If people are taking money out of the stock market to invest in real estate, the market drops and real estate booms. None of which necessarily has any effect on the GDP. In fact the overall value of the stock market actually has little impact on the GDP; it's the other way around: a company which is performing well (ie making money) sees the value of its stock increase, while a company which perform poorly see the value of its stock decrease. If a lot of companies are doing well, the DJ average rises because people want to buy their stock and make money (classic case of supply vs demand) from the stocks' dividends. But if a lot of companies are doing well, their stocks will trend higher and the GDP is going to be rising.

The problem is, investors don't always take the long view. The stock market can crash in an otherwise healthy economy. It happened in October of 1987. It didn't happen because the economy blew up; it happened primarily because someone sold a large chunk of something and a bunch of computers started selling, too. The market gyrated up and down for a couple of days (and people on the right side of those transactions made a LOT of money) but it had no overall effect on the economy.

What happened to the stock market in the closing years of Clinton's term of office is similar to that. When the DoJ announced that Microsoft was going to be broken up, people sold stock in MS and other tech companies. It wasn't that the companies were suddenly less sound; only that investor confidence in the stream of dividends was shaken. Now, some of those companies that were sold (thus depressing their per-share stock price) were valuable only on paper--they were only worth what the market decided they were worth--and when their stock prices fell, they were doomed: hence, the Dot-Com Bust. It dragged the market down.

In any event, several pundits had been saying for months (or years) at that point that the market was overvalued. The economy of the US must be of a certain size to support a DJ average of such-and-such; in the late 1990s we did not have a GDP capable of supporting a DJA of 13,000. The dot-coms (which had been very valuable on paper, but which were not in fact actually valuable) had artificially inflated the DJA. To borrow a phrase from a prominent Democrat (who was speaking of the 1980s) in the 1990s, we had a huge party...and around the time of the 2000 elections, the bills for that party were coming due.

The only tax cut which took effect before 2002 was the so-called "tax rebate". It came to a miniscule total compared to the Federal Gov't's budget. I don't remember what it was. $100 million? $200 million? $300 million? Out of a total budget of $2 trillion, it's pocket change even if it came to a billion dollars, which I seriously doubt.

I guess what I'm saying is, show me how George Bush is responsible for the unemployment you cited. I don't know of any policy he set forth which can be blamed for the unemployment situation. BTW you did not give me any figures. You merely said that unemployment had "doubled" which is also not so--it had been hovering somewhere between 4% and 5%, and rose to somewhere between 5% and 6%; a rise of 1-2% is not "doubling" unless you're starting at 1 or 2%.

"Not that there is anything wrong with bushlicking if you are into that sort of stuff."

You claimed the dot com bust happened in '99 when Microshaft was broken up. I posted that the markets peaked in 2000. Look it up.

I have a hard time with thinking the economy was improving when unemployment (at least in my area) doubled and the markets lost 1/4 - 1/2 their value in 2001-2002. We have contradicary data here. And I don't know anybody who is better off than 4 years ago. But I don't travel in Todd's circles either.

The economy may be improving, but not for the average man. We're still bleeding jobs, deny that it's because of W's policies if you want. And yes, Clinton started it, W shifted it into high gear. They're both at fault. We need a president who isn't an elitist, controlled by special interests, and I'm not sure Kerry is it. Edwards may help.

"And yes, Clinton started it, W shifted it into high gear."

Actually Bush Sr started it, Clinton signed it, and Bush Jr not only shifted it into high gear, but brought it to a different forum/venue. NAFTA is just that, North American. Bush expanded it to be global. Nafta was only a tax cut for manufacturers that were already having work done in Mexico and Canada. It would be interesting to see if NAFTA actually motivated work to be ousted to other North American countries at a higher rate than was already being established.

"We need a president who isn't an elitist, controlled by special interests, and I'm not sure Kerry is it. Edwards may help."

Ya know... I have a serious problem with this and I'm going to don my male chauvinist hat.
That is a really great reason to vote for the second most powerfull person in the world and is a demonstrates the reason why some women should not vote.

Part of the reason Bill got away with what he did is because his pathetic wife could not stand up to his filandering bullcrap and take a walk!!
Yeah great message Hillery "I am woman hear me whimper in silence." Women are freaking idiots!!
This country is in BIG, BIG trouble and "Pretty boy" Bill Clinton made it even worse.

I'm gong to make a new campaign button that reads

Jen? Darlene? Can I watch?

Get the jiffey pop with the tinfoil dome..
You can use the ready made dome to ward off evil goldfish and prevent them from eating the grey matter under it while eating the contents it once housed.

I call it the "swiss army knife of warding". It keeps both fish & hunger pangs at bay.

Forgot the sig
------------------

Been using the "Jiffy Pop Defense" for years!
Thats why Goldfish HATE popcorn!
2 fer 1.