Why was Clinton better for investors than either Reagan or Bush?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chad Roser
  • Start date Start date
C

Chad Roser

Guest
In January 1993, the DJIA was around 3,300. Around 10,600 when Clinton left office. For investors - which I am - that's an overall increase of around 221%. Of course, it has declined under Bush. And even under Reagan, a God to those on the right-wing, the DJIA went from 947 to 2,235 - an increase of only 136%, far less than Clinton's. And that's not even mention that Clinton cut our debt and balanced our budget, while both Bush and Reagan showed no spending discipline and raised debt astronomically.So if Democrats want to give the money of the productive to welfare-ridden, wealth-sucking bums, what exactly gives? Once again, I'd like for conservatives to explain their logic, because empirical data suggests something else!
 
Thanks to the tech boom and the Dot.com boom, the economy flourished. When the "booms" crashed, we went into a recession, which started the last year Clinton was in office.There is no Clinton policy that would bring about growth....and economics 101.
 
Reagan tax cuts and the people who got educated in school under the Reagan years were able to make things happen
 
Yes, He had the good sense to create jobs, balance the budget, and pay down the debt. All good ideas for the government to try. He was fortunate in the timing of his tenure, and regulators kept fraud to a minimum, (always lacking when the GOP is running things) but he did do well for investors.
 
Back
Top