HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Stocks soar 85% in Obama'...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:16 PM

Stocks soar 85% in Obama's first term

Source: USA Today

Stocks soar 85% in Obama's first term
11:29 AM, January 19, 2013
USA Today

NEW YORK — Despite critics that brand him as anti-business and anti-Wall Street, President Obama's first term in the White House has been bullish for stocks.

The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has risen 85% since Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, says S&P Capital IQ. That stellar return tops first-term gains of Obama's past four predecessors: George. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

Using the Dow Jones industrial average, Obama ranks third in first-term stock performance of all presidents; Franklin D. Roosevelt is No. 1, says Bespoke Investment Group.

On March 3, 2009, six days before the end of the worst bear market since the Great Depression, Obama urged skittish investors to buy beaten-down U.S. stocks. At a time when fear was high and it seemed like stocks would never stop falling, he said valuations "are starting to get to the point where buying stocks is a potentially good deal if you've got a long-term perspective on it."

"You have to give him credit for that market call," says Ed Yardeni, president of investment advisory firm Yardeni Research.


Read more: http://www.freep.com/article/20130119/BUSINESS07/130119018/Stocks-soar-85-in-Obama-s-first-term?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p



Now that's a headline certain to piss off every GOPer on the planet.

44 replies, 5189 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Stocks soar 85% in Obama's first term (Original post)
Bozita Jan 2013 OP
progressoid Jan 2013 #1
zonkers Jan 2013 #2
CountAllVotes Jan 2013 #3
BumRushDaShow Jan 2013 #11
progressoid Jan 2013 #20
graham4anything Jan 2013 #30
MannyGoldstein Jan 2013 #33
graham4anything Jan 2013 #39
progressoid Jan 2013 #35
bloomington-lib Jan 2013 #4
zbdent Jan 2013 #5
Skittles Jan 2013 #6
Rex Jan 2013 #9
Enrique Jan 2013 #14
nobodyspecial Jan 2013 #22
OKNancy Jan 2013 #7
jtuck004 Jan 2013 #29
OKNancy Jan 2013 #38
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #37
Jamaal510 Jan 2013 #8
The Wizard Jan 2013 #17
Dawson Leery Jan 2013 #26
vkkv Jan 2013 #10
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #12
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2013 #13
90-percent Jan 2013 #15
ErikJ Jan 2013 #16
Berlum Jan 2013 #18
pampango Jan 2013 #19
adieu Jan 2013 #21
Politicub Jan 2013 #25
broadcaster75201 Jan 2013 #23
Politicub Jan 2013 #24
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #27
samsingh Jan 2013 #28
question everything Jan 2013 #31
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #32
SheilaT Jan 2013 #34
Vic Vinegar Jan 2013 #36
daleo Jan 2013 #40
CountAllVotes Jan 2013 #42
progree Jan 2013 #44
progree Jan 2013 #43
Sunlei Jan 2013 #41

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:20 PM

1. Great.

Now maybe something can be done for the rest of us that don't have stock investments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:27 PM

2. You know, I never had a "get mine" attitude like so many of my peers and frankly

I think it was a big mistake. It just wasn't instilled in me. And I regret it. Greed and being obsessive about moneymaking are where its at if you don't want to worry about your family and friends' health and future. And being an earner a bizarre amount of respect from others. on edit -- I know people who are pretty much boring, uninteresting and forgettable but somehow having money smooths all that over. Just saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:29 PM

3. that would be nice wouldn't it

Not everyone has the money nor desire to gamble with the Wall Street crooks.

These less than one percent interest rates are doing a hell of a lot of people out there no damn good at all.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:39 PM

11. Pension funds for state, local, & federal govt workers were also invested in the market. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:41 PM

20. 46% of Americans have no investements in the stock market.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #20)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:31 PM

30. a vast majority of regular 99% DO own stock, even if they do not realize it in their benefits

 

in actuary terms, the number is basically constant now for years

when the market goes up, it's a good thing for all.

many people's pensions are also tied directly into the market, depending on where they work and how it's arranged.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:48 PM

33. But very little stock

Bottom line is that working Americans are in year 5 of a depression, while the wealthy were saved through might intervention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 05:43 AM

39. bottom line is ANY forward movement is a helleva lot better than static or backward movement

 

and no reading of anything can say otherwise

and the market is a symbol and the better the symbolism worldwide, the better for ALL citizens of Planet Earth

why is it that some can never admit that things are better now for SOME of the 99% in some areas, and the radius is moving to more and more better as opposed to less and less

stop fixating on a relative few number of people

The old "burn it down", if all the big boys closed, well, there would be NO place for any of those workers in today's situation, to get a job.

What part of REGULAR JOE'S WORKING 9 TO 5 with a family of 4 need those jobs.

Is the cause better for you if those people were also unemployed? or working at Walmart instead?

Why can't you at least admit that 99% of workers in or around the financial market
are JUST REGULAR PEOPLE.
The ones that do the rote jobs and don't make a half million or more.

but make an average NYC salary.

and YES, 9-11 helped bankrupt America.
Not the wars after, but the event itself

As any 9 to 5 who pays monthly bills know
even one month without paycheck is impossible to ever catch up because where does that month come from?

And for all intent and purpose, 9-11 caused buisness nationwide/worldwide to drop for months and months and nobody was able to recover those individual weeks/months

Not to mention most of those who died(almost all, perhaps 99% or more, were REGULAR workers, not CEO's, etc. (Same in Oklahoma, same in the CT school).

Just moms and pops and kids.

Why is it some would love the market to crash or go minus 85% instead of plus 85%???
sheesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:29 PM

35. Ah, the rising tide raises all boats meme.

Unfortunately a lot of us aren't in those boats. We're treading water. And a rising tide just makes us tread water harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:30 PM

4. I don't get why so many wall streeters give to the Republicans when Obama is clearly buttering their

bread. Is everything the republicans do against their best interests?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:49 PM

5. had regained most of the lost ground by the time the Repugs regained the house ...

and then, the recovery stalled, about as much as the Teahadist controllers had stalled legislation.

I mean, it was down to what, 8000 or so by the 2009 inauguration, and was heading toward 12000 a good portion of 2010 ... all through the "hellish days" of Obama (sarcasm) ...

$7,949.09 1/21/2009

$11,124.62 11/2/2010

hovered around 12-13k during Boner's reign ... with the stocks tanking a lot of the times Boner opened his mouth to strike down Obama's ideas ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:54 PM

6. that's pretty good for a socialist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:18 PM

9. IKR!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:57 PM

14. Kenyan anticolonialist Maoism

it's great for business!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:02 PM

22. That's exactly what I was thinking

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:01 PM

7. It's not just the rich who have stock investments

I invest myself with Vanguard mutual funds. I just started doing it in Dec of 2011. Someone above mentioned the crappy interest rates on savings... well my funds last year gained from 9% to one at 16.50%. This isn't counting dividends.
If you are in it for the long-term, it really is a way to build a nest egg. Diversify and even a small investor will benefit.

By the way, don't wish for the market to do poorly. If it does even the little guy suffers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:17 PM

29. >don't wish for the market to do poorly. If it does even the little guy suffers.< B.S.

only worthy of a Leona Helmsley statement.

The market represents money stolen from the labor of the people who really earned it. From child labor and slaves as well as people who work at Walmart or the ones who are burned to death making their clothes, the 10.3 million families considered working poor, and others. It's considered surplus, much like the people who earned it, though more highly valued. "Surplus" is taken from them by a more powerful business and the best government it can afford. The profits go to people like Mi$4 RobMe who declared $240,000 a week from this kind of taking, having never earned a single dollar. Unless one considers the activities of Al Capone or Adolph Hitler or Jamie Dimon or Bernard Madoff working, or earning. Not nearly on the same scale, but a few million people dip their toes into this fetid pool to try and get a better return from than the bank will give them. But even those few drops smell as bad as the whole garbage-filled river.

Surely one here can't think that is free. We lost just over 5 million jobs in the past 4 years, and only gained back slightly more to net a few hundred thousand, and instead supported theft and fraud on a scale never before seen, insured record profits for banks at the expense of hungry children, parents and others without medical care. 50,000 families are being yanked out of their homes every stinking month while another 1,000,000 foreclosures are being filed. We were told that we would do badly if they failed, yet today they are making record profits while millions more families are unable to have food every day in this country than was the case 4 years ago.

I am not beating up on your 9% or 16% returns, because if one has the money one should do something with it. (Could start a community business, for example). But the people getting those returns are very likely profiting from the dismantling of the lives of people around them and us, our neighbors, and the lives of those overseas in almost any "financed" option. To not just ignore it but to suggest that the market going down has anywhere near the effect on a hungry child, one of the :"little people" as it does on someone with mere money invested is offensive, and reminiscent of the mindset of a recent buffoon who told us that 47% of people only do what they do because of gifts. (Because it's a gift to be in or near poverty?).

If they didn't take so much perhaps we wouldn't have the record 47 million people on food stamps. But we gotta pay for the whole layer of people who get paid to get some one decent returns on their takings. I wonder how many factory jobs those returns on the 401K costs, people who are now on unemployment, or nothing, who have no opportunity that they don't have to crawl over the back of 20 million other people to get.

In past years John D. Rockefeller, another person who clawed after profits, encouraged a "good-roads convention, wherein slaves, and prisoners (such as working men who were jailed because they had no job) were put to work doing jobs that replaced higher-paid union labor, when so many people were out of work. Someone working against that injustice wrote:

"This is the first step to serfdom. Shall we stand this or shall we resist it? I realize that every I.W.W. man and woman will answer in chorus that we will resist it, <b>and simultaneously with that breath will come the general philosophical "war dance" form those who are still "not quite down and out" as to "what not to do"</b>.

From Shall We Die Starving, or Shall We Die Fighting", J.H. Walsh, 1908:

What not to do...

I read once that history is not dead, that it's not even past. I keep being reminded of the wisdom of that lesson.

I never wish for the market to do poorly. I do wish that the people who profit from others labor felt a little more like the people from whom the profits were taken, not just for them.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 04:48 AM

38. well

I'm 64.. a retired ballet/dance teacher, my husband is a house painter... so it's not like we are some sort of elites.
House painters don't make a lot, don't get health insurance or benefits, and he works very hard for hourly wages. But whatever... stereotype all you want.

Oh and I did have a business for 35 years... hired people and paid them well, too well according to my accountant.
I had to close up because of this recession. It started going down in 2008, I hung on until 2010 and left with nothing... well except years of reward for what I did for my community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:50 AM

37. The rich own the vast majority of stocks

The top 10% own over 80% of all stock equity.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:14 PM

8. And the Kochs and the Adelsons of America still had the nerve to vote against him?

They're already getting record profits under Obama. What else do they want? I swear, these people are sickos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:30 PM

17. They want cheap labor

and a permanent underclass they can enslave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #17)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:56 PM

26. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:27 PM

10. Miit: "Cut gov't spending on wind and solar power!"


"Because I need my my Chinese investments to pay off!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:46 PM

12. Well, Obama did hire a pro-Wall Street team

When he came into office. Whether stocks go up or down, I don't think there's a single elected official who's not beholden to Wall Street.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leopolds Ghost (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:47 PM

13. In fact, WaPo just wrote a story saying that the purpose of the Treasury Secretary

Is to officially represent the interests of the business and investor class.

This was a front page article on Obama's cabinety picks, I believe...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:11 PM

15. The Congressional height of hypocracy

Unless the law has been recently changed, it is my understanding IT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO USE INSIDER INFORMATION TO BUY THEIR PERSONAL STOCKS.

IS THAT SOME KIND OF IMPUNITY OR WHAT?

-90% Jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:16 PM

16. Corporate Profits Have Grown By 171 Percent Under ‘Anti-Business’ Obama - 1/17/13

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:36 PM

18. Suck on it, Republicans

Despite your endless campaign of fail, American succeeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:38 PM

19. That puts Obama at #3 among all presidents. #1 - FDR with 189% !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 03:02 PM

21. I started by IRA when Clinton

was in office. I did well. Then my IRA went horizontal for most of GWB's two terms. Now, it's back to rising well. I think the take-away from this is: when a Republican is in office, move your savings into bonds and money market. When a Democrat is in office, move your savings into equity and growth.

So far, 2.5% YTD for 2013. If that becomes standard (and frankly, there's no chance of that), it would be 5% monthly for a 60% APR. That would be pretty darn nice, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to adieu (Reply #21)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:54 PM

25. I learned my lesson the hard way. My 401k flatlined and the lost money through GWB's terms

But if you look at the rate of growth graph under Obama, the only direction it goes is up. I believe I got back to the level I was at around 2002, and now it's growing again.

So next time I'll follow you advice. Though I hope I don't have to.

That's my president!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:26 PM

23. TeaBag neanderthals aside

I truly don't understand why business turns against Obama. He is a corporation's dream. A TeaBag couldn't run a corporation to save it's life, but those running corporations aren't entirely bereft of intellect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:51 PM

24. I've been trying to tell everyone this. President Obama has been good for 401k retirement accounts

And that's a big deal to many since we can't depend on pensions any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:57 PM

27. FDR #1, Obama #3 - the two presidents called 'socialist' more than any other in history...

Hm...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:55 PM

28. not bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:34 PM

31. Some will comment that the market was going to improve regardless of

who was in the White House. They made similar claims for the increase in jobs and and improved economy during the Clinton years.

But it was Obama, it was Clinton who presided over these expansions.

Had - heavens forbids - McCain been the president with similar results, the Republicans would have claimed full credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:53 PM

32. Best soshalist/communist/Kenyan/mooslim preznit evah!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:21 PM

34. The stock market does very well when there is a Democratic

President, and very poorly under Republican ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:26 AM

36. stock market

The Stock market is drugged by derivatives trading from the Chicago Exchange. I don't think Obama has much to do with it except maybe very low rates for banks via the Fed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:58 PM

40. To be fair, stocks were at an awfully low level when he started

Last edited Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Though staving off a worse crisis is an important achievement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:17 PM

42. thanks for that reminder

So, I have not really done that bad having suffered no losses during the downturn as I had no money in the stock market.

Since 2008, my IRA is up by 30% almost and it has been in fixed income investments, not this game, one which I don't do well it.

I think I'll just shut up for now and I've noted looking back on a chart from Vanguard that investments have been pretty crummy until this past year, the election year.

I think I'll just forget about it for now and see what happens.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/vanguard/all?reset=true&sort=name&sortorder=asc&assetclass=all

One sample here (mixture of stocks/bonds):

Convertible Securities VCVSX 1 year: 14.47% 5 years: 4.70% 10 years: 8.98% Since inception: 8.32%
(06/17/1986)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #42)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:39 PM

44. Every year under Obama has been a great stock market year except 2011 when it was flat

(I know that bothers some people here, and I'm so extremely very sorry about that)

"investments have been pretty crummy until this past year, the election year"

Actually every year under Obama has been a great stock market year except 2011 when it was flat.
Here is where the S&P 500 index stood at the beginning of each indicated year. (The S&P 500 contains about 75% of all U.S. stocks by market capitalization). Dots in the below are used for spacing because DU software compresses multiple spaces into one space:


....... S&P 500
Year... Index
======== ====
1/1/2009 903
1/1/2010 1115
1/1/2011 1258
1/1/2012 1258
1/1/2013 1426


So in 2009 the S&P 500 went up 23%, in 2010 up 13%, in 2011 up 0%, in 2012 up 13%
Note these are index values and don't count dividends which average about 2%/year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #40)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:10 PM

43. Yup, we have G.W. Bush to thank for that (do people here really prefer a declining stock market?)

# Using the last closing before inauguration (G.W. Bush inaugurated noon Jan 20, 2001, Obama at noon, Jan 20, 2009)
. . # When Clinton left office and G.W. Bush took office, the S&P 500 was at 1343.
. . # When G.W. Bush left office and Obama took office, the S&P 500 was at 850.
. . # Thus under G.W. Bush, the S&P 500 dropped 37%, from 1343 to 850. While under Obama, it rose from 850 to 1486 as of Friday 1/18/13 close, up 75%.

(The above are index values, they don't include the dividends which add about another 2% / year).

Some people in this thread here (not referring to you, daleo) seem to think it is horrible news that the stock market went up under Obama, I guess that's not supposed to happen when a black man is in the WHITE House, huh? Do they think it was really all that better under G.W. Bush when the stock market dropped 37%?? (measured from the beginning of his term to the end of his term)

Yes yes yes, I get it. Most stock market gains go to the wealthy. So to hell with some shlump like me and many other non-wealthy but getting old who are trying to maintain some savings' purchasing value (i.e. at least keep up with inflation) by putting it in some stock index funds. Like over half of working Americans, I don't have any pension benefits coming, so when I'm retired, it will just be my savings and maybe $16,000/year in Social Security (in today's dollars). I am so so so sorry for wanting the stock market to go up, I'm so so sorry. Really I am.

You know what? Most income gains go to the wealthy too. So is it such horrible news that inflation-adjusted income has finally started to turn up too? I mean if it is such a crime against humanity that the stock market is going up because the wealthy get most of that, then it logically follows that it must be a crime against humanity for average incomes to go up (since the wealthy get most of that too).

SHEESH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 07:07 PM

41. I have a little stocks but that return has beat my bank savings account interest return 10 fold.

The corporations are doing great, banks are doing good too.

Banks skim off 2% from every debit card transaction that they control, trickie fees on everything, think they would pay a better interest rate on bank CD and savings accounts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread