under Bush. Hindsight is 20/20.
2006-09-15 15:09:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
So tell me exactly what did Clinton do to make the stock market go up and than crash in his term. If the answer is too hard for you, try nothing.
2006-09-15 15:11:18 · answer #5 · answered by Colorado 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No you are, Stop with th so called polls, It was all in the crapper when Clinton was leaving office. and unless you had stock at the time, or a job for that matter , how would you now the differance?
2006-09-15 15:15:28 · answer #6 · answered by locksniffer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How many . com companies folded in 1999 and 2000?
How many major companies folded in 2000 and 2001?
You gonna blame the former bull or the sitting bull for the lies of the past?
2006-09-15 15:11:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's really foolish. Why can't we find workers to hire....Everyone who wants to work is working. Bush's tax cuts are paying wages. Libs are blinded by hate.
2006-09-15 15:28:24 · answer #8 · answered by thomasnotdoubting 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wow. Maybe supply-side economics really is the stupidest idea ever.
2006-09-15 15:11:54 · answer #9 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would believe you, if the chart was not six months old...
2006-09-15 15:10:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Okay, Monica whatever you say.
2006-09-15 15:11:26 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋