Xenophon
Gone and forgotten
All of this tells me they didn't need to waste all that money on a 'stimulous' which according to the dems doesn't kick in till next year.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Uh, no. You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.
Here's the way it is. In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats. That is a fact. The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid. It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.
Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong. And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither. Your ways are those of the idealogue. You have become what you hate the most.
This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum." It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts. They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.
Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses. Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts. I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.
I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats. If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.
And I don't hate anybody.
Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot be destroyed, thus attempts to 'save capitalism' are fool's errands.
When you understand simple concepts such as "production" and "consumption" we might listen to you opine about economics. Otherwise, there is no point.
The dow has stayed over 9,000 for a few weeks now as the steady stream of government defecit spending continues. This is good.
Now what happens to us when the interest from this defecit spending catches up to us as our deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, a new record high and 3x where it was in July of 2008?
I can tell you what happens...1 of 2 things will have to happen.
1) Raise Taxes to pay the interest on the debt
2) Allow inflation so that you can increase tax revenues while keeping the tax rates the same.
Its very basic economics.
We should be taking all the money the banks are paying back and some of the money allocated for the stimulus and put it straight on our debt, especially debt owned by foreign nations.
I'm not trying to be a "downer" about this good news for the stock market, i'm just playing chess with the economy instead of checkers.
Uh, no. You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.
Here's the way it is. In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats. That is a fact. The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid. It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.
Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong. And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither. Your ways are those of the idealogue. You have become what you hate the most.
This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum." It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts. They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.
Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses. Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts. I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.
I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats. If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.
And I don't hate anybody.
Damn robots.
You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.
Here's more data for you the chew on:
Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.
Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
Good day.
You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.
Here's more data for you the chew on:
Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.
Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
Good day.
I read your post. And I read the Cato piece. You are data mining. You conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument. Ideologues do that.
Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.
Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.
Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.
except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as wellUh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.
Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.
Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!
I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well
and what we have right now is not thatexcept they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well
The best is when you have gridlock.
And the reason for this is probably because checks in Congress don't allow the other party to go over board and do too many stupid things.
It's one reason why I want the Republican party to be competitive.
You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue. Sad.
Here's more data for you the chew on:
Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
And you call me a Republican? That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter! Very sad indeed.
Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States. That's fine. But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't. Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
Good day.
I read your post. And I read the Cato piece. You are data mining. You conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument. Ideologues do that.
Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans. You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.
Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.
Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.
Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!
I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
Uh, no. Wrong again. You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct. Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s. It just doesn't work that way. And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong. Idealogues do that to prove a point. Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it. Idealogues never do.
Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want. It amuses me.
Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning! Yeah, that's real intelligent!
I am not making an argument about ideology. You are. I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time. I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!" Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats. But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
Not really....
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009
Not really....
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009
Just remember to be intelectually honest chris. Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.
If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.
Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.
And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.