Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Genryu on November 05, 2004, 08:32:08 am
-
I often heard Republican blaming the recent American deficit on the Clinton Recession. My question is, can you, Republicans on this board, prove, by showing me facts and numbers, that there was a reccesion during the Clinton era ? I mean, from a foreign POV, America never seemed to be growing that much before the guy.
I'm all ready to concede the fact that I could be wrong, since I'm too lazy to do a proper research, but still, I'd like to know a bit more about this.
Thank you in advance.
-
Nobody cares.
We all know Clinton was a good dick. Bush is a bad dick. And Kerry is a giant douche.
-
give me a sec
-
Clinton era = new economy boom.
Nothing else is needed.
-
a graph of the stock market from March 2000 to January 2001 (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=CSCO&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&PT=1&CP=1&C5=3&C6=2000&C7=1&C8=2001&C9=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CA=1&CB=1&CC=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0)
feel free to zoom out to get a better feel
the market started to crash 7 months before the elections even took place, and he didn't take office untill about the end of this graph (there is a lag time of a few months between when a presedent is elected and when he actualy becomes the presedent), unless Bush somehow pushed his bad ecconomic influence back in time the crash was caused by who came before him. further, Bush didn't get _any_ of his (ecconomic) policies enacted untill about a year after this time
oh, and I'm not a republican.
-
I still have yet to decide WHAT you are... What are you?
-
A baby ox?
-
He is Bobboau, 100% pure SCP ub3r god.
-
Maybe it was the news of his possible election :lol: :D
-
/thanks Bobbau for at least an answer to the question.
"Who are you ? What do you want ?"
:p
Well, after cheking this little graph, only the Cisco and the Nasdaq, both only representative of a little part of the market, were taking a plunge. The dow jones, which, though I may be wrong, represents more the market in general, tended to stay at the same level, no ? I'm not especially good at economy in general, and the specifics of america's economy even moreso, but if I'm wrong, feel free to explain it to me, I'd like to wake up less stupide tomorrow :)
-
The Dow Jones is primarily industrial stocks. The NasDaq primarily Technology Stocks. For a more generalized market you need to look at the S&P 500.
-
just zoom out if you want, most of the loss experienced recently was in tech stocks wich is what NasDaq is.
cisco is only there becase it needs you to give it some stock to graph in order to give you the other ones (and becase I'm heavaly invested in it :D)
if you zoom out you'll see the dow has remained relitively flat
and to answer the questions I'm independent, I try not to fall into any one ideology, I guess I'm closer to Libertarian than anything else, but I have some disagreements even with them.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
a graph of the stock market from March 2000 to January 2001 (http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=CSCO&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&PT=1&CP=1&C5=3&C6=2000&C7=1&C8=2001&C9=1&ComparisonsForm=1&CA=1&CB=1&CC=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&DisplayForm=1&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0)
feel free to zoom out to get a better feel
I did
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.asp?Symbol=CSCO&PT=1&CP=1&C5=3&C6=1998&C7=1&C8=2001&C9=1&CA=1&CB=1&CC=1&CE=0&CompSyms=&D5=0&D7=&D6=&D3=0&ShowChtBt=Refresh+Chart
The S&P 500 doesn't fall below the level it was at a year before. In fact the Nasdaq doesn't either. Go back about 5 years and you'll notice that they were all going up.
-
Everybody knows that was the "Tech Bubble" that was supported by hundreds of millions in venture capital and very few of the companies actually had a viable business model on how they were going to make money once the venture capital evaporated. Everybody also knows who survived: Amazon, Ebay, and a few others. In 1998-99 there were literally hundreds if not thousands of similar services. I remember that there was an online grocery store, a grocery store for crying out loud!
-
the tech bubble was burst and recovered from well before the election
and there was no "clinton recession" - a recession is 2 quarters of negative growth - a depression is 4+ quarters of negative growth
-
Read the title smart one.
-
republicans don't answer questions honestly
-
You must be a very sociable person, having met 50 million people.
-
i should have qualified that as limbaugh-republicanist
you find me a limbaugh-republicanist who tell's the truth about the issues and i'll show you a snowball not melting in hell
-
Hell is frozen at it's deepest...
-
smartass :P
-
Kazan, grow up. Stop stereotyping entire groups of people to suite your arguments. My entire family is republican. None of them are liars. And you are making yourself sound like a whiney child.
There was a recession beginning. It may not have been Clinton's 'fault' persay, maybe too much of a good thing led to it, who knows? But you can't sit around blatantly denying truth because you classify an entire half of the population as being 'evil.'
Why not just blame the holocaust on Bush and get it over with. Everything that went wrong isn't his fault. Just a large enough portion is.
Meh. I need to win the lottery, so I can afford to move the **** away from everyone. I'm getting awefully sick of political discussions. :doubt:
-
Well, as Liberator said, I watched the S&P 500, and it stayed on nearly the same level all the time. So, recession I cannot see. But on another subject, what I can see is a budget surplus that was quite well-sized being turned into one of the biggest deficit ever seen, and THAT, while not causing a recession, will REALLY not help if the economy just slow down a little...
-
Raa: I should put it as "they make counterfactual statements" - because it's often not intentional dishonesty - they just are parroting the lies they've been told
I can give you REAMS of evidence showing that 80% of republicans hold directly counterfactual views of reality
-
With reality, of course, based entirely off of your opinion. Which includes that you are ALWAYS right. Kazan, please stop.
-
Originally posted by Raa
...Meh. I need to win the lottery, so I can afford to move the **** away from everyone. I'm getting awefully sick of political discussions. :doubt:
unplug the modem, a far cheaper solution :p
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
With reality, of course, based entirely off of your opinion. Which includes that you are ALWAYS right. Kazan, please stop.
not at all and i am insulted that you would even imply that
REALITY AS BASED OFF THE EVIDENCE
Like the goddamn Duelfer report for starters
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
With reality, of course, based entirely off of your opinion. Which includes that you are ALWAYS right. Kazan, please stop.
Unfortunately, and this pains me to say, Kazan is spot on. The bunch of propagandists you have in power are doing their job so well that a lot of people can't even see it.
-
Heh. Like Clinton wasn't? Like any prior president wasn't? Politics is largely based on propaganda, for better or worse. Stop attributing all of the evils of the world to Bush alone.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
Heh. Like Clinton wasn't? Like any prior president wasn't? Politics is largely based on propaganda, for better or worse. Stop attributing all of the evils of the world to Bush alone.
I'm not, in fact, I'm not saying Clinton was any better, simple fact of the matter is you Yanks lost your democracy when JFK was assasinated.
-
Naturally Kazan comes in and flings his liberal **** around...
(http://www.investors.com/images/editimg/issues0728.gif)
Second, how can you blame a recession on someone else when it occured in another president's term. Its like saying George Washington caused a recession and it was Abraham Lincoln's fault...
Deepblue, dont even bother arguing with Kazan. He thinks he's always right, and therefor sees no truth other than his own.
-
Originally posted by Genryu
Well, as Liberator said, I watched the S&P 500, and it stayed on nearly the same level all the time. So, recession I cannot see. But on another subject, what I can see is a budget surplus that was quite well-sized being turned into one of the biggest deficit ever seen, and THAT, while not causing a recession, will REALLY not help if the economy just slow down a little...
The problem with that mystic budget surplus was that it never actually existed except on paper. It was a GAO 10-year projection based on economic growth at the time. Then several things happened, first there was a recession, on it's own not too much of a problem. More importantly, and this is what put the hammer down on the economy, the World Trade Center was destroyed. Several hundred high-profile, international companies lost more than just staff when that happened, they lost records and accounts and all manner of things that they needed to conduct business. The World Trade Center, by itself, was responsible for nigh on to a full 1/4 of the GDP of the United States, on which the GAO's budgetary prediction was based. Bush didn't kill, it was killed by circumstance.
-
After Bobbau, .::Tin Can::. managed to produce evidence. Can you tell me of your source please ? Bobbau was easy to check, but I'm not sure of yours. And if anybody else get documents, send them this way :).
As it is, I'm ready to believe Liberator's explanation of the surplus, but still, in my opinion, Clinton can't be held as responsible of the explosion of the internet bubble, which caused the drop, the same way that the drop due to the WTC can't be held accountable to Bush.