Sturgis wrote: Let's not forget that it was the do nothing presidency of Clinton that started this mess. Because Clinton wouldn't...or couldn't...do his job September 11 became a tragic day.
Bush didn't do his job either, but you conveniently ignore that.
Sturgis wrote:Because of the inadequacy of Clinton the USA has poured tons of money into security measures and paid millions upon millions of dollars to families of victims of the tragedies of September 11, 2001...
Which has what effect on the economy? Next to zero.
The Right keeps putting out this myth that 9/11 was the cause of some kind of economic upheaval. It wasn't.
Economically speaking, all that happened on 9/11 is that two towers full of stockbrokers and bond traders burned down. I am not minimizing the personal tragedy of the people who died, just trying to assess the economic impact. The stock market reopened a week later. The surrounding financial district has blocks and blocks of buildings full of stock and bond traders, and the slack was picked up quickly.
Anybody who doubts this can consider this fact. New York City, home of the World Trade Center, was naturally affected much more by 9/11 than anyplace else. After all, as the financial capital of the world, it is much more dependent on the financial district than anyplace else. Not to mention the ripple effect-most people in the financial field are well-to-do. They spend money on second homes and expensive cars, etc. New York City is going to feel that financial pain many times greater than the rest of the country,
But since New York City has less than 3% of the country's population, for the country to feel any real financial pain from 9/11, you would think New York would be financially devasted.
But New York City only had a rise in unemployment rate of 3% after 9/11. That's all. While that is substantial, the city itself was not even close to financially crippled. And if New York, which depends so much on the financial industry, wasn't cripped, how can anyone make the case that 9/11 hurt the entire country's economy? It didn't even hurt New York City's economy all that much.
Of course, when the unemployment went up through the roof in the early years of Bush's administration, the conservatives all blamed it on 9/11. But now we know that is not the truth. If the economy of the country went down due to 9/11, why wasn't New York City's economy hurt so much worse than it was?
The economic trouble in the early years of the Bush administration are not due to 9/11. In fact, 9/11 had negligible impact on the US economy. As to the extra spending on security-well, that sounds like a new industry to me. Why isn't the GDP higher and why don't we see more more people with jobs?
If you want to criticize, then be prepared to be criticized. 