IBTWAMHH
Women and minorities hardest hit.
The children!
They were left behind because they weren't smart enough to invest in the stock market.
Them's the breaks.
Good Lord, some will always find a silver lining to be too dark.
Because they have little or no skills.
BIAS = Layoffs is missed by brain-dead journalists...
Maybe, but there are a few stunning admissions in the article:
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.
And then the bubble burst...
Now, six years later, the Dow finally has surpassed its old closing high of 11,722.98, ending Tuesday at 11,727.34, thanks to an amazingly resilient economy driven by higher productivity and profits, lower tax rates...
With over 80% of America invested in the market, the 20% commie/leftist/welfare pimps must not have any money invested. Leftists such as moore and babs are making a ton of money though!
LLS
Wow, can it get more pathetic from the leftist rags.
Oh, this is COMICAL! The DOW hits a record in a Republican administration and the MSM trots out the rich are getting richer baloney. How different their tune is from the Clinton bubble in 1999! What's next a story or two about the homeless??
Golly, one of the biggest players left behind in the stock market surge is none other than the Chicago Tribune. They have lost $4 billion in market capitalization in the last two years.
Ah, yes, the Clinton years, when there were no homeless and no poor. They all magically reappeared on January 20, 2001.
This is horse hockey. Millions and millions of Americans are in the markets in one way or another - more than ever before. 401(k)s, 403(b)s through outfits like TIAA-CREF and many others have many average Americans taking part in the equity markets.
As usual, most reporters don't know squat about investing.
They, as a rule, hate people who have money, people who want to have money and each other. They are a pathetic lot.
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.
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.
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.
Like everything else during his regime, it was all smoke, mirrors, and lies.