| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Q: Has the stock market been better, on average, when a Republican or Democrat has been in office? Do you have a chart that shows this?
A: Many investors assume that Republican presidents are better for the stock market. That's not true.
But before I get to the particulars, a disclaimer: This answer is not a political statement. By answering this question, I am merely conveying the cold, hard facts regarding stock price performance under both Republicans and Democrats. I endorse no political party and have no vested interest in the results.
To get the answer to your question, I turned to the respected Stock Trader's Almanac by Yale and Jeffrey Hirsch. This book tracks and organizes historical facts about the stock market, and the 2005 edition addresses your question on page 42.
Using the Dow Jones industrial average as the benchmark, Stock Trader's Almanac shows a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years. The same $10,000 investment during 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. If you adjust for inflation, the value of a $10,000 investment under Democratic presidents is $33,426.The inflation-adjusted value under Republican presidents is $26,145.
Many factors affect these results besides the president's party. The Republicans got a big lift during the Eisenhower and Reagan years. Democrats Roosevelt and Truman benefited from the recovery that followed the 89% fall in the Dow during the Depression. The Democratic lead was solidified by the tremendous run-up in stocks during the Clinton administration. |
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm?POE=click-refer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JustJohn
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Location: Your computer screen
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, interesting tidbit but like the disclaimer said it's pretty meaningless. It might even suggest dems are worse for the economy because economic changes are so slow to take effect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What would it be w/o the Clinton years.
Clinton was a good/ decent president but he was also a lucky president.
He had the benefit of
a) the failure of the Soviets
b) the emergence of the Internet
c) low oil prices
all these things were a great boost to the US economy in the 1990s
Bush whether good or bad was dealt a much more difficult set of cards than Clinton. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Even before Clinton, this same thing has been said in every election year. I guess it was true for most of the last century. It's brought up to counter-act the charge that Democrats are anti-business (because they charge that the Republicans have always been in the pockets of Big Business.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JustJohn wrote: |
| Hmm, interesting tidbit but like the disclaimer said it's pretty meaningless. It might even suggest dems are worse for the economy because economic changes are so slow to take effect. |
Correct.
Every President inherits the economy of his predecessors.
LBJ was able to ride on the mostly healthy economy inherited from Ike and the 50s.
Carter took the blame for the disaster left to him by LBJ and Nixon.
Clinton got the praise for riding on the turnaround begun under Reagan.
Bush has been riding on the remnants of the Reagan and Clinton years.
The next President, whoever it is, will be under fire for the mess left to him by Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The lack of raise in the minimum wage, tax breaks for the super super rich, large amounts of uninsured people, and wars very much destroy the economy.
The poor spend their money because they have too. Everyone wants to keep up with the Jones�s; this boasts the economy time and time again. A center or right of center party (Democrats) are always best for a nation (rich poor everyone). The Democrats are not a left party; a real left party would hurt the productivity of the nation. I agree with the right that socialism does not work but a far right nation does not work either. Balance is the key for growth and Democrats are the party of balance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
