will the underwear bomber end a presidency?

[PapaBear]

Quote: Originally Posted by woodyaht Boobie, I am really out there So your saying from 2001 to the end of 2007 you lost money in the market? You are really saying that? You really ought to get a new investment banker! Read into what people post, how ever you want. Yes, I know the last year of Bush was a huge collapse......... Duh.........

He must've been heavily invested in politically correct "Environmentally Responsible" green funds I know what happened with my portfolio from 01-07 bears no resemblance with Bob's results...

[Brutuscz]

Economics





George W. Bush is shattering records for the worst first 18 months in office for a U.S. president as measured by the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500. In his first year-and-a-half in the White House, Bush presided over a 36.9 percent decline, almost twice the percentage drop of Herbert Hoover, the president who led the nation into the DepressionHoover recorded an 18.6 percent decline and now ranks third from the worst, with Richard Nixon in second place with a 23.6 percent fall in his first 18 months. In other words, in the 75-year existence of the S&P 500, no president has seen the stock market index fall as much as one-quarter, before Bush’s decline of more than one-third.Ironically, given the Republicans’ business-friendly reputation, the four worst performing stock-market presidents in the first 18 months are all Republicans. Ronald Reagan’s 15.3 percent decline joins Hoover, Nixon and Bush at the bottom. The top two performing presidents, as measured by the S&P in their first 18 months, are Democrats, While almost doubling Hoover’s decline in the S&P, Bush trailed the Depression-Era Republican slightly in the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average, which measures the performance of 30 top U.S. companies. In Hoover’s first 18 months, the Dow fell 24.8 percent. In Bush’s 18 months, the Dow’s , drop was 24.3 percent. [NYT, July 22, 2002]In the 10 trading days since Bush visited Wall Street to promote his economic plans, the Dow has dropped almost 1,500 points or 16 percent. [NYT, July 23, 2002] After the 2004 election, you might recall, President Bush decided to spend his “mandate” pushing a scheme to privatize Social Security and encourage investment of retirement funds in the stock market. Many retirees — and many of those approaching retirement — lost a lot of their private nest egg in the market collapse that began last fall, but the damage would have been greatly compounded had they invested a good portion of their Social Security funds in the market as well. Do I even have to say a word about this stupid nonsense?? Read any damn paper in the country and you know what happened to the stockmarket, retirement acounts, home values etc. This is not a secret...all you need is to be in touch with reality to see it. Unfortunately...the guys here are not. They live in a world of delusion. Good thing their tea-bag party, libertarian votes don't evencount!!

[Brutuscz]

The Democratic DividendThe stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?

By Carol VinzantPosted Friday, Oct. 4, 2002, at 7:15 PM ET


President George W. Bush inherited the lousy end of the business cycle. The stock market has been falling throughout his entire term, battered by war, a feeble economy, and corporate scandals. Yet this decay still hasn't shaken Americans' faith that Republicans are better for the economy and the market. Poll after poll shows that when Americans divide up the chores of running the country, they tend to think of the economy and stock market as Republican domain and delegate softer issues, like the environment, to Democrats.

But Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation. (Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.)


Related on washingtonpost.com
Buy the .

According to almanac editor Jeffrey Hirsch, the presidential party figures are among the most significant he's found. If the stock market were random, we'd expect such a result only one-quarter of the time. "I don't know why people are convinced Republicans are good for the stock market," Hirsch says.
Nor does having a Republican Congress help the market. A Democratic Senate showed returns of 10.5 percent (versus 9.4 percent for a GOP upper chamber), and a Democratic House returned 10.9 percent versus 8.1 percent for the Republicans.
When both houses of Congress opposed the president, the return was a stellar 12.9 percent. Libertarians may celebrate this as proof that the market likes gridlock and government inaction. But the market likes steamrollers nearly as much: The S&P performs almost as well—returning 11.8 percent—when the presidency and both houses are held by the same party. The only situation Mr. Market dislikes is what we have now: one house for each party. Those years have a -0.9 percent return.
Republicans are no doubt muttering that that's just the stock market, not the whole economy. But real GDP growth follows the same pattern. Since 1930 (the first year decent data is available), GDP growth was 5.4 percent for Democratic presidents and 1.6 percent for Republicans.
There may be all sorts of explanations for the bias of the economy and the markets toward Democrats. The worst years of the Great Depression occurred under Republican Herbert Hoover, and Democrats got credit for the entire recovery. Democrats had some awfully good streaks of peace and prosperity in the '30s, late '40s, and '90s. These could be chance, or it could be that Democrats more tightly regulate the markets, which gives investors confidence. Democrats are more likely to spread the wealth around through public spending on education or transportation, which may stimulate the economy more broadly. The foundation of recent GOP economic policy—tax cuts—may offer narrower benefits than Republicans claim. High defense spending, another GOP hallmark, may only boost one sector while hurting the whole economy in the form of bigger federal deficits and higher interest rates.
Whatever the reasons for it, this Democratic dividend should encourage the party's 2004 presidential contenders. They have a new slogan to run on: Democrats—the party of Wall Street.

[woodyaht]

Where'd ja find that wonderful bunch of BS!!!!!! Although he may have had a record defict at that time (your post shows 2004 as the latest info), BO is making that look like a walk in the park, as has been posted time and time again............. Please try to bring up something more current than 2004 graphs

Quote: Originally Posted by woodyaht Although it's obvious you like to live in the past and dwell on such. Some people learn from past mistakes, others don't............... Sucks to be you

Thanks for making this easy.............I rest my case

[woodyaht]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brutuscz By Carol Vinzant Posted Friday, Oct. 4, 2002,

Quote: Originally Posted by woodyaht Although it's obvious you like to live in the past and dwell on such.

You are making this way to easy I rest again

[Brutuscz]

Here ya go...enjoy the truth!!!

George W. Bush leaves office today with the Dow Jones industrial average off 2,306 points from when he took over: The worst performance for any U.S. president.
The blue chips closed Friday -- the last full trading day of Bush's term -- at 8,281, way off of the 10,588 that the index stood at when Dubya took office in 2001.
That makes Bush the first president since Richard Nixon to preside over a declining Dow. In percentage terms, Bush's 21.8 percent Dow drop is the worst showing since an 83.2 percent decline under President Herbert Hoover, whose term included the 1929 stock-market crash.

Please..YOU are making this too easy. Just glad I had a brain and did not vote for this idiot!!!
As far as living in the past...well, people want to keep bringing up the current state of the economy under Obama. You cannot do that without first admitting he was handed the wheel to a sinking ship. He had to do the bailouts to prevent a depression. Not his fault at all. Put the blame where it belongs...then, talk to me about the future with obama. But..you want to keep denying the past..I will keep throwing the truth in your face!!! Bush made the pile of sh!t, and Obama is the guy left holding a shovel. That is the way it is!!! I can promise that if Obama was handed the Clinton Surplus...things would be a million times better.

[PapaBear]

Funny how you managed to skip over the charts I posted up earlier
You know. The ones showing Obaba's budget deficit plans as per his own projections. The ones that make these charts look like the good ol' days

Anyway. You may recall (please refer to your own chart there Bob) that the country entered a recession during the end of Clinton's last year, largely precipitated by the DotComBomb. The massive sell off losses during that time frame put the economy in a shallow ditch and wiped out projected tax revenues for the 2001 fiscal year. The Operating Budget for Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget that Clinton signed and the revenues came up short. That takes care of the first 1/2 of "Bush's first 18 months" of record deficits. He inherited them just like Obama inherited this mess. The second 1/2 of "Bush's first 18 months" was an economic nightmare for one reason and even you should know that. 9-11 tanked the stock market which likewise precipitated a major loss of tax revenue.

After that time frame the economy largely recovered and the stock market resumed an upward trend, reaching record levels for a time. Plenty to argue about as far as the lousy money management of the Republicans during the Bush Presidency, but if you look at the charts I linked to earlier you'll notice that the deficit spending escalated rapidly after 2006... Who took over Congress (where ALL spending happens) in 2006 Bob? Hasn't Nancy Pelosi been at the helm in the House since then??? Pretty sure she has there ol' buddy

Now Obama has inherited a mess his party helped to make even bigger than Bush and the Republicans could have. Don't forget, the massive bailout at the end of Bush's Presidency was something Obama signed off on before his election. Little Timmy Geitner (Obama's #1 Tax Cheat at the IRS) helped to put the plan together. And now Obama, Geitner, and the rest of his Apparatchik are hoping to spend at a rate that is beyond all imagination of anyone who preceded him.

China is afraid to buy our debt now. Their economy is teetering on the brink according to many insiders. The EU has several member nations that are even deeper in the red than we are, and the Euro is in deep chit if things don't turn around there soon. They are demanding that Greece and several others get their Debt ration back under control in order to keep the Euro from going in the tank.

And what is Obama telling us we need to do in order to save our economy? Spend borrowed money faster than anyone is willing to lend it in order to put us at the highest debt ratio in history. How does he plan to finance the debt?

There are 2 basic plans under review. One is to force all 401k and IRA accounts to sell off their stocks and purchase Treasury notes in order to maintain the tax treatment they have now. If anyone refuses to switch their investment accounts into Government Securities they will suffer tax penalties that dismantle all incentive for private investment. The other is to simply seize 15-25% of all Pensions as a "one time tax on the wealthy". Clinton floated that one in the early 90's, but then he lost the House and backed off.

You might want to talk to your "Expert Broker" about what that would do to the Markets. The Crash that crushed the markets in the 30's will look like a walk in the park by comparison. Of course if he really did manage to loose money over the first 7 years of Bush's presidency, you might actually be better off talking to someone else I've never met anyone who invested THAT badly

[Brutuscz]

Quote: Originally Posted by PapaBear Funny how you managed to skip over the charts I posted up earlier You know. The ones showing Obaba's budget deficit plans as per his own projections. The ones that make these charts look like the good ol' days Anyway. You may recall (please refer to your own chart there Bob) that the country entered a recession during the end of Clinton's last year, largely precipitated by the DotComBomb. The massive sell off losses during that time frame put the economy in a shallow ditch and wiped out projected tax revenues for the 2001 fiscal year. The Operating Budget for Bush's first year in office was Clinton's budget that Clinton signed and the revenues came up short. That takes care of the first 1/2 of "Bush's first 18 months" of record deficits. He inherited them just like Obama inherited this mess. The second 1/2 of "Bush's first 18 months" was an economic nightmare for one reason and even you should know that. 9-11 tanked the stock market which likewise precipitated a major loss of tax revenue. After that time frame the economy largely recovered and the stock market resumed an upward trend, reaching record levels for a time. Plenty to argue about as far as the lousy money management of the Republicans during the Bush Presidency, but if you look at the charts I linked to earlier you'll notice that the deficit spending escalated rapidly after 2006... Who took over Congress (where ALL spending happens) in 2006 Bob? Hasn't Nancy Pelosi been at the helm in the House since then??? Pretty sure she has there ol' buddy Now Obama has inherited a mess his party helped to make even bigger than Bush and the Republicans could have. Don't forget, the massive bailout at the end of Bush's Presidency was something Obama signed off on before his election. Little Timmy Geitner (Obama's #1 Tax Cheat at the IRS) helped to put the plan together. And now Obama, Geitner, and the rest of his Apparatchik are hoping to spend at a rate that is beyond all imagination of anyone who preceded him. China is afraid to buy our debt now. Their economy is teetering on the brink according to many insiders. The EU has several member nations that are even deeper in the red than we are, and the Euro is in deep chit if things don't turn around there soon. They are demanding that Greece and several others get their Debt ration back under control in order to keep the Euro from going in the tank. And what is Obama telling us we need to do in order to save our economy? Spend borrowed money faster than anyone is willing to lend it in order to put us at the highest debt ratio in history. How does he plan to finance the debt? There are 2 basic plans under review. One is to force all 401k and IRA accounts to sell off their stocks and purchase Treasury notes in order to maintain the tax treatment they have now. If anyone refuses to switch their investment accounts into Government Securities they will suffer tax penalties that dismantle all incentive for private investment. The other is to simply seize 15-25% of all Pensions as a "one time tax on the wealthy". Clinton floated that one in the early 90's, but then he lost the House and backed off. You might want to talk to your "Expert Broker" about what that would do to the Markets. The Crash that crushed the markets in the 30's will look like a walk in the park by comparison. Of course if he really did manage to loose money over the first 7 years of Bush's presidency, you might actually be better off talking to someone else I've never met anyone who invested THAT badly

Now..I thought the bailouts were a neccesary evil. I hated the thought of them...but, still believed it needed to be done. If we had not done it..things would be much worse right now. It adds to the tons of spending you blame on Obama..but, it was caused by bush. Much of the spending was also related to job creation. You can say it is temporary fix all you like...but, it also needed to be done. The last thing that will be stabilized is unemployement...so, a band aid was needed. In the mean time...projects are getting done. Roads fixed...bridges repaired, and jobs created. Complain about the cost all you like...I would still prefer to see this than my money head to iraq.
My investing?? I put my first house on the market for $440,000....and watched the housing market tumble for 6 months. I finally sold for $348,000. Luckily..I bought at $190K...so, I still made a profit. I was lucky to buy it as a steal. But..should have made more...thanks again to bush and his crappy economy. My retirement accounts are worth roughly half of what they were under Clinton. Can't touch them..and can only hope they go back to where they were. Stocks...I sold most just before they fell. It was not good planning by me, just dumb luck. Had a project and needed to cash in. All family members who held on did nothing but lose under bush.
My expert broker is one of the top 25 in the entire country. Even he lost a bundle in all of this. All I kept hearing is..what the hell is bush doing??? Even though he would never admit it to me..I know he is glad bush is long gone!!!

[woodyaht]

Quote: Originally Posted by Brutuscz Now..I thought the bailouts were a neccesary evil. I hated the thought of them...but, still believed it needed to be done. If we had not done it..things would be much worse right now. It adds to the tons of spending you blame on Obama..but, it was caused by bush. Much of the spending was also related to job creation. You can say it is temporary fix all you like...but, it also needed to be done. The last thing that will be stabilized is unemployement...so, a band aid was needed. In the mean time...projects are getting done. Roads fixed...bridges repaired, and jobs created. Complain about the cost all you like...I would still prefer to see this than my money head to iraq. My investing?? I put my first house on the market for $440,000....and watched the housing market tumble for 6 months. I finally sold for $348,000. Luckily..I bought at $190K...so, I still made a profit. I was lucky to buy it as a steal. But..should have made more...thanks again to bush and his crappy economy. My retirement accounts are worth roughly half of what they were under Clinton. Can't touch them..and can only hope they go back to where they were. Stocks...I sold most just before they fell. It was not good planning by me, just dumb luck. Had a project and needed to cash in. All family members who held on did nothing but lose under bush. My expert broker is one of the top 25 in the entire country. Even he lost a bundle in all of this. All I kept hearing is..what the hell is bush doing??? Even though he would never admit it to me..I know he is glad bush is long gone!!!

Boobie,

We are all glad Bush is gone.

Answer me this one question. Although I ask many questions of you that go unanswered. Answer me this one.

You state the Bailouts were needed. I'll assume your including the Stimulus? Even though, I know you'll claim not..............

HAVE YOU READ THE STIMULUS BILL???????

What was it supposed to stimulate???????????

Why are they speaking of a second stimulus bill to create jobs when they had a first one to do that.........

I know you'll post some BS answer.........

I read quite a bit of the first stimulus bill until I wanted to puke. It didn't inculde zip for jobs.

So you drove through your town and saw roads being worked on.......... How do you know that wasn't allocated funds????????? You see work being done, and you assume that it's stimulus money...........

[Eugeneg]

Quote: Originally Posted by woodyaht Boobie, We are all glad Bush is gone. Answer me this one question. Although I ask many questions of you that go unanswered. Answer me this one. You state the Bailouts were needed. I'll assume your including the Stimulus? Even though, I know you'll claim not.............. HAVE YOU READ THE STIMULUS BILL??????? What was it supposed to stimulate??????????? Why are they speaking of a second stimulus bill to create jobs when they had a first one to do that......... I know you'll post some BS answer......... I read quite a bit of the first stimulus bill until I wanted to puke. It didn't inculde zip for jobs. So you drove through your town and saw roads being worked on.......... How do you know that wasn't allocated funds????????? You see work being done, and you assume that it's stimulus money...........

The world was facing an imminent depression. Stimulus was the agreed
solution by all world leaders. In the US most of the money has been allready spent. A stimulus on improving roads and briges long neglected
is still the only way to go when employment figures are so grim in the world. The unemployed in the US being the hardest hit as the safety cushion of benefits is far lower.
There is a world out there other than the US which the US has no control
over. The DOW dropped in the last few days as did all the markets and the US $ went up. The reason PIGS are in financial trouble worse than the US
driving down the Euro. This in turn raised the price ot the $ which hurts
US manufactoring. By the way PIGS are Potugal , Italy, Greece and Spain.
Very little can really be done by the US administration other than has been done. There is depedence on costly imported oil , costly health care, costly military spending , low or non existant savings , Manufactoring sector that due to automation can overproduce the worlds demands leaving an increasing number of unemployed. Yes there is China that is calling in the worlds diplomats and treating them like school boys.
So if they are talking of a second stimulus bill we are in serious trouble
Regards
Eugene