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

[Article 15]

Here's what things really looked like:

 

[Valox]

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?

I invest and have my risk spread out. However, lets look at reality. Most of the stock market is owned by the uber rich which Democrats are championing. While liberal economic policies have brought us anemic growth, they are jumping up and down in jubilation as the rich get richer.

 

[Valox]

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.

Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

 

[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?

I invest and have my risk spread out. However, lets look at reality. Most of the stock market is owned by the uber rich which Democrats are championing. While liberal economic policies have brought us anemic growth, they are jumping up and down in jubilation as the rich get richer.

Most of everything is owned by the uber rich.

That's kinda what makes them uber rich.


Please let's not be fucking stupid.

Honestly, the ownership of the stock market that matters most to me is MINE. If MY stocks are up - I fail to see how the uber rich's stocks being up makes my stocks not be up. Can you please explain?

If you're honestly disturbed by that pie chart you'd favor taxing capital gains as ordinary income while retaining the tax protections offered by IRA and similar accounts.

BTW - "risk spread out" - what crap did you buy recently? Did you invest in gold as it was nearing its peak or something? You don't sound near as happy as the rest of us!

 

[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.

Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

Yeah, I'll take a Girl Scout peanut butter patty but while you are getting it how about acknowledging that a rising tide lifts all boats.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

Yeah, I'll take a Girl Scout peanut butter patty but while you are getting it how about acknowledging that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Job creators create jobs when they have more money - except when blacks, ahem, I mean Dems, ahem I mean commies are in office.

 

[Valox]

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

Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

Yeah, I'll take a Girl Scout peanut butter patty but while you are getting it how about acknowledging that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Got proof?

 

[Article 15]

Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

Yeah, I'll take a Girl Scout peanut butter patty but while you are getting it how about acknowledging that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Got proof?

Got that cookie?

 

[Valox]

Yeah, I'll take a Girl Scout peanut butter patty but while you are getting it how about acknowledging that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Got proof?

Got that cookie?

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Munch on your straw first.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Got proof?

Got that cookie?

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

Munch on your straw first.

Reagan said it so it must be true. he wouldn'tlie

 

[Article 15]

Got proof?

Got that cookie?

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That's absurd.

I can't "prove" that it lifts all boats much like you can't "prove" that the market has been "great" for the entire 1%. It's an expression and you are being purposely obtuse asking for such evidence as you and I both know there are winners and losers every day in the market. The underlying point stands that in general when the market is growing, it is growing for everyone in the market, not just the 1%.

Now give me my cookie.

 

[Valox]

Got that cookie?

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That's absurd.

I can't "prove" that it lifts all boats much like you can't "prove" that the market has been "great" for the entire 1%. It's an expression and you are being purposely obtuse asking for such evidence as you and I both know there are winners and losers every day in the market. The underlying point stands that in general when the market is growing, it is growing for everyone in the market, not just the 1%.

Now give me my cookie.

Spending by the rich has been strong for awhile. Their spending is driven by the stock market. The rich own most of the stock market and when the market does good, then they spend more. This is common sense.

While many Americans are still struggling through the anemic growth policies of the Democrats, the rich have been spending plenty on $800+ shoes.

You are championing anemic growth for most of us while jacking off in jubilation over the rich doing very well due to market gains. The unemployment rate is still high and the LFPR is still at all time low, but according to you, the economy is doing great since the stock market is doing great.

Bull...fucking....shit. The economy still sucks and has hardly kept up with the stock market.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

When did the left become such big fans of wall street CEO's?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That's absurd.

I can't "prove" that it lifts all boats much like you can't "prove" that the market has been "great" for the entire 1%. It's an expression and you are being purposely obtuse asking for such evidence as you and I both know there are winners and losers every day in the market. The underlying point stands that in general when the market is growing, it is growing for everyone in the market, not just the 1%.

Now give me my cookie.

Spending by the rich has been strong for awhile. Their spending is driven by the stock market. The rich own most of the stock market and when the market does good, then they spend more. This is common sense.

The market index increasings is actually a reflection of the rich investing more money in the stock market - not a reflection of them spending more.

While many Americans are still struggling through the anemic growth policies of the Democrats, the rich have been spending plenty on $800+ shoes.

The stock market and the rest of us are confused as to what you are talking about. The economy was shitty when Bush left office. Its hard to imagine how that's Obama's fault.

You are championing anemic growth for most of us while jacking off in jubilation over the rich doing very well due to market gains. The unemployment rate is still high and the LFPR is still at all time low, but according to you, the economy is doing great since the stock market is doing great.

Bull...fucking....shit. The economy still sucks and has hardly kept up with the stock market.

It wouldn't keep up, considering the stock market is a LEADING indicator.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, once you can prove that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That's absurd.

I can't "prove" that it lifts all boats much like you can't "prove" that the market has been "great" for the entire 1%. It's an expression and you are being purposely obtuse asking for such evidence as you and I both know there are winners and losers every day in the market. The underlying point stands that in general when the market is growing, it is growing for everyone in the market, not just the 1%.

Now give me my cookie.

Spending by the rich has been strong for awhile. Their spending is driven by the stock market. The rich own most of the stock market and when the market does good, then they spend more. This is common sense.

While many Americans are still struggling through the anemic growth policies of the Democrats, the rich have been spending plenty on $800+ shoes.

You are championing anemic growth for most of us while jacking off in jubilation over the rich doing very well due to market gains. The unemployment rate is still high and the LFPR is still at all time low, but according to you, the economy is doing great since the stock market is doing great.

Bull...fucking....shit. The economy still sucks and has hardly kept up with the stock market.

Speaking of strawmen you really kicked the crap out of that one.

I'm not arguing that the economy is doing "great", in fact I think it's just in a slow ass recovery. I'm arguing that a rising stock market benefits (in general) everyone invested in it; from Warren Buffet to the entry level employee with a freshly opened 401k.

 

[Valox]

Speaking of strawmen you really kicked the crap out of that one.

I'm not arguing that the economy is doing "great", in fact I think it's just in a slow ass recovery. I'm arguing that a rising stock market benefits (in general) everyone invested in it; from Warren Buffet to the entry level employee with a freshly opened 401k.

I understand your argument, but you obviously do not understand mine. While the stock benefits people who are invested into it, the uber rich primarily owns most of it.

While the stock market has been great for a few select people in which the general populace has benefited marginally from, the overall economy still sucks. While the stock market is doing great, it is not supporting your trickle down theory - the uber rich are not hiring and most Americans are not better off.

Claiming that the stock market is a good indicator of economic well-being is BS.

 

[Valox]

The market index increasings is actually a reflection of the rich investing more money in the stock market - not a reflection of them spending more.

More investment would mean more jobs, yet the UE rate is still the same as when Obama took office with a declingin LFPR.

The stock market and the rest of us are confused as to what you are talking about. The economy was shitty when Bush left office. Its hard to imagine how that's Obama's fault.

I know the economy was shitty when Bush left office and never blamed this on Obama. Stop lying and making shit up, you fucking retard.

It wouldn't keep up, considering the stock market is a LEADING indicator.

The market has been doing great for years, and you fucking rejects have been claiming how well the economy has been doing. You fucking rejects will keep this up until 2016 -17, until the economy finally makes its full recovery, and then give yourselves a self-congratulatory pat on the back for a job well done.

 

[Article 15]

Speaking of strawmen you really kicked the crap out of that one.

I'm not arguing that the economy is doing "great", in fact I think it's just in a slow ass recovery. I'm arguing that a rising stock market benefits (in general) everyone invested in it; from Warren Buffet to the entry level employee with a freshly opened 401k.

I understand your argument, but you obviously do not understand mine. While the stock benefits people who are invested into it, the uber rich primarily owns most of it.

While the stock market has been great for a few select people in which the general populace has benefited marginally from, the overall economy still sucks. While the stock market is doing great, it is not supporting your trickle down theory - the uber rich are not hiring and most Americans are not better off.

Claiming that the stock market is a good indicator of economic well-being is BS.

No, I understand your argument. You are arguing that because the wealthy own most of the stock market that they benefit the most when it rises. Personally, I think that is kind of a "well, duh" point.


However, I do agree that the uber wealthy are not taking their gains and showering them on the rest of America by giving them jobs and I never argued that the wealthy making gains in the market would lead to magical job growth. Personally, I think that in the wake of the market crash corporations have learned that they don't need to hire more people on any kind of a grand scale at all. They are content with keeping their employees constantly in fear of their jobs and doing more work for less......because they can.

 

[Valox]

Speaking of strawmen you really kicked the crap out of that one.

I'm not arguing that the economy is doing "great", in fact I think it's just in a slow ass recovery. I'm arguing that a rising stock market benefits (in general) everyone invested in it; from Warren Buffet to the entry level employee with a freshly opened 401k.

I understand your argument, but you obviously do not understand mine. While the stock benefits people who are invested into it, the uber rich primarily owns most of it.

While the stock market has been great for a few select people in which the general populace has benefited marginally from, the overall economy still sucks. While the stock market is doing great, it is not supporting your trickle down theory - the uber rich are not hiring and most Americans are not better off.

Claiming that the stock market is a good indicator of economic well-being is BS.

No, I understand your argument. You are arguing that because the wealthy own most of the stock market that they benefit the most when it rises. Personally, I think that is kind of a "well, duh" point.


However, I do agree that the uber wealthy are not taking their gains and showering them on the rest of America by giving them jobs and I never argued that the wealthy making gains in the market would lead to magical job growth. Personally, I think that in the wake of the market crash corporations have learned that they don't need to hire more people on any kind of a grand scale at all. They are content with keeping their employees constantly in fear of their jobs and doing more work for less......because they can.

They are not hiring because there is no demand. Inventories increased substantially last quarter. While you are championing about how well the average Joe is doing because of the Stock Market, incomes are stagnant, as well as personal expenditure on consumption.

Real Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCEC96) - FRED - St. Louis Fed

One would figure that people would be spending more if they are doing so well because of the stock market.

 

[Article 15]

I understand your argument, but you obviously do not understand mine. While the stock benefits people who are invested into it, the uber rich primarily owns most of it.

While the stock market has been great for a few select people in which the general populace has benefited marginally from, the overall economy still sucks. While the stock market is doing great, it is not supporting your trickle down theory - the uber rich are not hiring and most Americans are not better off.

Claiming that the stock market is a good indicator of economic well-being is BS.

No, I understand your argument. You are arguing that because the wealthy own most of the stock market that they benefit the most when it rises. Personally, I think that is kind of a "well, duh" point.


However, I do agree that the uber wealthy are not taking their gains and showering them on the rest of America by giving them jobs and I never argued that the wealthy making gains in the market would lead to magical job growth. Personally, I think that in the wake of the market crash corporations have learned that they don't need to hire more people on any kind of a grand scale at all. They are content with keeping their employees constantly in fear of their jobs and doing more work for less......because they can.

They are not hiring because there is no demand. Inventories increased substantially last quarter. While you are championing about how well the average Joe is doing because of the Stock Market, incomes are stagnant, as well as personal expenditure on consumption.

I just got thru saying that incomes aren't growing and hiring isn't happening because corporations know they can get away with not hiring more people and not paying their employees more. They shed all kinds of jobs and are asking more from their remaining employees while not compensating them for it.

Yet, their bottom lines are looking great....

One would figure that people would be spending more if they are doing so well because of the stock market.

You don't spend the money in your recovering 401k or money you haven't taken out of the market.

Personally, I just liquified and am about to purchase a home for the first time in my life. It's gonna beat the hell out of burning money in the form of rent like I have been for the last 10 years.