Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House

    In response to "Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House": [QUOTE]Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House....   While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close. The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday. That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html Posted by Kirk6[/QUOTE] Check the index when republicans are in control of the house Kirk.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House

    Kirk misses the larger point.  the cost of regulation, both Bush and Obama, is making it too expensive to invest in our economy.  Most of this regulation is worthless paper-pushing.  However, someone pays for that paper-pushing.

    The criminalization of failure (or success) also has a high cost.  Who wants to start a company and face the constant paperwork requirements, that if delayed or answered in error could result in jail time?

    But despite all this, to Kirks point, stocks somewhat adjust to the regulatory climate after a few years.  After all, people gotta eat, even with a bad president.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House

    In Response to Re: Stocks do 9 times better with a Democrat in the White House:
    [QUOTE]The Obama budget deficits originated during the Bush presidency... 1. Tax cuts 2001-2002 (4 trillion over 10 years) 2. Prescription drug benefits (1 trillion over 10 years) 3. Economic meltdown of 2008 ( 3 trillion and rising) 4. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (2 trillion and winding down)
    Posted by Kirk6[/QUOTE]

    Kirk, I can tell you are not an economist.  All the items you cite are SPENDING increases.

    Tax cuts, NEVER raise deficts.  SPENDING raises deficits.

    Bush spent money he didn't have.

    Obama spends money he doesn't have.

    That's what gives you deficits.
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share