- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
26 X World Champs said:1. Clinton is responsible for terrorism in America, and for 9-11, despite not being in office when it happened. Question, the 1st WTC attack occurred 38 days after Clinton took office, but you find he's responsible, but Bush isn't responsible for 9-11 after being in office for 8 months? Is that what you're saying?
Clinton wasn't responsible for the 1st WTC attack, he was responsible for doing nothing about it. Bush on the other hand, did something about 9/11. That's the difference.
And if you look at our government, it takes a lot longer than 8 months to make changes in the way things are done.
2. Clinton is responsible for the recession in the USA despite not being in office when it occurred?
The only thing is, he WAS in office when the recession occurred.
First off, economic cycles are very independent things, based on many factors, so I am loath to attribute them to individual presidents.
But if it must be done, then look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/business/yourmoney/27hedge.html?
It's a NYTimes article about hedge funds. That isn't the important part, click on the graphic side bar that shows what percentage the economy increased each year.
In 1990, the stock market decreased 5%
In 1991, the stock market increased 30%, a 35% momentum gain from 90.
In 1992, the stock market increased 20%, a 10% momentum loss from 91.
In 1993, the stock market increased 30%, a 10% momentum gain from 92.
In 1994, the stock market increased 5%, a 25% momentum loss from 93.
In 1995, the stock market increased 20%, a 15% momentum gain from 94.
In 1996, the stock market increased 20%, a 0% momentum gain from 95.
In 1997, the stock market increased 15%, a 5% momentum loss from 96.
In 1998, the stock market increased 5%, a 10% momentum loss from 97.
In 1999, the stock market increased 30%, a 25% momentum gain from 98.
In 2000, the stock market decreased 10%, a 40% momentum loss from 99.
In 2001, the stock market decreased 10%, a 0% momentum loss from 00.
In 2002, the stock market decreased 20%, a 10% momentum loss from 01.
In 2003, the stock market increased 30%, a 50% momentum gain from 02.
In 2004, the stock market increased 10%, a 20% momentum loss from 03.
If you look at that, you see several things. Clinton entered in 93, after a slight momentum loss. That loss continured for a year, and then was turned around. The market began to increase after 94 (When the GOP took control of Congress), and held strong until 99. In 2000, while Clinton was still in office, the stock market lost 10% of its value, coming off a year of gaining 30%. That was the biggest shift in momentum seen throughout the decade, and it happened in the last year of Clinton's presidency. In 2001, when Bush took office, he had the same slight decrease in momentum that Clinton had, then had the biggest upsuge in momentum in the decade in 2003.
The most important thing to consider, rather than just the statistics, is where the market was headed. And the fact is that the market was heading down when Bush came into office. The estimated 1 Trillion dollar cost of 9/11 didn't help much either.