Nasdaq reached all time high under Clinton and Dow Jones just reaches all time high under Bush?

Question

now tell me who is the better president?!

I see no liberals calling me names here....

Nasdaq reached 5100+ under Clinton because of Internet Bubble.

and do you know how many lost their savings under Bubble Clinton?!

Answer 1

Bush had a better "real" economy.
Clinton had an economy drivin by liberal news media lies.

Answer 2

The Dow hit it really is lowest factor because 1997 on Feb 27, 2009. Barack Obama became sworn in on Jan 6, 2009. At that factor the Dow were reducing because October 2007. The DJ-IA in effortless words tracks what percentage inventory trades take position throughout an afternoon. What does that let us know about the monetary equipment? inventory trading is why the inflation is getting out of hand. How a lot a particular inventory is worth if truth be told an estimate at what the employer is worth. at the same time as sufficient human beings imagine that Apple is worth extra, and purchase Apple inventory, the cost will boost. this does no longer advise Apple magically has extra cost. procuring inventory would not blink extra Ipods and Mac-Books into life so the perceived worth of the employer is increasing faster than it really is actual cost. actually everyone looks in settlement that it really is a nasty theory for the U.S. Mint to easily print an more suitable $four hundred trillion to pay off all our debts. on each occasion those stocks pass up it introduces unsubstantiated money into the monetary equipment as fairly as if the mint in simple terms printed an more suitable billion money. Are you suggesting that in below 2 months Barack Obama by some means orchestrated a Dow Jones decline that all started over a year and a nil.5 earlier? in case you do imagine the Dow Jones is significant, bear in thoughts that 11,three hundred remains a 70% boost from the position it stood at the same time as he took workplace.

Answer 3

You can hardly measure how "good" a president is just on stock market prices. Everyone involved in politics knows that the president has only marginal influence over the economy. Yes, he has some, but in reality, it's not much. People are always trying to evaluate a president's success based on what the unemployment rate was during their incumbency, and that's bogus. So I suppose I'd better answer your question; I think Bush is better (or rather, the lesser of two evils) because at least he took the fight against the terrorists out of our country. Clinton isn't a man for decisive action, and I think he wouldn't have handled the situation as well, and perhaps might have left us open to additional terrorist attacks following 9/11. Make no mistake, the terrorists are still trying to terrorize us. Look at the current situation in England right now, with subway bombings and general public unsafety. That could be us. It sounds cruel, but it's better to keep the terrorists fighting over their own turf.

Answer 4

Go ahead, don't be shy - sing the Happy Days Are Here Again! song for us, why don't you?

Or, if you'd prefer it instead, the Bring Back the Bubble Years! song.

Would you be especially bored if I pointed out the NASDAQ started its downhill slide while White Trash Billy was still in office and the index is now worth about half what it was at its peak. I think too many of those CEOs looked at WTBilly and said to themselves "Sh!t, if he can get away with all the crap he does, then why can't I try it, too?" And, you know what? They did (try, not get away with it)!

Answer 5

what?

Clinton's Dow was a record too?

Clinton's starting dow was 3310.03 (approximately for the month, Jan 93 right?), according to yahoo (see site below)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=09&b=1&c=1992&d=01&e=21&f=2007&g=m&z=66&y=132

Clinton's ending dow was 10887.36, which is almost THREE TIMES where he started... it not only increased, and set MANY, MANY records... but it TRIPLED! according to Yahoo!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=09&b=1&c=1992&d=01&e=21&f=2007&g=m&z=66&y=66

now let's look at Bush...Bush inherited the 10887, as it was Clinton's last number... but it has increased to 12786... not trippled, not doubled... but increased a solid 20 percent or so... (the number at the top of the cite is today's close I think)

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI&a=09&b=1&c=1992&d=01&e=21&f=2007&g=m&z=66&y=0

VS. Clintons TRIPLING...

would you rather have a guy that trippled profits or only increased them 20 precent? hmm... I wonder?

and did you bother to even look at any stats before you posted this?

EDIT: people lose their saving every day on the stock market, and overall LESS lost their savings under Clinton than under most, since the market was going up the vast majority of the time... but that's not the question you asked, and it would be almost impossible to prove anyway...

Answer 6

The libs forget things like this. To libs it is bad news. Remember libs say ony cons have money to invest. If both Dasdaq & Dow jones both went down then the libs will have a party because they think now the cons need them. I have news for them. Both parties have money. They wont tell you but there are more democrat millioniars in congress then republican. But remember only libs are poor.