You are missing the two points I made:
1: Yeah, he lied when he took credit for it. He's lying now when he takes credit for it. The media knows he is lying but they give him credit for it, therefore they are perpetuating this lie that it was his economy so he deserves credit for it. That's insulting and has ticked me off since 1995.
After 9/11/01, most of us agree that yeah, it had already been deflating since the spring of 2000, but would have been more like deflating balloon fwapping around a while until it settled down to a level surface. (/11/01 simply exacerbated already existing problems, banks tightened up on credit and the fwapping balloon became critical mass instead.
BUBBA, however, jumped right in and said the crash was Bush's fault, MY economy was BOOMING, yadayadayada. The rest of the Democrats followed Bubba's lead, saying the crash was Bush's fault and this would NEVER have happened under Clinton because the economy was booming under HIS administration, etc, etc. You were there, you know what they said.
The public ignored them then, because we had bigger fish to fry. NOW that the next election cycle is upon us and the public is getting a little tired of constant QUAGMIRE reporting for lack of real news, Bubba, the rest of the Dems and the media, are right back out there saying the economy is BUSH'S FAULT, the economy was BOOMING under the Clinton administration, elect a Democrat if you want a job etc.
Clinton's lie, the credit for the boom, is therefore nothing more than a way of generating artificial political capital greatly resembling the artifical capital that powered the artificial tech bubble. I resent that. I think more people ought to resent that. Therefore, giving Clinton the credit he wants is bitterly sarcastic, blackly humorous payback.
Point 2: Clinton did indeed profit greatly from companies which benefited from the tech bubble. Clinton, despite popular conservative opinion, is not stupid. He knew that if he made deals, EO's and promoted legislation both here and abroad which would FURTHER profit these companies, he, Clinton, would profit even more from the donations of those grateful companies.
Clinton and his good pold boy network DID conciously meddle in the economy in order to both profit themselves monetarily and keep themselves in power.
Clinton and the DNC network deserve credit for the tiny things they did. And they WANT credit because they want the artificial political capital so reminiscant of the artificial capital driving the artificial economy. I find this insulting, and give them credit he wants as bitterly sarcastic, blackly humorous payback.
I'm surprised I had to explain that.
Yes indeed it would be. Except anyone who hears that knows that it's not credible: presidents have nothing to do with the economy.
Point 2: Clinton did indeed profit greatly from companies which benefited from the tech bubble. So did conservatives and everybody in betweeen.
He knew that if he made deals, EO's and promoted legislation both here and abroad which would FURTHER profit these companies, he, Clinton, would profit even more from the donations of those grateful companies. This is realy silly: if economy goes up, most people benefit. That's what we are supposed to do. Except he has hardly anythig to do with that.
Clinton and his good pold boy network DID conciously meddle in the economy How? I'm surprised I had to explain that.
I am also suprised that you do not know that administration has not means of influencing economy.