Important debate point for Kerry regarding the stock market/growth

[BillZBubb]

Bush* lied in the Friday debate saying the stock market was falling when he came to office. The implication being he "inherited" a recession. That is baloney.

One year before Bush* was sworn in the Dow was at 10,739 and the S&P500 at 1360. The day Bush* was sworn in the Dow was at 10,660 and the S&P 500 at 1355.

Those numbers are virtually identical. Kerry needs to counter Bush*s claims on this as follows:

"Mr. pResident, you inherited an economy that was still growing. The major stock market indices were at the same level when you were sworn in that they were one year before, not lower. You are misleading the American people. It was your failed policies that hurt the economy, not your inheritance".

[Goldmund]

1. Right, but in the meantime

the Dow hit 11,000.

[BillZBubb]

5. The DOW hit 11,000.

Big deal, so it was 3% off its intemediate high over a year. That level of fluctuation often happens over a week. It's in the noise level. Do you know the Dow also hit 11,000 AFTER Bush* was in office? You see it went up some--it wasn't in a free fall.

The important point is that the markets were not collapsing, or even going through a prolonged steady downturn--until after Bush*s tax folly became law.

[On the Road]

2. Look at the NASDAQ in 2000

2000 was when the bubble burst. Much of it was a panic year for traders. I can't fault the statement that the market had already started a decline.

[displacedtexan]

3. When a repuke is in office, it's called a correction.

For dems, it's a decline.

Heavy sigh.

[BillZBubb]

6. The NASDAQ does not represent the industrial base of the US.

The NADDAQ speculative bubble in dot-com stocks was not a significant factor in actual US production capability, employment, or productivity.

Stating the "market" started a decline is deceptive. NASDAQ is not "the market". The NASDAQ was declining but that had a negligible effect on the overall US economy. The Dow and the S&P represent real asset based corporations. That's why GDP kept growing through the 2000 period.

[On the Road]

8. The Bubble Affected All Indexes

You can just see it easily on NASDAQ. Here's the S&P 500, where 3/4 of the money in the market is:



The S&P peaked, double- or triple-topped, and started to decline before the election. Personally, I think it was a factor in Gore's not having a clear win.

Stocks were way overvalued in 2000. There was no way they would continue after confidence was broken in 2Q200.

[sontec]

4. All major indices ...

are lower since * took office.

[zbdent]

7. FR and all the people getting the memos were using the

"market-tested" argument that the Dow was tanking every time Gore was scoring a point (between 11/8 and 12/12/2000) and the market was soaring every time * beat back the challenge.

After * was selected, the market started to decline. In that aspect, he is right, that the market started its slide before he took office. Think - the recession "started" in March of 2001. Three months before March 2001 was - DECEMBER 2000. When the markets saw that Bush was going to be pResident, it went down the drain.

[fliesincircles]

9. Kerry needs to use the "r" word

All through the election of 2000, until AFTER 9/11, I can never remember bush using the word "recession". I remember him actually discounting the possibility every time it came up. Kerry should have his researchers check this. Goes with the theme "How can he fix the economy, when he didn't even know it was tanking!!"

[newyawker99]

10. Hi fliesincircles!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: