http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/3022
this is not a poll or an opinion or leftwing media.......it is a summary, a visual aid to those who are unable to comprehend the obvious
democrats are better for the market------
if youre going to comment, plz, concentrate, and make a concerted effort to offer an informed and precise opinion based on facts and substance, despite your lack of education and proper upbringing.
2006-09-15
17:15:58
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I'm a Liberal. But even I have to suspect the logic behind using these facts to prove some sort of point. It omits so many things, worldwide economic trends, congress, innovation, chance. Plus its a survey of a handful of presidents. Too small a sample to be statistically significant. Lastly, though each President is either Dem or Rep, each man brought a unique political and economic philosophy to the table.
The only possible conclusion to this study is that it has no importance.
Let's try to keep it real. Let's face it Liberals, we can't out BS the Republicans. Let's stop trying and go back to using what we DO use best, REASON.
2006-09-15 17:24:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Skippy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ha, you posted this article as proof that democrats increase the annual stock return, when in fact the article says itself that in many cases the annual stock return has more to do with the previous administration than the current one. Meaning Clintons profitable return was due largely in part to the fiscal success of his predecessor.
"In fact Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market. The reduction in the tax on capital gains and on dividends was a most welcome development for stockholders. Certainly the excessive government spending under this administration, including sizable deficit spending in Iraq has absorbed a lot of saving that could otherwise be put to work in the stock market. One can blame a bad outcome of the War in Iraq squarely on George W, but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control."
George Bush helped the stock market. Did you catch that? I have a feeling you wouldnt have posted this, being a stubborn liberal, had you read a little more closely. If you have trouble understanding it, it means what he has done has been favorable for the market, and any poor results are not his fault.
2006-09-15 17:22:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by TruthHurts 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Did you READ the SECOND page?????
Let me quote...
"The poor performance of the stock market during these two Republican administrations cannot be pinned solely on the president. Nixon inherited a war in Vietnam that was escalated by Lyndon Johnson. Furthermore, the market endured increasing inflation that was due to bad Federal Reserve policy. Nixon however is to blame for appointing Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a man who did nothing to curb the rampant inflation.
On the contrary, George W is largely blameless for the poor stock returns under his watch. Stocks were in an unsustainable bull market that peaked in March 2000 and then broke just before he was elected President. Bush was sworn in near the top of one of the greatest bubbles in history.
In fact Bush's policies have been very favorable for the market. The reduction in the tax on capital gains and on dividends was a most welcome development for stockholders. Certainly the excessive government spending under this administration, including sizable deficit spending in Iraq has absorbed a lot of saving that could otherwise be put to work in the stock market. One can blame a bad outcome of the War in Iraq squarely on George W, but the poor stock returns under his administration were almost completely beyond his control."
You might like the conclusion of the article as well...wait...it makes too much sense, so you might not.
2006-09-15 17:56:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by kojak0527 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
As you can see from the answers repubs will deny anything that contradicts there fantasy world. Is it any wonder most of them still believe that Sadaam had something to do with 9/11.
2006-09-15 17:20:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by region50 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Blah
2006-09-17 18:08:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
don't confuse a correllation with a cause and effect. Just because the rooster crows every morning doesn't mean it causes the sun to rise.
2006-09-15 17:18:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Brand X 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
i read it...and could not disagree more with your comment. democrats are better for the market. ya.
just like gov't run businesses are better than private. right??? give me a break already.
2006-09-15 17:20:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'm with Al Gore!
2006-09-15 17:21:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by ace 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Grasping at straws.
2006-09-15 17:20:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by Albannach 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Go to bed and sober up!
2006-09-15 17:20:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋