Stocks do 9 times better when Democrats are in the White House

[Toddsterpatriot]

81% rise in the DOW over Obama's three years in office sounds good to me. What will the Reps have to run against, if that becomes 100%?

They'll point to unemployment, high gas prices and Obama's general cluelessness.

Going down, annoyance but won't effect many votes and merely your opinion.

$5 gasoline will change votes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

81% rise in the DOW over Obama's three years in office sounds good to me. What will the Reps have to run against, if that becomes 100%?

So wall street is a good thing now? I bet those OWS people will have something to say about that.

 

[ABikerSailor]

They'll point to unemployment, high gas prices and Obama's general cluelessness.

Going down, annoyance but won't effect many votes and merely your opinion.

$5 gasoline will change votes.

The president doesn't control gas prices dolt. It's a combination of the free market, the demand of other countries as well as ours, and whatever the oil companies and the speculators feel like charging.

Zero legislation involved.

Oh yeah..........Newt saying that we can drill our way into 2.50 gas? Pure myth.

 

[mal]

The reason stocks do better under Democrats is that Democrats don't let Wall Street run derivative based Ponzi schemes that destroy the world economy.

Really?... How did Obama stop what Bush was letting happen?...

What was Bush letting happen?...

I want to see what your King did... Link it.

Stocks are doing better because we are coming out of a Generational Correction that Bush didn't Create and Obama isn't Fixing.

Fucking Idiot.



peace...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Going down, annoyance but won't effect many votes and merely your opinion.

$5 gasoline will change votes.

The president doesn't control gas prices dolt. It's a combination of the free market, the demand of other countries as well as ours, and whatever the oil companies and the speculators feel like charging.

Zero legislation involved.

Oh yeah..........Newt saying that we can drill our way into 2.50 gas? Pure myth.

Doesn't matter that he doesn't control prices, clown.
If he did, the price would be $9.

Maybe he should increase federal permits issued, instead of claiming credit for increased production on private land.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Going down, annoyance but won't effect many votes and merely your opinion.

$5 gasoline will change votes.

The president doesn't control gas prices dolt. It's a combination of the free market, the demand of other countries as well as ours, and whatever the oil companies and the speculators feel like charging.

Zero legislation involved.

Oh yeah..........Newt saying that we can drill our way into 2.50 gas? Pure myth.

True and false. The president does not directly control gas prices but his policy can cause the dollar to be devalued and that does affect the price of gas. The dollar becomes devalued when it's over printed.
And obama has done that.

 

[The T]

$5 gasoline will change votes.

The president doesn't control gas prices dolt. It's a combination of the free market, the demand of other countries as well as ours, and whatever the oil companies and the speculators feel like charging.

Zero legislation involved.

Oh yeah..........Newt saying that we can drill our way into 2.50 gas? Pure myth.

Doesn't matter that he doesn't control prices, clown.
If he did, the price would be $9.

Maybe he should increase federal permits issued, instead of claiming credit for increased production on private land.

And any permits that were issued were by Bush...and he took credit for that.

 

[Chris]

 

[The T]

Daily KOS? Really Gracie?

 

[Chris]

Daily KOS? Really Gracie?

You didn't help, being a socialist and all.

 

[The T]

Daily KOS? Really Gracie?

You didn't help, being a socialist and all.

Whatever you wish to belive in your dillusion, Chrissy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Daily KOS? Really Gracie?

Clintons starts 1st term
January 20th, 1993
3,241.95
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=00&e=20&f=1993&g=d

Clinton Starts 2nd term
1-20-1997
6,843.87
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=00&e=20&f=1997&g=d

Bush starts 1st term
1-20-2001
10,587.59
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=00&e=20&f=2001&g=d

Bush starts 2nd term
1-20-2005
10,471.47
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=00&e=20&f=2005&g=d

Obama starts 1st term
1-20-2009
7,949.09
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=00&e=20&f=2009&g=d

LAST CLOSE
13,232.62
1-16-2012
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=^DJI&a=09&b=1&c=1928&d=02&e=20&f=2012&g=d

FACTS

Unless there's a worldwide conspiracy between all the market indexes and the Daily KOS - the factural historical record clearly indicates that the quoted graph is an accurate respresentation of reality. Sorry reality isn't what you'd like it to be MORON

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Daily KOS? Really Gracie?

You didn't help, being a socialist and all.

Whatever you wish to belive in your dillusion, Chrissy.

The graph is accurate.

You can look up the DJIA on January 20th 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2009, and now, yourself, if you'd like. But you won't because that would involved research and facts.


I'm sure its just a liberal conspiracy to fabricate DJIA numbers.

its quite interesting that you could call something that is easily verifiable across multiple resources (practically any news outlet you can imagine in addition to numerous technical journals not to mention the official website of the DJIA itself) FALSe - even though its so obviously TRUE after the bare minimum of research (looking up 6 data points) - just because you don't like it.

It proof that truth is entirely irrelefvant to you. The FACT is that the DJIA is accurately represented by the graph in the quote - and this is backed by actual numbers - yet you ridicule the idea that it could possibly be true! You ridicule the idea that the truth which the blatant factual evidence supports is true! That's FUCKING RETARDED>

 

[Article 15]

You didn't help, being a socialist and all.

Whatever you wish to belive in your dillusion, Chrissy.

The graph is accurate.

The graph is only barely sort of accurate. It only takes into account where the market was at the start of each presidential term and doesn't take into account the fluctuations between terms. You and I both know the line in the graph is not close to what the line in reality looks like when you take these things into consideration.

A more accurate graph would show a higher peak for the Bush presidency and thus a much more precipitous drop when the market crashed. It would also show a lower bottom for the Obama presidency (March 2009) thus a greater incline back to 14k.

 

[Article 15]

216,000 jobs added last month.

3.9 million jobs added since 2009.

Obama is the Democrats Reagan.

3.9 million jobs added since 2009.

And yet, still fewer jobs than the day Obama took office.

It's funny watching someone who knows better pretend that -750,000 jobs/mo is something that exists in a vacuum.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Whatever you wish to belive in your dillusion, Chrissy.

The graph is accurate.

The graph is only barely sort of accurate. It only takes into account where the market was at the start of each presidential term and doesn't take into account the fluctuations between terms.

The graph makes this abundantly clear to anyone with a high school education as it very clearly plots only data points coinciding with Presidential innaugural dates. In this, it is 100% accurate.

You and I both know the line in the graph is not close to what the line in reality looks like when you take these things into consideration.

If I invested $1.00 in the DJIA when Obama took office, it would now be worth $1.66 + dividends paid. That is factually true regardless of the values the DJIA had in between 1-20-2009 and now.

Similarly - if I had invested money when Clinton took office, it would have been worth over double by the time he left office

- AND

if I had invested money when Bush took office - I would have LOST money by the time he left office.

These are facts regardless of the values the DJIA took in between - and its clear (to all but the moronic) that the graph is only attempted to convey the above mentioned data points.

A more accurate graph would show a higher peak for the Bush presidency and thus a much more precipitous drop when the market crashed. It would also show a lower bottom for the Obama presidency (March 2009) thus a greater incline back to 14k.

LOL! Its very revealing that your definition of a "more accurate graph" involves the highest possible point for Bush's term and the lowest possible for Obama!

So - just to get this straight - your counter to the statement
"$1.00 invested when Obama took office would have gained 66% whereas $1.00 invested when Bush took office and taken out when he left would have lost money"
is
"$1.00 invested at the peak of the market during Bush's term would have lost a lot if taken out at the low point of the market during Obama's term"

???

LOL!

The DJIA turned around since MARCH 2009 MORON

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEXDJX:DJI

 

[Valox]

In this thread, liberals arguing that Democrats are great for the one percent.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In this thread, liberals arguing that Democrats are great for the one percent.

The 1%?

Sorry, do you not invest for your retirement? That's something we're all supposed to be doing. Why don't you?

 

[Article 15]

LOL! Its very revealing that your definition of a "more accurate graph" involves the highest possible point for Bush's term and the lowest possible for Obama!

You thinking that my points are meant to reflect positively on Bush and negatively on Obama only reveal your own lack of reading comprehension.

I am arguing that the graph doesn't accurately show how badly the market crashed under Bush nor does it show how steep the incline of the market growth has been under Obama. When Obama took office the market hadn't finished bottoming out yet.

 

[Article 15]

In this thread, liberals arguing that Democrats are great for the one percent.

I am light years away from being in the 1% and I invest in the market.