Doh!, except for the fact the first two years of the bubble you point to are at or below the level of the nasty, horrible economy that Bush supposedly had to endure when his presidency began. Depending on what you are arguing, you call it a bubble/strong economy for Clinton and a crash equivalent to the meltdown of the financial system for Bush? So which is it?
maybe i havent been paying attention, but what is this meant to show? that as soon as bush took over the nasdaq plummeted?
Dang but I wish it was that simple. Our economy would be booming by now. Again, your statement is true only if the facts and circumstances are the same. A bubble that bursts in a single sector is far different than severe problems to the financial system that sits under all sectors of the economy. When the tech bubble burst, I worked in a tech focused firm that was on the frontlines of that dip and felt it far harder than most people. It's been clear to me that the recent problems were much, much more difficult.
so like i said...when he took over the nasdaq plummeted? not that i blame him though, that would be dumb as fuck
Look again. It fell from over 4343 to ~1593 before he took office, or before he was even a candidate.
Huh, it hit me that you might be right in some respects. Start two wars to juice the economy and then leave it to your successor to figure out how to pay for them AND get out of them. Short term, that's definitely a great way to run the economy.
9/11 happened a few months into his presidency and hit the travel industry - especially companies like Boeing and the airlines. How did your real estate do in the 1990s? My house was underwater in 1992, but was worth 5x what I paid for it in 2000.
Okay fine. You can add another sector two if that makes you happy, but with the near meltdown of the financial system we are talking EVERY SINGLE SECTOR...WORLDWIDE.
Like I said, starting two wars is a great way to give a temporary boost. That fool peace lovin' Obama needs to get more serious about picking fights. Libya, North Korea or maybe Iran -- he just needs to pick one. Revised: hey, wait a minute. Take out the first three months of office when "Barry" was taking out Dubya's garbage and Bush doesn't look so kickass. That plot makes a weak argument for you, maybe a better one against you.
If red is Obama, look at how far down his start was, and how high the peak was compared to Bush's. Although his drop off around M18 was pretty bad.
that is simply not true at all march 10 2000 nasdaq at 5048 march 14, bush gains nomination, it goes straight in the toilet from that point on jan 1 2001 the nasdaq was around 2500 year and a half later around 1100...tank job
lol soooo, obama has created a million jobs, and bush created zero? good chart not to mention there are currently more jobs in america than there were at the same point in bushs regime? GREAT chart
Link? Or maybe you should look up the definition(s) of "smarter". Or maybe you meant she wears "smart" pantsuits?
