Damn, I knew Bush would screw up this economy right before the elections!! The little Devil..

I for one find the timing of this latest economic upturn to be quite troubling. It seems a bit too coincidental that suddenly the stock market is doing great...just before the elections.

I have not seen Dick Cheney in the news lately - could it be that he is in his underground bunker controlling things again? If he can bring down the twin towers from there, a new stock market record should be a walk in the park.

Its obvious that the GOP being the party of the rich, then they obviously can manipulate the stock market to help the GOP. Of course if the stock market was hurting the GOP, then it would be the righteous voice of the individual investor crying out in the pain caused by the GOP.

Don't you get it. Anything good is a obvious manipulation by the GOP and anything bad is just the people rising up to throw of the chains from the GOP. Its really quite simple. Any MSM reporter knows this.

Dang, smartguy. You typed that with such a straight face I almost thought you were serious.

Yea, it took Bush six years to get back to where we were.

BarneyFife2000,

Yes, after the bubble economy that Clinton left him with.

Well Bush had to deal with a recession and response to a terrorist attack, that was ignored by the previous admin.

The economy during the Clinton administration was produced by smoke and mirrors. The economy that we have enjoyed more and more is a result of the very intelligent tax cuts that put OUR money back in OUR pockets. We then spent OUR money which put money in other people's pockets. That's how it works. The money put in other people's pockets creates jobs. Ergo, more people are working. More people working INCREASES the tax revenues and decreases the drain on our economy of unemployment and welfare benefits.

See how that works, Sparky? It isn't rocket science - so why doesn't the LEFT get it? Oh yes - because they are demented!

"where we were"? You mean a Dow at 7,300? You know, where the market was once the illusary tech exhuberance was removed from the pricing? Is that what you mean by "where we were"? Pets.com stock anyone? Anyone? Big difference between speculating on Pets.com and investing in Alcoa and GE.

BarneyG2000

Thanks for the dem talking point of the day.

I can see why they call them "talking points" and not "thinking points"

This is just great news and I'm happy to hear it. It's been a rough ride but this is a day to be psyched about. Well done America!

Damnit Bush, Stop making My Ira's and other investments grow! I have so much I may have to take a paycut and work for Haliburton!! Im a compassionate conservative damn You $$$..After all, nothing exceeds like excess..

Bush's return on investment:
If you invested $10,000 in a DOW index fund in 2000, your return today would be $3.72.

Thank God Bush got rid of the capital gains tax.

Thank God Im smarter then that and am making out like a bandit..TYVM

Hey BarneyG: Why do't you tell us where the Dow was when Clinton left office? Do you even know?

$10,000 ==> $3.72

You don't loose money unless you sell.

Hey BarneyG: Why do't you tell us where the Dow was when Clinton left office? Do you even know?

The better question is: where was the DOW when Bush stole the election? That is when country went to hell.

This can't be right!

For 6 years the MSM has said that the millionaires are raping us. The economy is in the toilet. The housing market is going bust.

If this is a new Dow record, then tomorrow's papers will be full of stories of all the people that are suffering in poverty.

BarneyG:

If I had invested $10,000 in a Dow Index Fund on the day Bush took office, I'd have $14,300 today. Not the $3.72 that you have made, sucking Bill Clinton. With financial acumen such as yours, no wonder you are such a loser.

BTW, it is good that Bush stole the election from fools like you.

Barney, you were stupid enough to hold the Dow for the last 5.5 years?

Obviously, you're a Democrat. You don't understand buying stocks or the economy.

So, you held your shares through a recession beginning in March 2000, two months after Bubba skipped town, a terrorist attack that crashed the martet? You're not a rational investor.

Barney should not be allowed to vote.

Bring back the poll tax and voter tests!!

Hey BarneyG: Why do't you tell us where the Dow was when Clinton left office? Do you even know?

The Dow was at 10,887.36.

Source

Today: 11,750.28

Net = 862

Over a six year period.

Mission Accomplished.

Where did all of the money go that was invested in Worldcom? In Algore's pocket? He hyped it like a mad dog. Millions of people lost they're life savings and retirement accounts, every dime of it.

How much did Slick Willie get of the billions stolen by his best friend and sleep over buddy (how many nights in the white house) Ken Lay? Funny that the leftie's fall guy (they tried to spin him as Bush's friend but it didn't work) from Enron turned out to be best buddies with Slick. Again millions of hard working people lost they're life savings and retirement accounts.

It's funny that Slick Willie came out of a minimum wage (for exacutives) job a multi-millionaire. Don't I remember the weasel bragging that 'we came to Washington broke and now we're rich". That is an almost exact quote of Hellary's rant. Where did all of this money come from, crooked market deals on pork bellies?

Like it or not it can be proven with facts (foreign word to a democrat) that the economy was in the dumper and digging lower in 2000. Hundreds of criminals were in almost all of the major market CEO/CFO positions and are now in jail.

Tax cuts by President Reagan got the country out of the Dimmy Carter depression, and tax cuts by President Bush got the country out of the Slick Willie repression. But tax cuts don't work, they make it harder for the democrats to steal billions from the treasury.

It must feel bad to have backed the two worst presidents in history. One so bumbling he's a total fool and laughing stock of the world and one a known liar (under oath) who was so busy with his honey under the desk he allowed the criminals to infect the entire business world.

hard to be exact but I would say around 11,000
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
soooo..less than 10% in 5 1/2 years...

Hey scrapiron...Do you remember a little thing like the S&L rape that cost us Billions?
Here n Denver we still remember Silverado and a Bush on the Board....

A reminder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush

Here in DENVER We still remember Silverado and a Bush on the board?? OK, What was Her name??

Thanks for the interesting side bar though..

All right, I know screen names aren't necessarily serious, but what the hell is an "UnemployedRedStateDentist"?

I thought most dentists were self-employed. It's kind of like being an unemployed physician - there has to be a real good reason.

Take your pliers and go home.

"What exactly "is a UnemployedRedstatedentist"

Why a Dixie chick of course!

UnemployedredstateDentist...WTF, all my Red State Dentist friends have their porch screened in for their office, it's a way to 'right off' the entire house (trailor)! I, like others here, want to know why you are unemployed? We all know the Red State Hicks never have all their teeth, what's going on!

I don't know what an unemployedredstatedentist is, but this one is angry.

He said he moved down here from up North.

Must be his winning personality.

Over the course of the last 100 years, we see that the Dow generally goes up (just like prices say, for a new house), constantly reaching new highs. The fact that it has taken six years for the Dow to slightly pass its high under Clinton is definitely NOT something to crow about.

However, the fact that under Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress, the U.S. poverty rate has gone signicantly up is something for conservatives to be ashamed about.

Economy doing well? Dow new high? That's what they say on the TV, isn't it? But come on, that was just a Phony New High: All headline and no substance, just like everything else these days.

Check it out:

20 of the 30 Dow stocks are still 20% or more below their all time highs. Dig beyond the headline and it is an ugly picture indeed. 14 are down 40% or more. None of the Dow components made a new high today, and only 3 are anywhere close.

Call me a whiner or a sore loser but the numbers don't lie. This is NOT a bull market, and the GOP can't hold it up forever.

Anyone investing their hard earned money had better know what the hell they're doing. The new highs on this market may be atypical of the rest of the market (let's see - the Nasdaq is still down over 50%), but I assure you, the internals are not.

This market is rotting from the inside, but it sure is pretty with that headline new high, isn't it?

Wake up! The GOP is manipulating the market because if they lose the House and the Senate, there will be hell to pay.

The only thing standing between this week market and a crash is the election. But after that, it doesn't matter who wins -- look out below!!! Better use the rally to unload while there are still eager buyers. You can bet thats what the GOP are doing. Dummy up - both the inverted yield curve and the falling price of oil are forecasting a recession.

Nothing says 'recession' like cheap energy!

"The fact that it has taken six years for the Dow to slightly pass its high under Clinton is definitely NOT something to crow about."

Yeah, let's just pretend that itty-bitty little blip down to 7,300 never happened, right Herm? Let's just pretend the Dow has only gone up 5 points, not 4,000.

S&L scandal leads to remembering Neil Bush?!

I seem to recall a group called the Keating Five that was a far, far bigger deal. Bush, after all, was merely a director at one defunct S&L.

The Keating Five, OTOH, we're talking five sitting United States Senators, who were not only beneficiaries of shenanigans, but also leaned no investigators not to investigate.

Who were the Keating Five?

Alan MacG. Cranston (?-Calif.);
Dennis W. DeConcini (?-Ariz.);
John H. Glenn Jr. (?-Ohio);
John S. McCain III (R-Ariz., yes, that McCain);
and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (?-Mich).

I'll leave it to Barney and company to fill in those question marks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Poverty rate is not going up. It's a trope.

Think about it: 35 years ago when the "Great Society" program was trotted out to end all poverty, did the "impoverished" have tv's, microwaves, cars, decent housing, stereo's, etc?

I have several "impoverished" who live in my neighborhood (part of my neighborhood was set aside for freed slaves after the Civil War ended), and I can tell you they live a hell of a lot better than the poor in any other country on earth.

They (the poor in America) live a hell of a lot better than the poor in any other country on earth.

Well... not quite.

There are at least 9 nations (mostly in Europe) in which the quality of life among the poor exceeds that of the poor in the U.S. Based on a number of indicators - infant mortality, access to health care, quality of public education, rates of violent crime (esp. murder), life spans.

But here's one area where the U.S. is #1 -

The percentage of children living in poverty - 20%. That's the highest in the world among developed nations.

We're #1.

USA! USA! USA!

Maybe if those in the welfare system were not rewarded for so many years for having babies out of wedlock there would not be so many living in poverty. Or maybe the evil Republicans are to blame because they discourage abortion. Choose the liberal approach -- abort more babies and solve the problem?

Lorie - Setting aside the speculative histrionics, I basically agree with you. The tradition liberal approach on welfare (i.e. redistribution) is fundamentally flawed.

I'm only disputing the common misperceptions that -

1) The poor in America live better than in any other nation on earth. (They don't, by many standards)

2) We're doing all we can OR all we should. (We're not)

3) It's morally acceptable to brush the issue aside. (It's not)

As for solutions? There are many cost effective governmental and non-profit approaches ready for wider implementation. But they're not being advanced by the dominant ideologues of either party.

I find it hard to believe that by the standards of material goods, the way I would argue most in America measure how "rich" or "poor" people are, that any other country surpasses America. The standards cited such as "access to health care" and "quality of education" are somewhat subjective.

Call me crazy, but I look at whether or not people have food to eat (school lunch programs and other welfare programs are available here, it is up to parents to take advantage of them), and whether or not they have shelter, clothes, etc. Many of those in poverty in America have multiple televisions, air conditioning, cars and other things considered luxuries in some countries.

Yes - Food, shelter, clothes.

And on top of that, the poor in many nations of Europe (plus Candada and others) receive better health care, they live longer, fewer die as infants, they are subjected to less violent crime and they get a better education - including free college.

Thus my rejection of Mitchell's claim that the poor in the U.S. live "a hell of a lot better" than the poor of "any other country on Earth".

It's simply flat-out wrong.