Sh, in that case, you need to take a look at a 5 year chart of the Nasdaq and DOW indexes. You'll find out you are mistaken.

Jim, here is a five year chart for the Nasdaq. Here is the five year for the DJ-30.

Maybe you see an uptrend in there. I don't.

Maybe we have a definition problem. What do you call the fairly steady increase from Sept 2002 if it isn't a trend?

Nothing wrong with Bush, Cheney, or Haliburton. The Enron scandal was unveiled during Bush's term but it was taking place under Clinton's. The economic recession started under Clinton's watch as well. It has now been picking up with several record economic jumps in recent months. And as far as the war in Iraq goes. It needed to be done. Hopefully now we'll go after the rest of the countries that support terrorism.

So Bush gets credit for Sept 2002 to Dec 2003, but isn't responsible for 2000 to 2002, or for Jan 2004 to present? That seems a little selective. I think it's a little more fair and more rational to maintain my point, which is that the performance of the markets during his tenure has been up and down, mostly down, and that it's probably not accurate to lay that at his doorstep. But it's also not accurate to give him credit for stimulating the markets, because the markets don't seem to have been stimulated.

Of course, this is different that your original points.

jim,

If you want to give the Prez credit for what the Nasdaq is doing, then let's look at it from a different point of view. You are viewing a time period of about 25% of the current admin being in office. Let's look at the whole time period. He took over at ~3,500. Friday it closed at 1,946. That means it is down around 44% to date, not a very good return.

Now it's easy to say that it had already fallen from 5k to 3,500 when he took over and therefor, it isn't his fault. I would agree completely as I really don't credit much of anything that goes on in the markets to what happens in the Whitehouse. They can have short term affects, but it is very hard to change the trend without drastically changing the overnight lending rate.

But to give Bush credit for a small run during '03 is ridiculous. Between smart money, mutual funds, and bargain hunters it had to eventually move up some. Why hasn't it sustained the rally over the last 7 months? Simply because our 'recovery' isn't nearly as strong as they want us to believe. Some say the War is why. Huh? War means massive spending by the gov't which means products being purchased, and jobs to fill vacated by all of the reservists that have been called up. Yet we are stalled.

I'd love to hear why you think that is.

Also, SH, I agree completely with you about the ticking time bomb being built right now in the form of debt. The changing world theater is going to make being the world's police force a lot harder without bankrupting our gov't, or seriously diminishing most all other programs the gov't provides currently.

Gore, Kerry, they are no brain surgeons either. Neither one has shown anything they would do that would make wholesale changes in what is happening now nor into the future. Everyone better be building those 401k's and IRA's........

Except that what has always happened in the past during the hyperinflation which follows massive deficits is that financial assets become worthless.

“But to give Bush credit for a small run during '03 is ridiculous. “

Actually, I posted the numbers both before during (Sept 02) and lately. I’m allowing everyone to draw their own conclusions based on facts instead of making assumptions for everyone.

“Why hasn't it sustained the rally over the last 7 months?”

Here comes opinion, because the stock market is fickle and there continues to concern about the public’s perception of war. Furthermore, the stock market is worried about the possibility that Kerry could be elected. The public is ocnfused about the war because the press coverage by and large leans anti. For example, the Prison scandal was front page/lead stories for days and yet the Iraq takeover of power wasn’t even lead story for some news outlets on the first day.

see 9-11 and tell me that Bush is good for us.

Are you suggesting Bush 43 was some how responsible for 9/11? If so, you should probably fire your dentist too--He had about as much to do with causing 9/11 as your President did.