Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (45491)	7/31/2003 1:29:48 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

Can I steal that? The words. You can have attribution. But I don't want to post a link to this thread on the threads where I'll put it. Attracts vermin. :-)

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (45491)	7/31/2003 1:43:49 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Respond to of 57110

Then Bush took office. He has been in office for 132 weeks. The Naz is currently at 1,753. So, in Clinton's 45 weeks in office from the peak, the Naz went down nearly 2,400 points, or nearly 50 points per week. During Bush's 132 weeks in office so far, the Naz is down 1,017 points, which is less than 8 points per week. Stated differently, on Clinton's watch, the Comp slid 55.2%, whereas on GWB's watch, it's currently down 37% from when he took office. Clinton was the beneficiary of good economic times. GWB inherited the hangover.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (45491)	7/31/2003 2:31:51 PM
From: Augustus Gloop	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

100% agreed. To Blame Bush one has to ignore business cycles, market direction before he took office and the many transgressions of Corporate America that took place or started well before he was elected. Now I'd be a liar if I said that I thought Bush was doing a GREAT job with regard to the economy. However, he faces issues that no other president has faced in modern times. The combination of the above mentioned items and terrorism that took place in our national financial district coupled with the need for a response to those events are IMO unique from past economic problems. I guess one thing that bothers me is the whole idea of cutting checks after the fact like we did 2 years ago and are currently doing. I'm not sure thats the most efficient way to stimulate things. Personally I'd like to see a "FICA Holiday" period that would result in the same amount of money being distributed but the cost would be far less than printing and mailing checks. Hell....I don't know if it would work but thats what has been going through my mind as an alternative to cutting checks