«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Dow Finishes Day Lower Than When Bush Took Office

The Dow Jones Industrial average just closed for the day at 10609.66, about 50 points lower it was the week George W. Bush took office as president of the United States.* In seven and a half years, GOP stewardship of the economy has produced negative results in the stock market. Remember, this is the same stock market that the Bush administration (and John McCain) wanted to invest your Social Security money in. That money would have been managed, in part, by now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers and no-longer-independent Bear Sterns and Merrill Lynch.

If you invested in the stock market in 2001, betting that Republicans are better for the economy, you bet wrong. Instead, we're in the midst of what Alan Greenspan has called a "once-in-a-century" crisis. But since you're a well-informed reader of MoJo Blog (or perhaps of Kevin Drum), you already know that Democrats are better for the economy.

Remember, it's not just the stock market that's done poorly under Republican leadership. It's also most Americans. GOP economic policies have redistributed wealth upwards, benefiting the private-jet-and-personal-megayacht set but leaving almost everyone else, including many who would technically be considered "rich", behind. Between 2002-2006, the bottom 90 percent of Americans got 4 percent of the nation's income growth, according to figures from the Center for American Progress (PDF). (The great chart to the right is from that same report). The 15,000 richest families in America got 25 percent of the income growth, and the median household income was 0.6 percent lower in 2007 than in was in 2000. And all these figures were calculated before the turmoil of 2008 and the chaos of the past week.

Not only did the middle class suffer, but people actually fell out of the middle class and into poverty during the Bush years. 5.7 million more Americans lived in poverty in 2007 than in 2000. Six million more Americans are uninsured. The bottom line is that most Americans have suffered under the Bush economy. Now Wall Street is suffering, too.

A lot of people can get as far as acknowledging the weakness of the Bush economy, but can't link the problems to John McCain, who they see as a different character altogether. But the important thing to remember is that McCain supports all the same economic policies Bush does: massive tax cuts for the megayacht crowd and peanuts for the rest of us; social security privatization (he thinks it's a "disgrace); the continued presence of the corrosive influence of lobbyists in Washington politics; and, despite his recent "conversion," massive deregulation of the financial sector. Plus he has no solution for the tens of millions of Americans who lack health insurance. Bill Clinton won the election in 1992 by promising that he would deliver better economic performance for more people that George H.W. Bush had delivered in his four years as president. Clinton kept his promise. Barack Obama needs to do a better job of making his.

*Correction: An earlier version of this post said that 10,659 was what the Dow was on January 20, 2001. January 20, 2001 was a Saturday, so that's obviously wrong—the 10,659 number is where the Dow closed after Bush's first week in office. Sorry.

Comments

My fellow Wall Street tycoons and I did much better under our puppet Bill Clinton, that's for sure.

Posted by: Wall Street Tycoon on 09/17/08 at 1:43 PM Respond

Didn't the Dow close at 10,587.59 the day before, a Friday?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=00&b=19&c=2001&d=00&e=22&f=2001&g=d

Posted by: emailc on 09/17/08 at 1:58 PM Respond

According to Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton is the best REPUBLICAN the United States has ever had. The REPUBLICANS would have never been able to do what they have done to our country if it had not have been for Bill Clinton cooperating with them for his best interest, not the nations. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are members of the DLC, an organization that Obama has rejected, because the DLC doesn't represent 70% of the people of the United States. Obama is pulling the Democratic Party together for unity, so that the Democratic Party will represent the complete 90% of the Common Population, instead of only the upper 20%. It is imperative that Obama get elected if as a people we want rid of the DLC lobbyist organization that infested the Democratic Party and has caused the left so much trouble.

Voting in REPUBLICAN McCain will be more of the same, only much, much worse. REPUBLICANS do not represent 90% of the people, never have -- never will.

A vote for Nader or McKinney will only take votes away from Obama. I like Nader and McKinney, but DON'T DO IT.

The DLC has infested the Democratic Party and the only way to rid ourselves of them is through the Democratic Party, because there are only TWO MAIN PARTIES.

Obama is doing his best to unify the total left. By all means we must help him, so that he will be able to have a solid footing for restoring America, without the REPUBLICAN lobbyist led DLC causing problems, which is why the DNC is taking no lobbyist money.

Obama is the candidate for the left --- the only candidate for the left.

Posted by: MarthaA on 09/17/08 at 6:02 PM Respond

And Obama (and the LEFT) are going to fix the DJIA by doing what?

Posted by: Karl Marketts on 09/17/08 at 6:21 PM Respond

Obama is the candidate for the left --- the only candidate for the left.

Well, that ought to be good for about 14% of the vote.
Those votes that come from the LIBERAL LEFT.

Posted by: COLOR ME ALL CAPS on 09/17/08 at 6:31 PM Respond

OK..., OK..., before you take me apart for understating the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as Liberals...

New York Times sez:

At a time when Democrats have made gains after years in which Republicans have dominated Washington, young Americans appear to lean slightly more to the left than the general population: 28 percent described themselves as liberal, compared with 20 percent of the nation at large. And 27 percent called themselves conservative, compared with 32 percent of the general public.

www.nytimes.com/2007/06/27/washington/27poll.html

Posted by: COLOR ME ALL CAPS on 09/17/08 at 6:36 PM Respond

Republicans don't help or hurt the economy. It's the same with Democrats. Correlation does not imply causation!

Posted by: Dan on 09/17/08 at 7:40 PM Respond

Apropos of Kevin's post, James K. Galbraith authored a paper, referenced in "December Surprise", demonstrating that in recent decades the Fed's monetary policy during election years has benefited Republicans. See Galbraith's chart and read his paper.

Posted by: Jesse on 09/18/08 at 2:12 PM Respond

Then why do Republicans run saying they are better for the economy? Thinking that policies have no net effect is what got us into this mess. With people like you around, its no wonder...

Posted by: Your Wrong on 10/09/08 at 3:54 PM Respond

It was Ronald "Get government out of the way" Regan that started this mess we are in today. If memory serves me right, he was a republican. and it was Phil Gramm, former financial adviser to McCain, that pushed through the bill in 2000 rolling back the Glass-Steagal law that was put into place in the 30's to regulate financial institutions and he is a republican. And McCain is for deregulation, another republican.

Posted by: Hannah Stevens on 11/01/08 at 8:08 AM Respond