As Dow surges, many left behind

Chicago Tribune ^ | October 3, 2006 | William Neikirk

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

WASHINGTON -- The last time the Dow Jones industrial average closed at a record high, America was living in a giddy economic era when good times and budget surpluses seemed as if they might continue indefinitely.

It was Jan. 14, 2000, the start of another year, another century and another millennium. The economy was roaring along. The jobless rate was a low 4 percent. The "new economy" of young entrepreneurs energized markets with new tech companies that didn't turn a profit. Nobody seemed to care, and excesses piled on top of excesses.

[teletech]

I can remember when the Tribune sang a more or less conservative tune. I guess when your master is a liberal, you become a liberal paper. Sad.

[MikeA]

But much has changed about the U.S. economy since the boom and the subsequent bust. Inequality within American society has grown. The budget deficit is looming as a major problem as the Baby Boomers begin to retire. Health-care costs have skyrocketed. The savings rate is negative as people go deeper in debt or use home equity loans to pay for purchases. Energy costs have surged until recent weeks.

I love how according to this article there were no poor, no high health care costs, no personal debt and no high energy costs in 2000. Hate to break this to them, but all that's said above could have been said about the economy in 2000 despite all the rosy stats. they love to feed us and the Shangrala, utopia scenario of what they imagined Y2K to have been painted at the top of this article. Notice no mention of the decline of the economy all during that year ending in recession beginning in November 2000.

Gas prices had surged to record highs dollar-wise in the late 90s and 2000 as well, due in part to Clinton EPA clean fuel mandates. Health care was expensive then too. Wasn't that why healthcare was such a big issues in the 90s? And yes, we even had poverty with the wealth gap between rich and poor having reached record levels during that era.

But the media was too busy praising the "Clinton economy" and heaping all the credit on him to notice that all that they say above could have been said about the "Clinton economy" as well along with record levels of bankruptcies. But they were too smitten with Clinton to ever report on the downside of the "greatest economy ever." Certainly they would never have bothered to report good economic news in that era to include the mitigating factors about the economy as they do now in reporting on the Bush economy. Do you imagine for a moment that when the Dow hit record levels in January 2000 that it was reported with all the perceived downsides of the economy as this article does? Yeah right!

By the way, the poverty they speak of as somehow being Bush's fault, this is what you get when you tolerate single parenthood making it just another lifestyle choice. That might work okay economically in Manhattan but on the South Side of Chicago or South Central L.A., it's a guarantee of poverty, crime and multi-generational dependence on government. We can thank liberalism for the mentality that fathers are unnecessary and the poverty that comes with it.

I might also add, poverty also tends to rise when you tolerate the influx of poor peasants with little earning power from across the border. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for that, but I doubt this writer would think it's just we keep such people out.

And finally, high health care costs are due in large part to government expentitures on healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid, not because of George W. Bush. Again, I doubt the clearly liberal writer of this piece would be willing to address that issue.

Once again, the Clown Car Media is so predictable in how it will cover any good economic news. Report the good news, but then spend the next 25 paragraphs using Democratic boilerplate to deconstruct it all. So tired, so boring.

[lormand]

"IBTWAMHH "

Thanks for the acronym...it will save lots of typing :)

[Zon]

FWIW... The current DJIA is not the same as the 2000 DJIA. International paper and Kodak were replaced with AIG and Pfizer. Had it not been for those switches the DJIA would be at 11853.82 -- 130.84 points higher than the 2000 record close and 103 points higher than the record intraday high. The S&P500 is 12.3% off its 1527 lifetime high and Nasdaq is 55% off its 5132.52 life-time high.

[OldFriend]

The DOW built on slick willie's dot com bubble.

Like everything else during his regime, it was all smoke, mirrors, and lies.

[MarkeyD]

And the DUmmies just don't understand that.

[babble-on]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708804/posts


I called it!! (see post 6)

[Lou L]

What's next a story or two about the homeless??

Yes, but don't you know? The homeless were able to invest in all those dot.com IPO's in the 1990's!

[hermgem]

Neikirk, the good old liberal standby of the Chicago Tribune who once before slipped on ice when predicting two years ago of slowdowns and layoff's just at the very same day when figures came out of a record above 8% quarterly growth.
Two days later he followed up with:
If not this quarter then the following!!!
And last but not least he kept appearing in the business section for a limited time with doomsday messages that he obviously figures will finally come through. He's a master in quoting experts to justify and enhance his forecasts and predictions.

[therut]

Lower income people will never save as their grandparents did who were much poorer than they are because they KNOW they do not have too. The government programs will be there for them. They will spend every penny they have plus some and live in poverty their whole live living off someone elses money and will always feel THE MAN put them there. I find it very sad and ignorant.

[litehaus]

The sob, pos was lucky enuf 2B concurrent with Grove, Gates, and Greenspan...........Nuttin much else counted re his so-called great economy.

[stockstrader]

Why haven't we seen this headline,,,

AS REAL ESTATE SURGES, MANY ARE LEFT BEHIND.

[Darnright]

Thank you for posting that graphic! Mind if I borrow it? I want to shove it down the throats of a few "it's Bush's fault" liberals.

[abovethefray]

The point is, someone got rich, but not everyone else in the country did. Is that fair?
It is humorous how low the media will go to disparage a Republican administration. As others have pointed out, the 'homeless' are only a problem during Republican rule, along with all the other dark linings that can be twisted to some poor minorities' advantage. I am glad for Free Republic. Helps to keep me grounded in reality.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Excellent post!

People tend to associate the Clinton years with the stock market boom. Most forget (and the MSM doesn't do anything to remind them) that the bubble burst during Clinton's reign. This point needs to be repeated until it's driven home.

Rather than comparing peak-to-peak, a better comparison would be to compare the market values at the final day of the Clinton era to the present time. That's a better measure of the progress in the Bush tenure.

[CSM]

"The jobless rate was a low 4 percent."

Liar!

[dighton]

“The Dow Industrial Average is trading at an all-time, dangerous high. The nation's unemployment rate holds steady at 4.6%, and dozens of Americans are without work.”

[stockstrader]

The fact is, and this is a FACT,

President Bush INHERITED a RECESSION from Slick. We entered a recession in the first quarter of 2000--almost a year BEFORE Bush took office.

President Bush inherited a MESS from Slick--an economic recession, corporate malfeasance, and due to Slick's national security malfeasance, 9/11.

It's absolutely incredible how well the economy has performed, thanks, in large part, to Bush's tax cuts (which were critical--given the three huge problem he INHERITED)!

[MarkeyD]

Please do, that's why I created it!

[OldFriend]

The pos was blessed with a republican congress who cared more about doing the right thing for the country than they cared about getting credit.