Absolutely not. Where did I say anything like that? That's quite a non sequitur. The market has gone up with rising interest rates under Trump...Obama needed ZIRP and tons of QE. I simply said the current president isn't 100% responsible for what goes in his administration...there's previous policies...as well as things completely outside their control (like Clinton getting to ride the internet/tech bubble).
Were Clinton’s policies responsible for the 1990s' economic growth? https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/
Yes, with the privately owned Federal Reserve at their backs. Paul Volker jacked the rate up to 21% after Reagan got into office. In the last election, 85% of Fed employees and officers donated to Hillary, according to Open Secrets, which they get from here. https://www.fec.gov/data/ And they claim to be apolitical. Ha!
The Democrats had been in power for 8 years. One would expect most of the Fed officers and employees to be Democrats.
Correction: My 85% number for Fed donations to Hillary was incorrect. Actually 95% gave to Hillary, according to The Hill. Picture enlarged is poor quality. Also see here: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000043326&cycle=2016 P.S. tommymcginnis: Just in case you are here trolling me, I blocked you last night, so I cannot see your posts.
So a total of $83,270 (I know that's a lot of money to some folks, but it's a minute fraction of a fraction of a percent of total political donations). On a chart listing contributions of $2,000 or more, that makes what, a maximum of 41 people in an organization of 20,000+ employees. I'll do the math there, that's .205% of employees. And you're using that to make an inference of the political leaning of the entire organization? The only legitimate takeaway from that data is that Fed employees are pretty much completely un-involved in political donations. Any other conclusion is an abject failure to understand the most basic tenants of statistics.