Stock Markets Perform Much Better Under Democratic Than Republican Presidents

[DippyDem]

This primary season, President Obama has been slammed by Republicans like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum over what they believe to be his anti-corporations, job creation-stifling economic policies.

However, Obama might have some fresh ammunition to fire back at his challengers, at least on the standpoint of the health of the stock market. According to Bob Drummond of Bloomberg , the US stock market has performed significantly better over the past five decades under Democratic presidents than to Republican presidents.

Drummonds cites the results of the Bloomberg Government (or BGOV) barometer, which created a hypothetical $1,000 fund that tracked the S&P 500 (^GSPC ) when Democrats sit in the White House versus when Republicans hold the office.

What the barometer reveals is that when tracking only the years a Democrat was president, starting with John F. Kennedy, the fund would now be worth some $10,920, representing an increase of 992%. Comparatively, beginning with Richard Nixon to the last day of George W. Bush’s term, the fund would only have reached $2,087, which represents a relatively paltry gain of 109%.


Read more: http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/2012/02/23/stock-markets-perform-much-better/#ixzz1pHc4B2DE

A graph from 2008 courtesy New York Times....



What the fugg are the Repigs talking about???? All of their claims that the Repig party is better for business is plain and pure bullshit. As of now the DOW is nearing the highest point ever! Go Obama 2012!!!!! Go Democrats for Senate and House 2012!!!

[no_hypocrisy]

1. To me, I see the electorate following the pattern of "The Goose That Lay The Golden Eggs".

The stockholders and the economy do well under a democratic administration. The republicans come along and say "We can do better, make you richer." And they get elected. They kill the goose with the assumption the gold is inside the bird. And instead of bright shiny yellow metal, all they have is a dead goose with split innards. No gold and certainly no more golden eggs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. So where does this leave Occupy Wall Street?

just askin'

[DippyDem]

6. OWS oughta keep their agenda going!

They complain of bank ripoffs. (Republican bank regulations)
Big business pays less or no taxes (Republicans favor this strategy)
Take more taxes from the less fortunate and cut taxes of the 1% (Proposed by the 3 current candidates for Prez)
The list goes on..... and there's the social agenda such as putting women in their place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I think you miss the point of the OP

The OP is appealing to the audience's sense of matialist wealth by noting that wealth is increased during Democrat administrations.

What the cited article is saying is -- A Democrat in office means better stock market. Better stock market means better money for you. Better money for you means you should vote Democrat. Democrats will make Wall Street profitable.

-- ergo --

If Wall Street are bad, as OWS maintains, then maybe we should vote GOP instead.

[DippyDem]

11. Umm ok we are getting into economics at this point versus OWS.

Democrats have generally put more regulations on Wall Street and Republicans do the opposite.
The greedy Wall Streeters (The 1%) screw things up as evidenced by the 1929 Depression years. At that time you could practically leverage buys to corner a lot of the market. Same thing happened in the Great Recession of last few years concerning the leveraged buys of homes on 3% to no down payment on housing (deregulation of housing finance laws). In both cases the bubble burst and hurt the middle class on down greatly. Now OWS doesn't want to wipe out Wall Street as they know Wall Street is very important to the US. But they do want more measures of fairness and more control (regulations) of Wall Strreer and the 1% (who are actually the greedy ones). Small businesses actually rely on Wall Street to grow their businesses and generate more jobs. They actually provide the bulk of job growth today. No Wall Street means no General Motors, General Electric, no job growth etc. Wall Street, if fairly regulated, does a great deal for the working class. Everyone, if they choose, to can participate to own pieces of businesses (401ks, IRAs and so on). If there is no Wall Street, it's most likely that government will own all big businesses and do we know if the politicians will administer big business fairly for us? Just take a look at China. There are greedy politicians over there and there have been complaints over their dealings. But yes the small businesses over there are generally doing well since the painful conversion from the communist government to socialist and what not. They have a long way to go.

So in my viewpoint, GOP is bad and Democrats is good for us concerning businesses.

[samsingh]

3. that is the cycle of our democracy

the Democratic Party and Liberals improve the economy, bring down the debt and make things better. The repugs or conservatives come in and screw everything up. The Liberals take over and fix things.

repeat.

the conservatives blame everyone else for the crap they cause.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Here is the problem

Every Republican and Republican enabler I know would let their own children starve to death before letting those "other people", get a little something.

That is the mindset we are up against.

Don

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Several Macroeconomic Factors Follow Suit

UE is generally lower, growth higher, inflation lower, money supply smaller (adjusted for population and GDP), velocity higher, and aggregate corporate profitability higher under all Dems since Roosevelt, excepting Carter. (Not blaming him. That's just what the data show.)

So, it makes sense the markets would do better. Of course, conservatives will just ignore the facts. They always have.

[lacrew]

7. I would like to quietly point out that this is an S&P 500 Graph

So a discussion of the DOW seems out of place:

"What the fugg are the Repigs talking about???? All of their claims that the Repig party is better for business is plain and pure bullshit. As of now the DOW is nearing the highest point ever"

[DippyDem]

8. DOW.. is what I use to talk about the market in general but ok

I'll add this..
Under Bush 43, S&P reaches high of 1561 points on Oct of 2007. Then it rapidly declines.
S&P in March of 2009 was 683 points one month after President Obama takes office.
At present time S&P is 1400 give or take a few points, an increase of over 100%. Its near the high point of 2007.

Link to 5 year S&P chart to present day below.

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1331928000000&chddm=493833&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=INDEXSP:.INX&ntsp=0

[lacrew]

10. Well you're not really adding anything

The graph tells the tale of the S&P (you have noticed that the graph is based on S&P, right?).

I'm just pointing out that showing an S & P graph, through the ages, does not logically lead to a statement about the current DOW...a graph of the DOW, through the ages would have been more appropriate.

Now, a caveat: I don't pay much attention to the market, as an indicator of the overall economy...and I think too many 'experts' do. Just this week, somebody on here pointed out that we were 'close to the all time high' in the DOW...my response: we won't see 1,400 this year. And, if we don't, do not worry about it. It has little to do with the overall economy. The market is up, because nothing bears interest anymore - if the economy improves to the point that the FED raises interest...the market will go....down.

I'm going to predict it will be around 1,300 in August...and from there, the progression of the presidential election race will have a large impact - and I can't predict that yet.

[DippyDem]

12. Link to 5 year S&P chart to present day below

The graph tells the tale of the S&P (you have noticed that the graph is based on S&P, right?).

Yes, I pointed that out with this line above.

Ok re; your predictions. Yes I agree that the election of 2012 will have a big impact. Go Dems!