2004 American Economy

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2001
2004 American Economy
18
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 4:06pm
Electing William Jefferson Clinton as President of these United States of America,

proved that to elect business-intelligent people at the national level

very much does improve the lives of working American citizens.

Recall that even with "the Fed," (Alan Greenspan) making eight years worth of decisions designed to impede Bill Clinton's economic plans, that America nonetheless

achieved the very best economy, in decades ... and please further recall that

this present day, "Bad-For-Business Bush Economy"

began for Americans with

America being into recession/depression BEFORE the 09-11-2001 attacks on America.

Simply following the course of Bush action (inaction) in not having any real plan for America's economy, gives us the "trickle-down-enonomy LIE,"

(called 'voodoo economics' by Bush1)

and resulting in over three million lost jobs, for America.

I believe the following to be American citizen's best advice:


"To make it financially in America,

I believe it will be necessary for us all to

vote for John Kerry (2004) for President of these United States of America.

After four long years of watching our jobs disappear,

waiting for this republican Bush-economy to "trickle down" something,

my warning to my fellow Americans is this:

if anything at all "trickles down" toward you,

from this bad-for business-Bush economy,

JUMP OUT OF THE WAY ...

you would not like it to splatter upon your lowliest work clothes!

Electing John Kerry is the best plan."

ForeverHugs,

--Genie

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 4:26pm
The economic slowdown which led to the recent recession began before Bush took office, approximately midyear in 2000. (And before it even gets said, no, that is *not* blaming Clinton for that downturn in the economy.) An additional complicating factor is that the stock market was severely over-valued, with a correction (predictably a significant one) inevitable. Add all that to the various corporate accounting scandals, and you have a situation in which economic stagnation with it's associated loss of jobs was just about inevitable.

Blaming all that on Bush for the sake of election year rhetoric ignores the reality of the issues involved.

~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 9:00pm


Huh??? Thank goodness for Alan Greenspan's brilliant decisions which stemmed what should have been the inevitable tide of inflation due to the(nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Clinton) hi-tech dot.com bubble.


achieved the very best economy, in decades>

The "very best economy" of which you speak was nothing more than a facade of overinflated stock prices which came crashing down well before George W. Bush was ever elected.


I believe it will be necessary for us all to

vote for John Kerry (2004) for President of these United States of America. >

Why? What exactly does John Kerry intend to do for the economy, aside from raising taxes, which has historically slowed and/or halted economic growth in its tracks?



Guess you've been under a rock somewhere, jobs are growing, the economy's growing, the unemployment rate is lower than when W took office, our jobs are hardly disappearing. In fact, it's quite remarkbale that between the end of the dot.com explosion, 9/11 and a big helping of corporate scandals that were all brewing before he took office, the president has managed to turn the economy from recession to expansion in less than four years. It's the main reason I would NEVER vote for Kerry-it's clear he hasn't a clue how economics works and simply wants more of our money back into government coffers.

Avatar for isabella710
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
Sat, 08-21-2004 - 10:30pm
The economy started going sour about a year and a half or so before Clinton was out of office. I do remember it very well. Finally, we're pulling out and things are getting better; even with 9/11 having happened.

Photobucket



iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 2:41am
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations.

The Labor Department report showed only 32,000 new net jobs added to payrolls during the month, down from a revised 78,000 jobs that were added in June. The increase was the smallest since December, when payrolls rose by just 8,000.

This is the second straight month of jobs growth far below economists' forecasts, following three months that showed strong jobs growth starting in March. The June report had initially showed 112,000 jobs added, rather the 250,000 forecast at that time.

But Friday's report missed the target by even a wider margin.

"The significant number of headwinds such as rising energy prices and the prospects of rising short-term rates are taking their toll on the economy," said Anthony Chan, senior economist with JP Morgan Fleming Asset Management.

U.S. stocks opened sharply lower on new concerns about the state of the economic recovery. Economic advisers for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry pointed out that the administration itself had emphasized the employer survey back in March when that showed strong job growth while the household survey showed a decline in employment. They said that even with the jobs growth now being reported, the administration will see a net decline in employment during its tenure.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 8:34am
Which still in no way supports the claims and contentions in the OP. nt
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 1:11pm
-- Recall that even with "the Fed," (Alan Greenspan) making eight years worth of decisions designed to impede Bill Clinton's economic plans,

Actually in an interview either just before or just after the election in 2000 (It was in Oct or Nov....cant remember), Greenspan said that when he informed Clinton in late 1997 / early 1998 that he was going to begin raising interest rats to cut the amount of cheap money in the economy, Clinton begged him to hold off to allow the economy more time to gain momentum. Reluctantly he agreed.

When Greenspan finally did raise the rates, he had to do so at such a quick pace to stem the flow of money, that he ended up doing more harm than good.

This time around, Greenspan said that he was going to do things the way he should have back then, and do it slowly so it could be monitored more efficiently.

The loss of jobs under Bush was a total of 2,685,000 and so far, there have been 1,950,000 jobs created, which is a net loss of about 700,000. How many of the jobs were lost due to the dot com and tech sector collapse? An estimated 1,000,000 jobs.

How many were lost due to 9/11? Economists can only guess.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 1:12pm
-- The "very best economy" of which you speak was nothing more than a facade of overinflated stock prices which came crashing down well before George W. Bush was ever elected.

Exactly. The economic downturn actually began in the summer of 1999, a full 16 months before the election.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 1:13pm
The economic recovery actually began in the early summer of 2001, and then 9/11 shattered whatever recovery there was, and added to the situation by bankrupting airlines, as well as small businesses, and killing the economies of many small towns that depend on tourism for their money.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 1:22pm
So Bush supporters think that everything that happened under Clinton was Clinton's fault, and everything that happened under Bush was Clinton's fault.

It's been 3 1/2 years now, about time you guys got over Clinton.



iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 08-22-2004 - 2:27pm
Fallacious statement, as not a single post in this thread blamed the economic downturn on Clinton. In fact, my post specifically stated that I was NOT blaming Clinton for it. What has been stated is that the slowdown in question began during the last year Clinton was in office, but that's not *blaming* him for it, just acknowledging the fact of when it actually began.

"about time you guys got over Clinton."

About time people quit misrepresenting what's actually been posted in order to attack Bush or defend his attackers. No posts in this thread blamed Clinton for the economic downturn.

~mark~

Pages