TOPICS:
JUL 30, 2004 01:58 PM
JUL 30, 2004 02:11 PM
JUL 30, 2004 03:57 PM
I thought this was going to be a grudge match... Bush vs. Hoover... oh well... maybe next time... 
JUL 30, 2004 09:13 PM
JUL 30, 2004 10:42 PM
JUL 30, 2004 10:43 PM
JUL 30, 2004 10:44 PM
JUL 30, 2004 11:42 PM
JUL 31, 2004 01:39 AM
JUL 31, 2004 01:45 AM
JUL 31, 2004 10:40 AM
RACER_X
Philadelphia, PA
February 2003
JUL 31, 2004 10:42 AM
undone said:
1) I happen to believe that Jimmy Carter did more for foreign policy than any President since his time.
.
Yeah , his foreign policy decisions with Iran , were a real home run.... 
JUL 31, 2004 10:45 AM
RACER_X
Philadelphia, PA
February 2003
JUL 31, 2004 10:46 AM
BTW...you just shot yourself in the ass with those links.. 
JUL 31, 2004 11:48 AM
The ass is the best place to shoot.
More cushion.
JUL 31, 2004 12:41 PM
JUL 31, 2004 01:52 PM
IamSick said:
Keith said:
I wouldn't blame the dot.com crash on any particular President, but if you want to pin it down on a timeline, the dot.com crash occurred under George W. Bush's watch.
i don't even like george bush but lets not start making things up here. the nasdaq was at 10,000 in the beginning of 2000 and began crashing around mid-summer, months before the election and a full seven months before Bush would take office. if you assume that a president can have direct effect on economic booms and busts, you have to assume that whatever caused that particular bust happened on clinton's watch and bush merely inherinted a shit economy, which fell even harder his first year in the office after 9/11.
yes, let's not start making things up.
the nasdaq was never 10,000. the highest it ever rose was around 5000 in march of 2000. then it "crashed" and promptly rose up again to around 4000 a few months later. there were several such corrections during the dot com era.
the nasdaq "leveled out" (as much as anything could be considered "level" during that time) in the 3000s until the election, when it dropped in free-fall, coinciding with all the uncertainty of who was going to take office. it finally bottomed out during the first few months of bush's presidency. my own internet company's stock lost 95% of its value during january 2001.
whether or not bush was the direct cause of the market crashing is irrelevant. obviously the market had fundamental problems, and was ready for something deeper than another correction. but it's also likely that the election mess caused mass uncertainty, and combined with the lack of confidence investors had in bush's competence (anyone betting on bush's inability to handle the economy made a good bet), institutional investors pulled their money out. remember that stock markets are leading indicators - an attempt by investors to predict what is to come. clearly the market expected a recession, and a recession is what happened.
everyone says "it's not bush's fault that the economy had underlying weakness", and they're right, it wasn't bush's fault - it was the fault of all the companies that tried to move too fast too soon, and all the companies who had criminals running them (like enron). but the mark of a good leader is not how they handle a good situation; it's how they handle a bad situation. when everyone's unemployment ran out and people in silicon valley - my peers - were moving into trailer homes or moving back in with their parents at 32, bush sat on his hands and fantasized about tax cuts for his rich childhood friends. there's so much he could have done to soften the blow of the recession, but his priorities were fucked up, and he lacked the skills and competence to even know who to ask for help.
bush looks more and more like herbert hoover with each passing day, and let's not forget that hoover was succeeded by 5 democratic administrations.
s5
STAFF
San Francisco, CA
JUL 30, 2004 01:41 PM