Dow > 11K

[manu1959]

8 years of slick willy never pulled this off......whats up wif dat.....

 

[KarlMarx]

I thought the Dow did go above 11K during the reign of King William the Slick

 

[manu1959]

I thought the Dow did go above 11K during the reign of King William the Slick

no twas Bush part duex just prior to 911 unless cnn lied tonight or i was drunk ... either possible

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I thought the Dow did go above 11K during the reign of King William the Slick

The Dow peaked on January 14, 2000 at 11,750.28 intraday and closed at 11,722.98.

http://www.answers.com/topic/stock-market-downturn-of-2002

Limbaugh has been pointing out how the major media outlets (he played recaps from several) are all saying that crossing 11,000 is a "psychological" breakthru. It's like they were all given a script to follow since they all said it was "psychological".

Is a psychological breakthru not a real breakthru?

 

[KarlMarx]

The Dow peaked on January 14, 2000 at 11,750.28 intraday and closed at 11,722.98.

http://www.answers.com/topic/stock-market-downturn-of-2002

Limbaugh has been pointing out how the major media outlets (he played recaps from several) are all saying that crossing 11,000 is a "psychological" breakthru. It's like they were all given a script to follow since they all said it was "psychological".

Is a psychological breakthru not a real breakthru?

Of course, now Bush has really done it.... that freakin' moron...

1. He was supposed to lose in Afghanistan and have hundreds of thousands coming home in body bags, instead he overthrew the Taliban and established a democracy.

2. He was supposed to get us into a quagmire in Iraq, instead the freakin' moron goes and wins a swift victory and sets up ANOTHER democracy!

3. He was supposed to bankrupt the economy and the government with his tax cuts... instead the idiot managed to increase government revenue

4. He was supposed to have sky rocketing unemployment, and the noodle head drove the unemployment rate down to 5%

5. He was supposed to crash the stock market and start another depression... instead, he bumbles his way to getting the DJIA above 11,000

No wonder the Left is pissed, that jerk can't do ANYTHING right!!!!!

 

[Mariner]

1. Most Democrats, including me, supported the intervention in Afghanistan. Who predicted thousands of body bags?

2. Whether Iraq will become a functioning democracy remains to be seen. Personally, I've been predicting that the Kurds will try to form Kurdistan out of the north. Even if it becomes a democracy, the recent elections suggest that the winners will be Islamist Shi'ites, the same folk who run Iran. So we'll have two Irans. Iran is our friend, right?

3. Bush has piled more onto the federal debt than any other president in history. We now pay a billion dollars a DAY in interest, mostly to foreign lenders. Our savings rate has fallen. The recovery is strong only for shareholders and executives--workers have scarcely seen a recovery, the minimum wage is at its lowest buying power in 50 years, and poverty has risen. When Bush took office 1/6 American children grew up in poverty. Now 1/5 do.

4. Unemployment is low. Yes, that one is true, and I'll give Bush the credit.

5. So the Dow has recovered to where it was when he took office. Now it's time to see if he can actually grow it.

Mariner.

 

[Mariner]

Slick Willie did indeed pull off a Dow over 11,000, in May, 1999, nearly seven years ago. Look at the Dow when Clinton came to office and the Dow when he left. Let's see if Bush's recovery can match Clinton's.

Mariner.

 

[Mr. P]

Slick Willie did indeed pull off a Dow over 11,000, in May, 1999, nearly seven years ago. ....

Mariner.

Yep, and then it started falling like a frgin rock..I lost a ton.
The dow has hit 11k many times since W took office. If you look at the record you can clearly see an up-trend since 01-01...Even with 9/11 etc. Slick willy faced nothing like W has..

 

[manu1959]

Slick Willie did indeed pull off a Dow over 11,000, in May, 1999, nearly seven years ago. Look at the Dow when Clinton came to office and the Dow when he left. Let's see if Bush's recovery can match Clinton's.

Mariner.

what is bush recovering from? ah yes forgot.....the clinton years

 

[KarlMarx]

1. Most Democrats, including me, supported the intervention in Afghanistan. Who predicted thousands of body bags?

You may have, but most Democrats were definitely against intervention in Afghanistan. I remember the "quagmire" predictions.

2. Whether Iraq will become a functioning democracy remains to be seen. Personally, I've been predicting that the Kurds will try to form Kurdistan out of the north. Even if it becomes a democracy, the recent elections suggest that the winners will be Islamist Shi'ites, the same folk who run Iran. So we'll have two Irans. Iran is our friend, right?

Iran is not a democracy, it's a theocracy. Iraq is a democracy. Iraq has a representational form of government.

3. Bush has piled more onto the federal debt than any other president in history. We now pay a billion dollars a DAY in interest, mostly to foreign lenders. Our savings rate has fallen. The recovery is strong only for shareholders and executives--workers have scarcely seen a recovery, the minimum wage is at its lowest buying power in 50 years, and poverty has risen. When Bush took office 1/6 American children grew up in poverty. Now 1/5 do.

True, the federal debt is high. It's high because Bush allowed people like Ted Kennedy to write Medicare "reform", because Bush tried to work with the Democrats. As for the falling savings rate, Bush tried to privitize Social Security, but blinked. The minimum wage should be eliminated, it does not solve the problem of poverty (it was first favored by textile mills in New England during the depression, since the Southern states had cheaper labor, as a result of it, many blacks were thrown out of work, since they had no skills). The poverty rate is measured by taking a price market basket of food in 1965 and extrapolating that price based on inflation. In 1965, the typical family spent over 20% of its income on food, now it's about 12%. The "poverty rate" is used by every Democrat that wants to increase social spending.

4. Unemployment is low. Yes, that one is true, and I'll give Bush the credit.

5. So the Dow has recovered to where it was when he took office. Now it's time to see if he can actually grow it.

It'll grow more if they make the tax cuts permanent and larger. The 300 Billion dollar tax cut turned out to increase federal revenue. So it wasn't a 300 billion dollar cut to revenue, but an increase.

If you really want to do something about the debt, then do something about Social Security and Medicare. Bush tried, but the Left shouted him down. Major corporations are now doing the same thing with their pension plans that Bush tried with Social Security. New hires now will get their pension money in a 401(k) plan rather than as a defined benefit. Social Security should do the same. If you really want to increase savings, allow people to put money aside in Social Security as Bush wanted to. Since SS is mandatory, you are actually forcing people to save and invest. That will help erase our dependency on foreign capital.

 

[Mariner]

can't blame Bush's lousy budgets on the Democrats. He easily could have done the hard work of proposing an actual balanced budget. This is the guy who has never vetoed a spending bill (in fact, I think he's never vetoed anything). Pork has grown massively under Bush, and many of the biggest porkers are Republicans, e.g. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Bush could have called him up and told him to cool it. You'll get nowhere blaming Democrats for spending policies when Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We're talking 9000 pork items in the most recent budget bill, several times the number Clinton ever allowed through.

Bush was recovering from Clinton. Huh? That makes no sense. Clinton worked very hard, line by line, item by item, to create moderate budgets that eventually came into balance. Let's see Bush do half as well. If Clinton had been a Republican by name, he'd be everyone here's hero. He cut welfare, restrained the growth of social programs, and raised taxes just enough to cover the bills, no more. The end result was the longest and largest expansion in modern history. Why is it so hard to give him credit for this? He even nearly succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, well before anyone could have predicted 9/11. His popularity rating even after Monica Lewinsky was 1.5 times higher than Bush's right now. Polls have shown he could get himself elected president again.

Bush was recovering from a recession and a terrorist attack. His recovery, so far, is anemic, and has come at the cost of massively increased federal debt. We'll see where it goes from here.

Mariner.

 

[manu1959]

can't blame Bush's lousy budgets on the Democrats. He easily could have done the hard work of proposing an actual balanced budget. This is the guy who has never vetoed a spending bill (in fact, I think he's never vetoed anything). Pork has grown massively under Bush, and many of the biggest porkers are Republicans, e.g. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Bush could have called him up and told him to cool it. You'll get nowhere blaming Democrats for spending policies when Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We're talking 9000 pork items in the most recent budget bill, several times the number Clinton ever allowed through.

Bush was recovering from Clinton. Huh? That makes no sense. Clinton worked very hard, line by line, item by item, to create moderate budgets that eventually came into balance. Let's see Bush do half as well. If Clinton had been a Republican by name, he'd be everyone here's hero. He cut welfare, restrained the growth of social programs, and raised taxes just enough to cover the bills, no more. The end result was the longest and largest expansion in modern history. Why is it so hard to give him credit for this? He even nearly succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, well before anyone could have predicted 9/11. His popularity rating even after Monica Lewinsky was 1.5 times higher than Bush's right now. Polls have shown he could get himself elected president again.

Bush was recovering from a recession and a terrorist attack. His recovery, so far, is anemic, and has come at the cost of massively increased federal debt. We'll see where it goes from here.

Mariner.

first i was joking in my comments second.....clinton benifitted from two things one the dot com boom......and the way theat he wrote down the sale of military bases and the militray in general but passed the clean up costs of the military bases to future administration.....it was smart but not quite honest

 

[ScreamingEagle]

can't blame Bush's lousy budgets on the Democrats. He easily could have done the hard work of proposing an actual balanced budget. This is the guy who has never vetoed a spending bill (in fact, I think he's never vetoed anything). Pork has grown massively under Bush, and many of the biggest porkers are Republicans, e.g. Ted Stevens of Alaska. Bush could have called him up and told him to cool it. You'll get nowhere blaming Democrats for spending policies when Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We're talking 9000 pork items in the most recent budget bill, several times the number Clinton ever allowed through.

Bush was recovering from Clinton. Huh? That makes no sense. Clinton worked very hard, line by line, item by item, to create moderate budgets that eventually came into balance. Let's see Bush do half as well. If Clinton had been a Republican by name, he'd be everyone here's hero. He cut welfare, restrained the growth of social programs, and raised taxes just enough to cover the bills, no more. The end result was the longest and largest expansion in modern history. Why is it so hard to give him credit for this? He even nearly succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden, well before anyone could have predicted 9/11. His popularity rating even after Monica Lewinsky was 1.5 times higher than Bush's right now. Polls have shown he could get himself elected president again.

Bush was recovering from a recession and a terrorist attack. His recovery, so far, is anemic, and has come at the cost of massively increased federal debt. We'll see where it goes from here.

Mariner.

You liberals so quickly forget....don't you remember that the Republicans took over Congress in 1994? That is when the changes you mention started to happen....such as balancing the budget and passing Welfare Reform which Clinton vetoed three times before finally seeing the writing on the wall. Those things were due to a Republican Congress. But I'll give you Clinton's raising of taxes (which passed before the 1994 elections) and his perennial popularity among liberals who evidently think adultery is cool.

I do agree with you that Bush has failed to lead his party to greater reform and instead they have been spending like drunken sailors. This is one reason why there are problems within the Party unless this changes soon.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Slick willy faced nothing like W has..

A cartoonist paints the picture of just what you have in mind.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/koterba1/koterba.asp

 

[Mr. P]

A cartoonist paints the picture of just what you have in mind.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/toons/koterba1/koterba.asp

Exactly!

 

[Mariner]

the Republicans stayed in power after Bill Clinton left--and even got a Republican president to work with--and suddenly all their budgetary constraint went out the window? The Congressional leadership didn't change--the presidency did. So you've got to give Clinton some credit.

Bush's 11 thousand didn't last long. 4th quarter of 2005 was flat as a pancake. U.S. trade deficit continues to hit records--and without the housing bubble which has sustained Bush's mini-hardly-noticeable recovery, the usual things which follow deficits can be expected to follow soon enough. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes.

I'm not sure I get what I keep hearing here, that revenues rose when taxes were reduced. That can happen simply if the economy grows. But it doesn't mean anything if you don't match the increased revenue with decreased spending, which Bush and his all-Republican Congress have glaringly failed to do (and yet, which the PC-USMB crowd can't bring themselves to criticize or hold him responsible for).

BTW I was wrong about an increase to 9000 pork items. I read today that the correct increase between 10 years ago and now was from around 1400 to over 14,000. Ten times as many pork items. Nice work, Republican Congress and too-weak-to-pick-up-that-veto-pen Bush. Stop blaming the Democrats for spending, you guys, and face reality: your party is spending us into the ground. My own view is that the country functions best when government is gridlocked--opposing forces balance, and the middle way succeeds.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

the Republicans stayed in power after Bill Clinton left--and even got a Republican president to work with--and suddenly all their budgetary constraint went out the window? The Congressional leadership didn't change--the presidency did. So you've got to give Clinton some credit.

Bush's 11 thousand didn't last long. 4th quarter of 2005 was flat as a pancake. U.S. trade deficit continues to hit records--and without the housing bubble which has sustained Bush's mini-hardly-noticeable recovery, the usual things which follow deficits can be expected to follow soon enough. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes.

I'm not sure I get what I keep hearing here, that revenues rose when taxes were reduced. That can happen simply if the economy grows. But it doesn't mean anything if you don't match the increased revenue with decreased spending, which Bush and his all-Republican Congress have glaringly failed to do (and yet, which the PC-USMB crowd can't bring themselves to criticize or hold him responsible for).

BTW I was wrong about an increase to 9000 pork items. I read today that the correct increase between 10 years ago and now was from around 1400 to over 14,000. Ten times as many pork items. Nice work, Republican Congress and too-weak-to-pick-up-that-veto-pen Bush. Stop blaming the Democrats for spending, you guys, and face reality: your party is spending us into the ground. My own view is that the country functions best when government is gridlocked--opposing forces balance, and the middle way succeeds.

Mariner.

You like gridlock when the socialists are losing. LOL.

 

[dilloduck]

the Republicans stayed in power after Bill Clinton left--and even got a Republican president to work with--and suddenly all their budgetary constraint went out the window? The Congressional leadership didn't change--the presidency did. So you've got to give Clinton some credit.

Bush's 11 thousand didn't last long. 4th quarter of 2005 was flat as a pancake. U.S. trade deficit continues to hit records--and without the housing bubble which has sustained Bush's mini-hardly-noticeable recovery, the usual things which follow deficits can be expected to follow soon enough. Eventually, we'll be forced to raise taxes.

I'm not sure I get what I keep hearing here, that revenues rose when taxes were reduced. That can happen simply if the economy grows. But it doesn't mean anything if you don't match the increased revenue with decreased spending, which Bush and his all-Republican Congress have glaringly failed to do (and yet, which the PC-USMB crowd can't bring themselves to criticize or hold him responsible for).

BTW I was wrong about an increase to 9000 pork items. I read today that the correct increase between 10 years ago and now was from around 1400 to over 14,000. Ten times as many pork items. Nice work, Republican Congress and too-weak-to-pick-up-that-veto-pen Bush. Stop blaming the Democrats for spending, you guys, and face reality: your party is spending us into the ground. My own view is that the country functions best when government is gridlocked--opposing forces balance, and the middle way succeeds.

Mariner.

The "middle way" succeeds ??? What the hell are you talking about ??

 

[Mariner]

mystical than I intended. I meant that when there's a balance of liberal interests (protect the poor, keep the playing field level, prevent industry from running roughshod over workers and the environment) and conservative interests (free companies from too much regulation, prevent a nanny state and excessive taxation), things seem to go better than when either side has complete control. Power seems to have been very seductive to the Republican Party in the past 10 years. You'd never know Republicans were writing the budgets--the clash between ideology and reality is so vast.

Mariner.