Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you think if these money losing plants that build gas hogging SUV's that are destroying the planet were non-union the Democrats would give them our tax dollars so they could continue doing business as usual?

---

No.

---

Who then deserves the credit for this wealth redistribution if not the unions?

--------------------
cecil

Edited by cecil (11/19/08 03:04 PM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Very odd as that is the whole premise of the Democrat platform

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Very odd as that is the whole premise of the Democrat platform

---

Here is a simple fact - the US economy and the US equity markets do no better under Republican rule than Democrat. That is a simple fact of history. And in fact the equity markets have historically performed much better under Dems than Reps. Look it up.

I believe the reason for this is that America is a staunchly capitalistic nation by its nature. The differences between the Dems and Reps is not that great in economic terms. We have not elected some socialistic European government here. The Democratic party is still American and still capitalistic.

Also, the idea of further conservative appointees to the Supreme Court would have been of great concern to me. There are certain to be seats vacated in the coming 4 years.

---

Maybe you should look it up as you are wrong. Pay particular attention the the languishing of the markets during the new deal. They didn't begin to pull out of it until the Eisenhower administration. Now there are many things that play a part, true, but other than the dot.com boom the markets have traditionally done better under those that are not anti business.

You say we have not elected "some European Socialist" no you are right we have elected an American Socialist.

It's easy to look up BTW

http://stockcharts.com/charts/historical/djia1900.html

--------------------
cecil

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Here, enjoy:

Stock markets historically do better under Dems than Reps

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I show you actual numbers and you show me a column by a CNN reporter which quotes a research paper by two university professors. You're right it's pointless.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

but your dig at the unions gives them more credit than is due.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It's not "my" graph it's historical data of the whole market

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It's not "my" graph it's historical data of the whole market

---

I realize that. From my quick glance, it didn't seem to favor the Republicans in the last four decades (from Nixon on 1/20/69 and later)...

Nixon & Ford were pretty much flat. Reagan's first term was good, but not great (much better in 2nd term). Bush Sr did well and Bush Jr. did worse than lousy.

The only two Democrats were Carter (about broke even) and Clinton (great).

Biggest gains were under Clinton and biggest losses were under Bush Jr (the only President in the last 65 years to end his office significantly lower than the start)...

---

So you pretty much make my point that the Markets don't do better under Democrats regardless of what some professors can make out of selected data.

So let's look at it a little closer. I say a little because obviously there are too many things that influence it to go much deeper then the big picture.

You left out the Biggest Democrat of them all FDR who served 4 terms and basically set the agenda that the Democrats still follow to this day for the most part. Four terms of the New Deal and the economy was horrible. We finally got the economy going again by tooling up during the war.

You also left out the Kennedy/Johnson administrations (within which Nixon was sandwiched). The 2nd greatest Democrat was Lyndon Johnson (some would argue the 1st) with his Great Society programs. Take a look at the economy during his reign. Nixon took over and had two wars to deal with one was Nam the other inflation. Remember the Win buttons. Whip Inflation Now. Nixon got thrown out and Carter took up where Johnson left off and inflation went through the roof. Clinton inherited a great economy and it did continue to do well under his leadership. Bush did very well the 1st 6 years under some pretty trying times.

Now let's look at how they governed domestically.

FDR = Big Government
Eisenhower = Built the highway system and played golf
Johnson = Big Government
Nixon = Government guy (Remember wage and price controls?)
Carter = Big Government
Reagan = Small Government
Bush = Government guy 1 term did not do much damage
Clinton = After health care failed "The era of big government is over" was his motto
Bush = Government guy Largest increase in government domestic spending since Johnson took a while but has finally had it's effect.

Edited by cecil (11/20/08 07:36 AM)

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

So you pretty much make my point that the Markets don't do better under Democrats regardless of what some professors can make out of selected data.

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So you pretty much make my point that the Markets don't do better under Democrats regardless of what some professors can make out of selected data.

---

Sorry Cecil, you can't win this one. Professors are professors for a reason. Believe whatever you want, but this time you are wrong.

Article 2

Article 3

Article 4

Article 5

Article 6

---

Interestingly all of the articles refer back to the same data from the same two professors.

I did find one comment that was worthwhile though.

From article #3

"Who's to Blame?

The poor performance of the stock market during these two Republican administrations cannot be pinned solely on the president. Nixon inherited a war in Vietnam that was escalated by Lyndon Johnson. Furthermore, the market endured increasing inflation that was due to bad Federal Reserve policy. Nixon however is to blame for appointing Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a man who did nothing to curb the rampant inflation.


On the contrary, George W is largely blameless for the poor stock returns under his watch. Stocks were in an unsustainable bull market that peaked in March 2000 and then broke just before he was elected President. Bush was sworn in near the top of one of the greatest bubbles in history.


In fact Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market. The reduction in the tax on capital gains and on dividends was a most welcome development for stockholders. Certainly the excessive government spending under this administration, including sizable deficit spending in Iraq has absorbed a lot of saving that could otherwise be put to work in the stock market. One can blame a bad outcome of the War in Iraq squarely on George W, but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control.

Current Outlook

Both the dividend and capital gains tax cuts are due to expire in 2008. The Republicans, despite controlling both Houses, have so far not been able to extend these cuts, not to speak of making them permanent as Bush has repeatedly sought. The Democrats, who are feeling increasingly good about their prospects in November, never liked these Bush tax cuts and are anxious to block them.


This is where politics can really matter. If the Democrats do wrest political control from the Republicans, the extension of these stock-friendly tax cuts in their current form would become highly uncertain. This will be most unfortunate since the dividend tax relief offsets the double taxation of corporate income and eases the burden on retiring boomers who are looking to their portfolio to fund their retirement."

In any even it certainly appears that The One will do well with the markets because after talking down the economy for two years and having his buddies at Fannie Mae drive the financial sector into the ground along with refusing to disavow tax hikes it looks like no one will have anything when he takes office so there will be no where to go but up.

--------------------
cecil

Post Extras: