Bush praises the performance of the Dow, it has broken its all time high, he is proud of 12 record closings during his entire 6 years in office that is an average of 2 a year. I wonder what he would do if his performance equaled that of Clinton. Would he claim he deserved the noble prize in economics if he ruled over 277 record breaking days; this is what Clinton accomplished. Clinton averaged 34.63 record days a year. Clinton 277 Bush 12.
On January, 20 1993, the Dow Industrial Average was 3,241.95 on January 20, 2001 it was 10,587.24. The Dow increased by 7345.29 points, it grew 226.57% during the Clinton years. That is 28.32% per year.
The Dow, when Bush took office it was 10578.24 and today it is 12194.13. It has gone up by only 16% in 6 years. That is an average of 2.6% a year. the Dow needs to climb to 23,987.51 in the next 27 months if Bush is to have the same rate of growth as Clinton
So what party does better?
2006-12-01 15:14:51 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
My source is yahoo finance i counted each record day for a paper after i was tired of the president using the dow as his proof the economy was stupendous. The Dow is not the best indicator of economic performance but it is the indicator he wants to use so I USED IT!!
2006-12-01 15:30:54 · update #1
My source is yahoo finance i counted each record day for a paper after i was tired of the president using the dow as his proof the economy was operating on overdrive. The Dow is not the best indicator of economic performance but it is the indicator he wants to use so I USED IT!! I do not claim to be smarter because i am educated but i do think i have more information and understanding becasue economics and politics is what I study for 8 hrs a day.
2006-12-01 15:33:00 · update #2
My source is yahoo finance i counted each record day for a paper after i was tired of the president using the dow as his proof the economy was operating on overdrive. The Dow is not the best indicator of economic performance but it is the indicator he wants to use so I USED IT!! I do not claim to be smarter because i am educated but i do think i have more information and understanding becasue economics and politics is what I study for 8 hrs a day.
2006-12-01 15:33:13 · update #3
Do you have a source to back this up? No offense to you, just don't think many people on this site would constitute as a reliable source.
2006-12-01 15:18:31 · answer #1 · answered by SGT 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You left out that when Clinton left office we have a budget surplus for the first time in God-knows-how-many-years. After less than a year in office, Bush had made it a deficit and it is now a record deficit. And this is from a person with an MBA (purchased like an internet degree) in Economics. Way to go Georgey Boy!!!!
2006-12-02 00:26:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Democrats did
BTW Jerry,
Explain this if the president has nothing to do with it!
Clinton did everything wrong and the economy should have stalled, but kept growing
Gorbie when he was in charge of Russia did everything right but could not get the economy to have a pulse!
Could it be that the economy depends more on the faith the people put in their leaders??
And Andy,
Bush did a lot of lying with numbers;'
If unemployment was calculated now as it was in the Clinton era, we would have 16% unemployment
2006-12-01 23:23:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Take a basic economics course and you will see that the President has no say over the Dow. It is based upon short and long term investments in corporations, profits and market flucuations both domestic and foreign, and is more controlled by the Federal Reserve than the Federal government,
Neither party does better and they both use it for political gains to try to influence people.
2006-12-01 23:18:03 · answer #4 · answered by jerry 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in terms of growth... Clinton runs away with the spoon... it's not even close...
Bush for the most part has just kind of held the economy where it was, using tax cuts and a war to help him, two benefits that Clinton didn't have...
now you could argue to the degree of control that any president has over the economy... granted...
and I don't think Clinton ever had a recession...
and Clinton took a horrible unemployment rate (around 7 that he got from the elder Bush) and got it to around 4 percent, even lower than it is now... even in that respect, Clinton is far superior in growth...
2006-12-01 23:30:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
With due respect to the typical trends of the economy in mind and also noting that as an economist Clinton over inflated the stock market which caused later dips in the economy to be much more severe then they should have been. Also it was under the Clinton administration that financial regulations on corporations were relaxed which is in large part responsable for the white colar crimes that were exposed in the Enron incident. Under the Bush administration the unemployment rate has been hovering around 4.7 %, which is the healthiest possible number it can possibly be. The primary and single most important factor in the economy is the unemployment rate. That is your answer....Bush has been much better then Clinton.
2006-12-01 23:30:32 · answer #6 · answered by areyousurehankdoneitthisway 1 · 0⤊ 4⤋
In order to do a comparison wouldn't you have to remove all the debt caused by 9-11, tech bubble crash, recession, etc. You KNOW the things Clinton never had to deal with?
I still think there is something wrong with the government having a surplus while the people were in a recession.
2006-12-01 23:24:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Bush. When he first took office, the stock market had been falling.
Now stocks are high and inflation is low. Unemployment is low.
Seems like everyone was able to sell their homes for a big profit which enabled them to upgrade their homes & neighborhoods.
I do wish the Republicans had been able to legislate tort reform so our healthcare costs would have been reined in. (next time?)
2006-12-02 00:58:40 · answer #8 · answered by Lynn G 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Clinton....people had jobs and good paying ones on top of it. They could afford health care, gasoline, doctor visits, prescription drugs, ect. The average working family could afford to pay their bills and still go out and spend some of their hard earned cash on themselves. They could also afford to take vacations once in awhile. Not anymore though thanks to Bush!
2006-12-02 00:28:38 · answer #9 · answered by kerrberr95 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Check this link out for some cold hard facts about who does better. The Republicans or the Democrats
http://www.sideshow.connectfree.co.uk/JustForTheRecord.htm
2006-12-01 23:21:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋