On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:04:50 -0400, clams_casino
> wrote:


>Huh? From what I recall, the 2001 recession started when business &
>investors flocked to bonds & CDs while reducing business expansion upon
>his election - fear of GW leadership.
You go to bonds and CDs after you see indications of a depression.
Not because of election.
>
>and 9/11 because of Clinton
>
>>not taking Osoma when offered.

>
>What did that have to do with the Iraq invasion?
Who was talking about the Iraq war? That started more then a year into
Bush's term.

>>The stock market grew for five of those six years
>>Unemployment dropped, due to tax cuts.

>
>Hello - the stock market indices are essentially where they were when GW
>was appointed office. Hoe's your Roth? Making any profits?
Yes I took money out before the housing crash, and am now waiting for
the market to rebound.
>
>>>It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
>>>(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
>>>debt - NOT business expansion / investment..

>>Widely known? I haven't heard that, where did you get your
>>information. Cite please.
>
>http://www.nber.org/papers/w8672 is one of many.

You better read that again, that is about the new 10% bracket. mainly
poor people. And they got a rebate.
>>
>>
>>>GW has been all about providing
>>>welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority.
All tax levels received a tax cut under Bush's tax cuts. Yes the
wealthy got bigger cut, (not percentage wise) because they paid more
tax's.

>>The tax cuts to the wealthy created jobs, so the poor didn't need
>>welfare.
>>
>>
>>
>
>What jobs? The housing industry was the most significant part of the
>job growth over the past six years and that had more to do with the Fed
>lowering borrowing rates in a desperate attempt to bail out GW's poor
>leadership.
>
>>
>>
>>>So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
>>>do with the economy,
>>>
>>>
>>He has very little with the economy. And that is widely known!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>
>Huh? The president has everything to due with the economy. He sets
>the stage - business & investors react accordingly. Granted, it's
>mostly perception, but when the outlook looks poor, savvy investors
>invest less, individuals spend less, business es don't expand. Under
>Clinton, most thought the party would never end - the economy grew
>accordingly. Under GW, it's been doom & gloom - poor expectations, etc.
>
>
>>>If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
>>>Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
>>>the next election.
>>>
>>>
>>And that is why I'm for Mc Cain.
>>
>>
>
>If more government intervention is your hope (reduced freedoms, women as
>chattel, etc), a continuing declining dollar / inflation and more
>international isolation is desired, I can see where McBush is your man..
>
>
>
>
>
>