Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Am I the only one that recognizes GWB will be considered a great president BECAUSE
IN spite of all these adversities the country survived!
Am I the only one that recognizes GWB will be considered a great president BECAUSE
IN spite of all these adversities the country survived!
No, you are not the only crazy fuck to believe something like you wrote above.
But at least you will have company when you get put away for treatment of your Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Or should that be your Bush Derangement Fantasy?
Bush = great president? LMAO.
You get an award for typing the most stupid statement I have seen you write. And that's saying something.
But it was funny.
The Iraq war was a huge mistake and didn't have to be, or should have been, launched.Again, no one is claiming Bush could not invade Iraq. We're saying he shouldn't have. The cease fire has nothing to do with that.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...
"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005
So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.
In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.
The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the SecurityCouncil by the Iraqi representative at the United Nations, Abdul Amir al-Anbari. He told reporters that Iraq
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF
OH so the nearly two dozen violations of the 1991 Cease Fire should have been ignored again by GWB?
Didn't seem to work for Clinton and like his wife he had no balls to uphold the Cease Fire even though UN sanctions allowed resumption. Even though terrorists
attacked WTC in 1993. Even though Clinton had Osama in Somalia but because he again didn't have the balls let the guy go.
Holyfuckingshit!Liberal Logic:Utter nonsense. The U-3 has always been the official unemployment rate and still is.Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.The official unemployment rate is the U-3, not the U-6. Always has been since these measurements have been collected. Even worse for your derangement, the U-6 does not measure unemployment. It measures underutilization. And lastly, you were whining about the 93 million who are not in the labor force... what does the U-6 have to do with those 93 million folks?
The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.
"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.
Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
View attachment 70467
Something ALWAYS used by big government, means it is accurate and proper.
DUPED!!!
Whatever Uncle tells you, you will believe.Holyfuckingshit!Liberal Logic:Utter nonsense. The U-3 has always been the official unemployment rate and still is.Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.The purpose of showing "unemployment" rate is to determine the health of the economy. Full employment means everyone has money to spend and take care
of themselves and not be dependent on the government or families.
So politically it is better to show U-3 table as a simple % of civilian labor force.
But reality is the economy stagnate as the people who make up U-6 are People "marginally attached".
As a general practice, discouraged workers, who are often classified as marginally attached to the labor force, on the margins of the labor force, or as part of hidden unemployment, are not considered part of the labor force, and are thus not counted in most official unemployment rates—which influences the appearance and interpretation of unemployment statistics. Although some countries offer alternative measures of unemployment rate, the existence of discouraged workers can be inferred from a low employment-to-population ratio.
"Discouraged workers" Doesn't sound like a vibrant growing economic environment.
Here look at this table from Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization
View attachment 70467
Something ALWAYS used by big government, means it is accurate and proper.
DUPED!!!
The U-6 rate is also from the "big government."
Regardless... it's not an unemployment rate and the official unemployment remains the U-3.
When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
It even says that...The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.
Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.Bush asked Congress for that authority and Congress approved a resolution to allow him to use the military IF he thought Iraq was a threat. Basically, Congress made Bush the decider. So Bush is 100% correct when he said...
"As president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq." - Bush, December, 2005
So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?
LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!
You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!
The Iraq war was a huge mistake and didn't have to be, or should have been, launched.Again, no one is claiming Bush could not invade Iraq. We're saying he shouldn't have. The cease fire has nothing to do with that.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.
In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.
The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the Security
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF
OH so the nearly two dozen violations of the 1991 Cease Fire should have been ignored again by GWB?
Didn't seem to work for Clinton and like his wife he had no balls to uphold the Cease Fire even though UN sanctions allowed resumption. Even though terrorists
attacked WTC in 1993. Even though Clinton had Osama in Somalia but because he again didn't have the balls let the guy go.
When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
Didn't you read your own link?
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.
Spits the moron citing that same "uncle."Whatever Uncle tells you, you will believe.Holyfuckingshit!Liberal Logic:Utter nonsense. The U-3 has always been the official unemployment rate and still is.Except that everyone knowledgeable on the subject, knows the U3 rate is a fraud. It is a rate used to dupe people easily duped by big government propaganda, like you.Complete nonsense. The unemployment rate has always been an indicator of the economy and the U--3 rate has always been the official measurement to determine that. You don't get to switch to a higher rate because you're aggregated a Democrat president got us down to full employment after a Republican president wrecked the job markets.
Something ALWAYS used by big government, means it is accurate and proper.
DUPED!!!
The U-6 rate is also from the "big government."
Regardless... it's not an unemployment rate and the official unemployment remains the U-3.
Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.So if Congress HADN'T voted to grant Bush the authority to go to war...would he have been able to do so? You're right...Congress DID make Bush the decider...and Hillary Clinton was one of those in Congress who voted to do so. If Congress had voted no, Bush wouldn't have had the authority...so that makes Congress just as much of a "decider" as the President!
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?
LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!
You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!
Well there's your opinion.... but then there's every single poll indicating a majority of Americans feel it was wrong and a mistake...The Iraq war was a huge mistake and didn't have to be, or should have been, launched.Again, no one is claiming Bush could not invade Iraq. We're saying he shouldn't have. The cease fire has nothing to do with that.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
I guess you didn't know this but the 1991 Desert Storm war was never over but there was a "1991 CEASE FIRE"!
- Five weeks after the United States and it allies drove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Iraq said yesterday that it will accept United Nations terms for a formal cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war.
In accepting the conditions, the National Assembly in Baghdad, which follows Mr. Hussein's dictates, called the arrangement "unjust," but it acknowledged that Iraq had little choice if it was to avert further degradation.
The message of Iraqi acceptance was delivered in New York to the offices of the U.N. secretary-general and to the chairman of the Security
Iraq accepts U.N.'s terms for cease-fire Strict conditions to be met before allies withdraw WAR IN THE GULF
OH so the nearly two dozen violations of the 1991 Cease Fire should have been ignored again by GWB?
Didn't seem to work for Clinton and like his wife he had no balls to uphold the Cease Fire even though UN sanctions allowed resumption. Even though terrorists
attacked WTC in 1993. Even though Clinton had Osama in Somalia but because he again didn't have the balls let the guy go.
NO here was the big mistake! Idiots like the below and probably you telling the bad guys Americans were the bad guys! You probably agree with these statements
and you along with the terrorists believe them. Consequently as a Harvard study showed you idiots like the below gave encouragement to the bad guys!
Idiots like you and the below telling our troops our country WE are the bad guys and the terrorists are the good guys... was it no wonder idiots like you think
that saving 1.4 million children from starvation was wrong!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "War is lost",
U.S. Rep. Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”
Senator Kerry(D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."
Senator Obama(D) .."troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"
Now I'm going to prove that the above statements were more of a recruiting tool of terrorists because these comments have been shown to increase violence!
This Harvard showed : THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" asked:
"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center
at the university's Kennedy School of Government.
STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across
Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to
information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.
The results suggest that insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal.
So when idiots like you telling the bad guys they are the good guys and all Americans are the bad guys what the hell would you expect???
Holyfuckingshit!When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
Didn't you read your own link?
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.
AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
Didn't you read your own link?
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.
AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are hilarious. I assume you're referring to the coal industry but it wasn't clear. How do you see that as some sort of socialist take- over while accepting the republican calls to allow banks and the entire US auto industry to fail? Ridiculous!Ummm... Liberals only comprise a mere ¼ of the population. Clearly, Obama enjoys success from many moderates and even some conservatives as well.
But thanks for admitting you'll make up any bullshit to prop up your vacuous positions.Much appreciated.
What's amusing is that the only "success" Barry seems to be enjoying at the moment is his job approval, Faun. What else is working for him? Can you name an economic plan to put people back to work that he's the author of? Can you name a spot on the globe that isn't more of a problem NOW than it was when George W. Bush left office? Can you name an Administration was less transparent than this one? Can you name a President who has fostered more of a partisan divide than this one?
Can you name an economic plan to put people back to work that he's the author of?
The American Jobs Act. Scored by the CBO to have lowered the deficit by $6 billion, lowered unemployment nearly .7% and added 1.4% to GDP growth all in 2012.
Now, name one jobs/growth plan put forth by the Repubs that was scored and rated similarly.
Would full passage of Obama’s Jobs Act have added another million jobs?
"Had Congress enacted the full AJA, we project real GDP growth for 2012 would have been 1.4 percentage points higher, bringing growth to 3.4 percent relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast. Nonfarm payroll employment would be more than 1.6 million jobs higher by the end of 2012, and as a result, the unemployment rate would be 0.5 to 0.7percentage points lower..
Obama Jokes at Jobs Council: 'Shovel-Ready Was Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected'
Obama Jokes at Jobs Council: 'Shovel-Ready Wasn't Not as Shovel-Ready as We Expected'
Imagine if the Repubs had decided to work on that. They could have added provisions for streamlining the implementation of the various components of the plan. But why would they? Why would they want to give Obama a bump in an election year? They don't because they put party over people.
What Republican plan was scored and found to be as robust? None. They haven't even attempted anything. Why? So morons like those on this thread can bitch about Obama of course.
The Repubs in hindsight, might have been better served working with Obama as the failings of the establishment are tearing them apart. If they had thrown a few bones out there and promoted a little more general prosperity, they may be in a better position then they find themselves in.
If the GOP were cognizant of Obama's hatred of capitalism as most of us Obama critics are they probably recognized what Obama was doing was building MORE
socialist dependence on the government.
Obama HAS blatantly told Americans he wants to disband 1,400 companies that pay $100 billion in taxes plus employ 450,000 people. That is hatred of companies.
Obama HAS told Americans he wants America dependent on foreign countries for oil. Remember his statement to Brazil "we want to be your biggest customer"! HUH???
Obama has told us he'd like to see utilities go bankrupt and he's actually put into place executive actions to destroy utilities.
Obama has told us he prefers government run programs to privately for profit specifically with Medicare. The GWB 2003 Medicare Modernization Act gave us
Medicare Advantage plans that handle Medicare patients for a flat fee from Medicare. In doing so Advantage plans work to reduce future expenses by education
of their members. As a result, Advantage plans have better health management and consequently lower operating costs and therefore more profits.
BUT Obama hates profits!
Those events NEVER occurred according to you and you call ME CRAZY?????
Better her than Trump or Cruz.Not at all. But I do see where it's difficult to deny a president's request to use the military not long after 9.11.How do you tell the president, "no," when he asks for military strength to enforce U.N. resolutions against a country he's tying to the terrorist group which attacked us on 9.11? Especially since he's saying he doesn't want to go to war, he wants to disarm Iraq.When a president, not long after an attack like 9.11, implores the Congress to give him the authority, if needed, to use the military to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq because they pose a threat and blurs the line between Saddam Hussein (who wouldn't allow inspectors into Iraq) and Al-Qaeda, it's not easy to deny him that. So they gave him the authority to decide.
Even after getting the inspectors back in, he decided to have the U.N. replaced with our military.
Ah, so you're claiming that the Democrats gave Bush authorization because to not do so wouldn't be "easy"?
LOL...the more you on the far left try to make excuses for votes by people like Kerry and Clinton...the more you make the case that they don't have the back bone to ever BE President!
You say no by voting no. You seem to think you say no by saying yes!
So what you're saying is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton took the easy way out instead of doing what was right...but that's the person you want to see sitting in the Oval Office?
Presidents sometimes have to do difficult things. It's the true measure of leadership. They shouldn't "lead from behind" and they shouldn't do things because it's easy!
Better her than Trump or Cruz.
I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about what I said. In stark contrast to the denial you falsely ascribe to me, I actually told you...When do you stop lying? That recession started in March, 2001; not under Clinton.Recession
Are you aware that a recession started under Clinton and became official 3/01 ended 11/01?
Because idiots don't seem to comprehend... RECESSIONS are like large ships.. it takes miles to turn one...i.e. so does a "RECESSION"...
it doesn't just start the day NBER states... it is a slow degradation and it started under CLINTON!!!
Source: USATODAY.com - It's official: 2001 recession only lasted eight months
Didn't you read your own link?
The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn.
AND you again seem to be so f...king stupid! Recessions DON"T start on the day the NBER says! The slow down STARTED under clinton.
FACTS!
Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[3]
Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Faun doesn't want to admit that Clinton rode the Dot Com Boom and THAT boom was responsible for his economic numbers because if you take away Clinton's rosy economic numbers you're not left with much. What's amusing is listening to those on the left that think somehow the economy will duplicate what happened back then simply because another Clinton is in the White House.
While it's true the dot Com bubble helped fuel the economy, it's also true the economy began improving prior to the dot Com bubble.
