# Dow gains 120 points, Republicans blame Obama



## Chris

Not really....

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.

Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat. 

The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close. 

"The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust. 

CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009


----------



## DiveCon

so it got back what it lost yesterday


----------



## elvis

People are blaspheming the Ossiah?  inexcusable.


----------



## Mad Scientist

Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.

You Libs must be *so proud*.


----------



## xsited1

Profit taking tomorrow.


----------



## DiveCon

Mad Scientist said:


> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.


Chris is hoping they make enough to start paying for HIS healthcare


----------



## Harry Dresden

DiveCon said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris is hoping they make enough to start paying for HIS healthcare
Click to expand...


he is in line right now....


----------



## elvis

DiveCon said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris is hoping they make enough to start paying for HIS healthcare
Click to expand...


His MENTAL healthcare.  Of course, he's so far beyond help, that could run into billions.


----------



## Chris

Harry Dresden said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris is hoping they make enough to start paying for HIS healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he is in line right now....
Click to expand...


No, I pay for my own healthcare and Gunny's.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris is hoping they make enough to start paying for HIS healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he is in line right now....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I pay for my own healthcare and Gunny's.
Click to expand...


Gunny bought his healthcare ahead of time you stupid fuck.  Get Old Rocks' dick out of your ass and stop insulting people just because you're too much of a shitstain to buy your own health insurance.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

DiveCon said:


> so it got back what it lost yesterday



ROFLMNAO...

Isn't it cute?  

the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...  

OK Chris... Let's celebrate!  

WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!

YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!

We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...


----------



## Toro

Mad Scientist said:


> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.



Corporate profits are significantly lower than they were even a year ago.

Of course, a good part of past profits was a mirage in the financial system that have been wiped out forever.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it got back what it lost yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
Click to expand...


The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.







http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it got back what it lost yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS! The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than* it did under Bush*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
Click to expand...

is that really the bar now?


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it got back what it lost yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
Click to expand...


based on what?


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> is that really the bar now?



Pretty much.



elvis3577 said:


> based on what?



Well, not too too much on the current administration.  

The main reason why the market will outperform under Obama than under Bush is because stocks were expensive when Bush took over and were cheap when Obama took over.  So Obama's (and Bush's) actions to save the economy have prevented a melt-down, which means that cheap stocks will become less cheap and do better under Obama than Bush.

The point of all this, however, is for Republicans not to beat Democrats over the head when discussing the market because they will look foolish in the future.  What Republicans should say for posts like the OP is that the market is going up because stocks were cheap, and yes, the policies are helping now but will create problems for the market and the economy in the future.


----------



## AllieBaba

Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.

I guess we were right.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it got back what it lost yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...

Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!

Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...

First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy... The President SIGNS fiscal policy and executes the policy PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE LEGISLATURE...

Second she wants to look at gains...

We should HOPE the market does well... and as one who is ass deep in equities, I'm in that camp; but the Market is due for some gains given it's LOSSES since the LEFTISTS GAINED POWER.

And while it's a delightful little graph which hopes to show how the markets reacts to Republican -v- Democrat Presidents... It should be noted that the Market did its best (according to Toro's little graph, during the period when CONSERVATIVES were passing and implementing FISCAL POLICY!  It's the lovely, but tallest 'white' box... labeled "Clinton."

Now lets look at the NASTY red bastard up front... Democrat Congress, Republican President... the problem here is two fold...  First Hoover signed the Leftist fiscal policy passed by the Democrat Congress... Second, the market was all but wiped out by that policy... and that which preceded it.  Thus the gains represented by the blue box... It shows a 150 percent increase in the overall value of the market... up 150% from damn near nothin'... *and it only took 12 years to do it...*  But it does make a lovely little box... even if it is deceptive as HELL to present it as such.  

But hey... that is the nature of free enterprise... it will adjust to even the most destructive, counter productive policies... _given enough time._  Hell if we hadn't been suckered into TARP and the 'stimulus' absurdity, the Market would have crossed over 12000 a year ago and this whole thing would be over by now... but the world needs to re-learn these lessons, I guess..

Of course, Hussein is a one termer and the Markets will survive his communist ass...  assuming the Leftists in the Legislature can be shut down and aren't allowed to cripple the means of commerce...  

But it'll all come back together once Nature is finished applying her longstanding cure for such...  so don't sweat it.


----------



## Chris

Pubes is up to his old tricks.

The world is changing, but you are still the same.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Pubes is up to his old tricks.
> 
> The world is changing, but you are still the same.



You are changing.  you are becoming more and more of a shitstain by the day.


----------



## Toro

AllieBaba said:


> Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.
> 
> I guess we were right.



We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system.  Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.
> 
> I guess we were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system.  Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but that backstopping started under Bush.


----------



## Toro

Chris said:


> Pubes is up to his old tricks.



I didn't read it since it was longer than a paragraph.  I assume it is some sort of rationalization away why leftism never works or something nonsensical like that.


----------



## Toro

elvis3577 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.
> 
> I guess we were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system.  Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that backstopping started under Bush.
Click to expand...


Absolutely correct.  The Bush administration deserves credit, at least in terms of stopping a collapse.

The question now is what are going to be the after-effects of all this intervention, which will probably be massive.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> So Obama's (and Bush's) actions to save the economy have prevented a melt-down, which means that cheap stocks will become less cheap and do better under Obama than Bush.



Huh... Golly... the market lost >50% of it's value... the non-idiots would define that as a melt-down; thus the leftist policy did not prevent a melt-down... they have however seriously delayed and prolonged the recovery... so ya have THAT goin' for ya.



> The point of all this, however, is for Republicans not to beat Democrats over the head when discussing the market because they will look foolish in the future.



Yes kids... you'll look foolish for crying about Leftist policy because you'd never be able to enjoy the kinds of gains that a good old fashion market crash can produce.

Sadly, most people who wanted to retire on their 2007 portfolios are still working; their nest eggs crippled by the Leftist policy which is 100% responsible for that CRASH.  So that's going to be a tough sell to those folks... but hey... they're old and they'll be dead in a generation, so who gives a rats ass about them and their problems?  (Except the reps and senators presently getting their asses handed to them by those same folks... )



> What Republicans should say for posts like the OP is that the market is going up because stocks were cheap, and yes, the policies are helping now but will create problems for the market and the economy in the future.



The Market is realizing gains DESPITE the Leftist policy in play... NOT as a result of it.  Understand that the Market is reacting to the SLIGHTEST signs that shit is just not getting worse at the same vertical rate that it has for the year...  

But it is wonderful to see these tools celebrating a 9000 pt market, when one wouldn't have to spend MUCH time to find the SAME idiots CRYING that the sky was falling when the Market was climbing past 13000...

Funny stuff...


----------



## JakeStarkey

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> he is in line right now....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I pay for my own healthcare and Gunny's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gunny bought his healthcare ahead of time you stupid fuck.  Get Old Rocks' dick out of your ass and stop insulting people just because you're too much of a shitstain to buy your own health insurance.
Click to expand...


I have the best insurance in the word and two plans at that!  And I don't pay a cent.  I want everyone to have that quality as well.  Yes, the poor are as worthy to have good medical care as you.  Don't agree?  No one of worth agrees with you.


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system.  Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but that backstopping started under Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely correct.  The Bush administration deserves credit, at least in terms of stopping a collapse.
> 
> The question now is what are going to be the after-effects of all this intervention, which will probably be massive.
Click to expand...


what about Keynesian economics, mutlipliers, etc?


----------



## elvis

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I pay for my own healthcare and Gunny's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gunny bought his healthcare ahead of time you stupid fuck.  Get Old Rocks' dick out of your ass and stop insulting people just because you're too much of a shitstain to buy your own health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have the best insurance in the word and two plans at that!  And I don't pay a cent.  I want everyone to have that quality as well.  Yes, the poor are as worthy to have good medical care as you.  Don't agree?  No one of worth agrees with you.
Click to expand...


Lighten up, Ringo.


----------



## AllieBaba

Unfortunately, if you use the government to assure that the poor have health care as well, theirs won't improve...yours will worsen.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes is up to his old tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read it since it was longer than a paragraph.  I assume it is some sort of rationalization away why leftism never works or something nonsensical like that.
Click to expand...


Which explains why Toro is so prone to lie through Pictures...

The truth is that Toro did read it... she simply learned that she lacks the intellectual means to respond with any hope of not looking like a complete dousche-bag on the other side... so she prefers to maintain her semi-dousche argue-by-numbers persona; and that's not an entirely bad thing; at least she's learnin'...


----------



## Toro

elvis3577 said:


> what about Keynesian economics, mutlipliers, etc?



The stimulus will have some effect, but I'm more concerned about the Fed.  It has been the Fed and the guarantees of the financial system that has mattered, not so much the stimulus.  

But the Fed has injected massive amounts of liquidity into the financial system and is unlikely to withdraw it anytime soon.  That makes me worry that we are trying to reflate the asset markets - stocks, bonds, housing, etc. - to save the economy.  I think this could end disastrously if the Fed leaves it too late before withdrawing reserves from the system.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that really the bar now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> based on what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, not too too much on the current administration.
> 
> The main reason why the market will outperform under Obama than under Bush is because stocks were expensive when Bush took over and were cheap when Obama took over.  So Obama's (and Bush's) actions to save the economy have prevented a melt-down, which means that cheap stocks will become less cheap and do better under Obama than Bush.
> 
> The point of all this, however, is for Republicans not to beat Democrats over the head when discussing the market because they will look foolish in the future.  What Republicans should say for posts like the OP is that the market is going up because stocks were cheap, and yes, the policies are helping now but will create problems for the market and the economy in the future.
Click to expand...

isnt that setting the bar very low?


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pubes is up to his old tricks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read it since it was longer than a paragraph.  I assume it is some sort of rationalization away why leftism never works or something nonsensical like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which explains why Toro is so prone to lie through Pictures...
> 
> The truth is that Toro did read it... she simply learned that she lacks the intellectual means to respond with any hope of not looking like a complete dousche-bag on the other side... so she prefers to maintain her semi-dousche argue-by-numbers persona; and that's not an entirely bad thing; at least she's learnin'...
Click to expand...


I love guys like you.  I pick guys like you off all day and make a pretty good living doing so.  Rigidly strident and unable to think outside of a box.  Thank God the PI's of the world exist.

One of Warren Buffett's sayings perfectly describes PI - "There's a fool in every market.   And if you don't know who the fool is, you [PI] are it."


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> isnt that setting the bar very low?



The bar is set very low.  The market set it there.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.
> 
> I guess we were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system.  Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.
Click to expand...


The ONLY thing that has determined that we didn't have a depression is that those who set the titles for such, aren't inclined to lable what we ARE IN as "A Depression."

The Equity Market lost over 50% of it's value; the Real Estate Market is STILL FALLING LIKE A STONE and unemploment is being under-reported by the same people who opt to ignore the Depression label; by any objective standard actual US unemployment is easily 15-20%  and is well over that in the areas of the nation goverened by Leftists...

Had the Federal Government stayed out of the way, the economy would have recovered LONG ago as nearly always the case.

The recession of '22 was worse than the 29 recession by every objective measure and it came and went inside 18 months...  Sadly, like the 29 recession, this one was acted upon by the Fed and enormous Leftist policy and we'll still be ass deep in it, if not in WORSE shape in 10 years...  

An Economy can survive Leftist policy, but an economy cannot thrive under Leftist policy...


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> so it got back what it lost yesterday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
Click to expand...


That chart is pretty much worthless.  Here's a better chart:


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read it since it was longer than a paragraph.  I assume it is some sort of rationalization away why leftism never works or something nonsensical like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why Toro is so prone to lie through Pictures...
> 
> The truth is that Toro did read it... she simply learned that she lacks the intellectual means to respond with any hope of not looking like a complete dousche-bag on the other side... so she prefers to maintain her semi-dousche argue-by-numbers persona; and that's not an entirely bad thing; at least she's learnin'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love guys like you.  I pick guys like you off all day and make a pretty good living doing so.  Rigidly strident and unable to think outside of a box.  Thank God the PI's of the world exist.
> 
> One of Warren Buffett's sayings perfectly describes PI - "There's a fool in every market.   And if you don't know who the fool is, you [PI] are it."
Click to expand...


Ouch.  That's gotta sting.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read it since it was longer than a paragraph.  I assume it is some sort of rationalization away why leftism never works or something nonsensical like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which explains why Toro is so prone to lie through Pictures...
> 
> The truth is that Toro did read it... she simply learned that she lacks the intellectual means to respond with any hope of not looking like a complete dousche-bag on the other side... so she prefers to maintain her semi-dousche argue-by-numbers persona; and that's not an entirely bad thing; at least she's learnin'...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love guys like you.  I pick guys like you off all day and make a pretty good living doing so.  Rigidly strident and unable to think outside of a box.  Thank God the PI's of the world exist.
> 
> One of Warren Buffett's sayings perfectly describes PI - "There's a fool in every market.   And if you don't know who the fool is, you [PI] are it."
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO.. I told ya he reads 'em... 

LOL...

Putz...

Kids... Toro here is probably some series 7 clown workin' the desk at some low rent equity house.  And this should be a lesson to ALL of you who have ever even THOUGHT about walking through the door of such a den of theives... 

This is the level of 'expertise' you're going to find workin' the desk... 

First CLUE: when an equity trader mentions some level of satisfaction that the US Federal government is printing worthless money to 'buy' private companies... RUN! *Do NOT WALK* to the nearest exit; as he ain't the person you need directing you towards sound financial investments.


----------



## DiveCon

xsited1 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That chart is pretty much worthless.  Here's a better chart:
Click to expand...

yup that is a much better graphic
more honest


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> That chart is pretty much worthless.  Here's a better chart:



I can understand why some people who don't like Obama or the Democrats would try to explain it away, but if you are going to bang on Obama for the market, you better be careful because odds are that you will look silly.

Your chart tells you little because it only tells you the past 20 years.  Why limit yourself to a mere generation?  That's about the duration of the average bull market.

Here is the performance of the market from 1901 to 2006 based on political composition of the government.  Generally, the market has done worse under Republicans than under Democrats.






The Big Picture


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> yup that is a much better graphic
> more honest



What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup that is a much better graphic
> more honest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?
Click to expand...


I think they are saying that who has controlled Congress should be taken into account as well as which party controlled the white house.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Kids... Toro here is probably some series 7 clown workin' the desk at some low rent equity house.  And this should be a lesson to ALL of you who have ever even THOUGHT about walking through the door of such a den of theives...
> 
> This is the level of 'expertise' you're going to find workin' the desk...



Hey, you believe whatever you need to believe to help you get through the day PI.  Doesn't matter to me.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is pretty much worthless.  Here's a better chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why some people who don't like Obama or the Democrats would try to explain it away, but if you are going to bang on Obama for the market, you better be careful because odds are that you will look silly.
> 
> Your chart tells you little because it only tells you the past 20 years.  Why limit yourself to a mere generation?  That's about the duration of the average bull market.
> 
> Here is the performance of the market from 1901 to 2006 based on political composition of the government.  Generally, the market has done worse under Republicans than under Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Picture
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO... Hey that some serious out of the box thinkin' ya have there... when your argument is refuted... post another box that RESTATES THE SAME FAILED ARGUMENT.

Again, Toro stated herself that the Market will perform better under Hussein because IT CRASHED!  She wants to ignore that it was leftist policy that crashed it...  even while she touts LEFTIST POLICY MAKERS.


----------



## Toro

elvis3577 said:


> I think they are saying that who has controlled Congress should be taken into account as well as which party controlled the white house.



Sure. Which is why I posted the table above.

But people are taking a highly improbable bet banging on the current President and are likely to be proven wrong 3.5 years from now.


----------



## elvis

Toro said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are saying that who has controlled Congress should be taken into account as well as which party controlled the white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Which is why I posted the table above.
> 
> But people are taking a highly improbable bet banging on the current President and are likely to be proven wrong 3.5 years from now.
Click to expand...


I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit for that.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Isn't it cute?
> 
> the Economy muddles along, DESPITE the punishing, anti-Capitalist policies of this Marxist regime and Chris here wants to Celebrate a 120pt. gain in the equity markets; and this after the LAST round of Socialist Policies caused the Real Estate Market to CRASH, which resulted in that same market tumbling down *FIVE THOUSAND POINTS*...
> 
> OK Chris... Let's celebrate!
> 
> WOO HOO KIDS!  The Market is gaining DESPITE ANTI-MARKET POLICIES which PUNISH PRODUCTIVITY, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and the Unalienable rights of the individual to pursue the fullfilment of one's life through the unfettered use of the product of one's LABOR!
> 
> YEEeeeeeeeeeeee HAAAwww.... Go MARKET!
> 
> We now return you to the regularly scheduled reality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...
> 
> First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy... The President SIGNS fiscal policy and executes the policy PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE LEGISLATURE...
> 
> Second she wants to look at gains...
> 
> We should HOPE the market does well... and as one who is ass deep in equities, I'm in that camp; but the Market is due for some gains given it's LOSSES since the LEFTISTS GAINED POWER.
> 
> And while it's a delightful little graph which hopes to show how the markets reacts to Republican -v- Democrat Presidents... It should be noted that the Market did its best (according to Toro's little graph, during the period when CONSERVATIVES were passing and implementing FISCAL POLICY!  It's the lovely, but tallest 'white' box... labeled "Clinton."
> 
> Now lets look at the NASTY red bastard up front... Democrat Congress, Republican President... the problem here is two fold...  First Hoover signed the Leftist fiscal policy passed by the Democrat Congress... Second, the market was all but wiped out by that policy... and that which preceded it.  Thus the gains represented by the blue box... It shows a 150 percent increase in the overall value of the market... up 150% from damn near nothin'... *and it only took 12 years to do it...*  But it does make a lovely little box... even if it is deceptive as HELL to present it as such.
Click to expand...


I just went and read this post.

This is such bullshit garbage.  Hoover's budgets never accounted for more than 1% of GDP until 1932, the bottom of the Great Depression.  To say that the collapse of the economy was somehow a leftist creation of Congress is just revisionist and regurgitated lies that have been discussed and refuted endlessly, and which I will not do for the umpteenth time with PI.


----------



## Toro

elvis3577 said:


> I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit for that.



I wouldn't necessarily disagree.

People put too much emphasis on politics IMHO.


----------



## auditor0007

Mad Scientist said:


> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.



This is how it works folks.  And nobody deserves credit for any type of recovery.  When we have a recession, companies trim the fat and become leaner so that they can remain profitable.  Once they have cut the fat and become more profitable in a not so great economic environment, then there is extra money for growth.  At that point they beging to expand again, and that is how we come out of a recession.  This is basic stuff.  It amazes me how so many don't get this.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup that is a much better graphic
> more honest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?
Click to expand...

because its dealing with Congress, the folks that actually enact legislation


----------



## DiveCon

auditor0007 said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> 
> You Libs must be *so proud*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how it works folks.  And nobody deserves credit for any type of recovery.  When we have a recession, companies trim the fat and become leaner so that they can remain profitable.  Once they have cut the fat and become more profitable in a not so great economic environment, then there is extra money for growth.  At that point they beging to expand again, and that is how we come out of a recession.  This is basic stuff.  It amazes me how so many don't get this.
Click to expand...

as long as no one is taxing the fuck out of them


----------



## edthecynic

PubliusInfinitum said:


> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...
> 
> First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy...



ROFLMNAO...

Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!

Now President ELECT is a completely different matter. 
If it's a Dem then he is totally responsible for the stock market.  

*November 6, 2008*
RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression.  He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yup that is a much better graphic
> more honest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because its dealing with Congress, the folks that actually enact legislation
Click to expand...


And Congress didn't enact legislation the 100 years prior?

Look at all the years you can, not just the last 20.


----------



## edthecynic

elvis3577 said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are saying that who has controlled Congress should be taken into account as well as which party controlled the white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Which is why I posted the table above.
> 
> But people are taking a highly improbable bet banging on the current President and are likely to be proven wrong 3.5 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and *Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit* for that.
Click to expand...


Undeserved blame is another matter entirely.

Like the people who were blaming the market losses on him BEFORE he was even sworn in are going to suddenly give him credit for the gains. 
They're PROGRAMMED response to any economic progress is "we would have progressed FASTER."


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...
> 
> First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now President ELECT is a completely different matter.
> If it's a Dem then he is totally responsible for the stock market.
> 
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression.  He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
Click to expand...

you clearly have no clue how Rush does his show

you prove it over and over


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?
> 
> 
> 
> because its dealing with Congress, the folks that actually enact legislation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Congress didn't enact legislation the 100 years prior?
> 
> Look at all the years you can, not just the last 20.
Click to expand...

yes, they did
but comparing it to POTUS isnt as clear as congress


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Which is why I posted the table above.
> 
> But people are taking a highly improbable bet banging on the current President and are likely to be proven wrong 3.5 years from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and *Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit* for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Undeserved blame is another matter entirely.
> 
> Like the people who were blaming the market losses on him BEFORE he was even sworn in are going to suddenly give him credit for the gains.
> They're PROGRAMMED response to any economic progress is "we would have progressed FASTER."
Click to expand...

and morons like you dont understand hyperbole


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think they are saying that who has controlled Congress should be taken into account as well as which party controlled the white house.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Which is why I posted the table above.
> 
> But people are taking a highly improbable bet banging on the current President and are likely to be proven wrong 3.5 years from now.
Click to expand...


ROFL...

Well sure...

I mean the guys' running up 2 trillion dollar annual Federal deficits and that is WITHOUT the future Healthcare catastrophe; and who could claim that such fiscal genius could result in ANYTHING but HIGH PROSPERITY!  

Now again friends... One doesn't have to go back TOO far to find these same idiots CRYING in HYSTERICS; claiming that the US was on the precipice of ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE because GW Bush was executing the GWOTon numerous fronts and managing massive natural disasters...  running 300-500 billion dollar deficits; a small fraction of that typical of this administration.

Now just IMAGINE what happens when the US again finds itself with massive natural disasters... The US sustained 5 major hurricanes in 03...  Add THAT to a two trillion dollar deficit... than ADD THAT to run away costs of Socialized Medicine.

It's absurd to believe that such can result in anything but disaster.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> The market will significantly outperform under Obama than it did under Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/64052-stock-market-performance-by-president.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...
> 
> First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy... The President SIGNS fiscal policy and executes the policy PASSED AND IMPLEMENTED BY THE LEGISLATURE...
> 
> Second she wants to look at gains...
> 
> We should HOPE the market does well... and as one who is ass deep in equities, I'm in that camp; but the Market is due for some gains given it's LOSSES since the LEFTISTS GAINED POWER.
> 
> And while it's a delightful little graph which hopes to show how the markets reacts to Republican -v- Democrat Presidents... It should be noted that the Market did its best (according to Toro's little graph, during the period when CONSERVATIVES were passing and implementing FISCAL POLICY!  It's the lovely, but tallest 'white' box... labeled "Clinton."
> 
> Now lets look at the NASTY red bastard up front... Democrat Congress, Republican President... the problem here is two fold...  First Hoover signed the Leftist fiscal policy passed by the Democrat Congress... Second, the market was all but wiped out by that policy... and that which preceded it.  Thus the gains represented by the blue box... It shows a 150 percent increase in the overall value of the market... up 150% from damn near nothin'... *and it only took 12 years to do it...*  But it does make a lovely little box... even if it is deceptive as HELL to present it as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just went and read this post.
> 
> This is such bullshit garbage.  Hoover's budgets never accounted for more than 1% of GDP until 1932, the bottom of the Great Depression.  To say that the collapse of the economy was somehow a leftist creation of Congress is just revisionist and regurgitated lies that have been discussed and refuted endlessly, and which I will not do for the umpteenth time with PI.
Click to expand...


Yet there's nothing on the record where such a refutation has occured...  Now THATS SWEET IRONY right there...  The old "revisionist claiming revisionism...' *CLASSIC!*

All toro needs to do, is post the argument wherein these would-be refutations exist...  

*WARNING: DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH!  Doing so while waiting on a Leftist to support their empty assertions will cause serious bodily injury and/or death!*


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now understand kids... What she wants to point out here are a couple of misnomers...
> 
> First, she wants to point to the "President"....  as if the president sets fiscal policy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now President ELECT is a completely different matter.
> If it's a Dem then he is totally responsible for the stock market.
> 
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression.  He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *you clearly have no clue how Rush does his show*
> 
> you prove it over and over
Click to expand...


Clearly I DO or you wouldn't have replied.

August 26, 2008
RUSH:   "When critics get it right, then you reply," and *when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.*


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO...
> 
> Oh GOD that's PRECIOUS!
> 
> Now President ELECT is a completely different matter.
> If it's a Dem then he is totally responsible for the stock market.
> 
> *November 6, 2008*
> RUSH: The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.  This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression.  He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> *you clearly have no clue how Rush does his show*
> 
> you prove it over and over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly I DO or you wouldn't have replied.
> 
> August 26, 2008
> RUSH:   "When critics get it right, then you reply," and *when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.*
Click to expand...

LOL
thats why everyone laughs at you


----------



## edthecynic

DiveCon said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *you clearly have no clue how Rush does his show*
> 
> you prove it over and over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly I DO or you wouldn't have replied.
> 
> August 26, 2008
> RUSH:   "When critics get it right, then you reply," and *when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> thats why* everyone *laughs at you
Click to expand...


A perfect example of the arrogant pomposity of CON$ervo-Fascist Ditto-Nazis, They have bestowed upon themselves the Right and Privilege of 
SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE.


----------



## DiveCon

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly I DO or you wouldn't have replied.
> 
> August 26, 2008
> RUSH:   "When critics get it right, then you reply," and *when you reply to something they've gotten right, it's evidence that the critic has gotten to you.*
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> thats why* everyone *laughs at you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A perfect example of the arrogant pomposity of CON$ervo-Fascist Ditto-Nazis, They have bestowed upon themselves the Right and Privilege of
> SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

ROFLMFAO

keep doin it, its good for people to laugh


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Yet there's nothing on the record where such a refutation has occured...  Now THATS SWEET IRONY right there...  The old "revisionist claiming revisionism...' *CLASSIC!*
> 
> All toro needs to do, is post the argument wherein these would-be refutations exist...
> 
> *WARNING: DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH!  Doing so while waiting on a Leftist to support their empty assertions will cause serious bodily injury and/or death!*



I understand that you have to regurgitate lies to support your ideological worldview, since you offer no actual facts and misunderstand basic terms and even a cursory understanding of economics, otherwise your life falls apart.

But consider that even the world's most acclaimed conservative economist - Milton Friedman - disagrees with your bizarre and laughable theories.



> As a result of examining more closely the key years between 1929 and 1933, Friedman and Schwartz first concluded that the Great Depression was not the necessary and direct result of the stock-market crash of October 1929, which they attribute to a speculative investment bubble. (The popping of the bubble may have been instigated by the Federal Reserves raising of the discount ratethe interest rate the Fed charges on loans to commercial banksin August 1929. The cause of the speculative bubble that led to the crash is a somewhat controversial topic. Whereas Friedman and Schwartz accepted that the bubble was caused by investors, seemingly endorsingat least partlythe Keynesian animal spirits explanation, Austrian economists have argued otherwise.) In fact, they believed that the economy could have recovered rather rapidly if only the Fedthe central bank of the United States had not engaged in a series of disastrous policies in the aftermath of the crash.



The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

So you run off back to your intellectual masturbation with your John Birch Society readings and have at 'er.  I wouldn't want your head to explode.


----------



## Diuretic

Mad Scientist said:


> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> .......



You worked it out!  You know how it goes, a corporation lays off hundreds of workers and its stock price goes up!  Amazing innit?


----------



## editec

Toro said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Republicans said the fear mongering about a huge "Depression" was just that.
> 
> I guess we were right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We didn't have a depression because the government massively backstopped the financial system. Had we done nothing, then we almost certainly would have had a depression.
Click to expand...

 
There's still time, have no fear of that.

It is probably that for some classes in this nation we are now in and will continue to be in something that feels like a depression for some time.

But for other classes the current economic downturn will probably mitigate in the near futures.

Basically we Americans no longer really have one fate when it comes to the economy.

How often have we seen this in the last 40 years? Wall Stret is _a go go_, while Maine street is all _a no go?_

That' is the nature of our economy, now. Our economy really doesn't exist as one thing.

My economy and Bill Gate's economy are wildly different beasties.

His is an international economy while mine is a very localized one.

His fate and mine are hardly tied together, and neither are the classes within American facing the same economic fates.


----------



## Diuretic

ed the mechanism might have been saved from destruction.  The mechanism may gradually return to its former functional ability.  That is distinct from how it affects individuals.  I think Obama and his administration - and to be fair Bush and his administration and Bernanke and the rest - may have saved the mechanism from destruction.


----------



## editec

Diuretic said:


> ed the mechanism might have been saved from destruction.


 
_Whose _mechanism, Di?



> The mechanism may gradually return to its former functional ability.


 
My point is that the system was already disfunctional for more than half the population.

they saved (or are trying to save) a system that wasn't serving most of us very well to begin with.

Now I am not saying that if they'd done nothing it wouldn't have gotten worse.

But I am saying that the system they are trying to save needs to be changed, not reconsituted.





> That is distinct from how it affects individuals.


 
I'm not talking about individuals. I'm talking about classes of Americans numbering 150,000,000 or more of us.




> Obama and his administration - and to be fair Bush and his administration and Bernanke and the rest - may have saved the mechanism from destruction.


 
Me, too.

They are trying to save the cozy (read corrupt and immoral) system that served them so well, without doubt.

What they don't apparently understand is that you cannot fuck over half the population and expct the system to keep working.


----------



## Diuretic

Capitalism ed - it has been saved.


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That chart is pretty much worthless.  Here's a better chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand why some people who don't like Obama or the Democrats would try to explain it away, but if you are going to bang on Obama for the market, you better be careful because odds are that you will look silly.
> 
> Your chart tells you little because it only tells you the past 20 years.  Why limit yourself to a mere generation?  That's about the duration of the average bull market.
> 
> Here is the performance of the market from 1901 to 2006 based on political composition of the government.  Generally, the market has done worse under Republicans than under Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Big Picture
Click to expand...


Uh, no.  You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.

Here's the way it is.  In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats.  That is a fact.  The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid.  It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.  

Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong.  And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither.  Your ways are those of the idealogue.  You have become what you hate the most.


----------



## Diuretic

I think Toro lives in Florida.

It's a damn sight warmer than Sask.  I thought they were taking the piss out of me when they told me why they have those little plug thingies on the front of their cars - frozen oil????


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's more honest by taking a mere 20 years worth of data?
> 
> 
> 
> because its dealing with Congress, the folks that actually enact legislation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Congress didn't enact legislation the 100 years prior?
> 
> Look at all the years you can, not just the last 20.
Click to expand...


LOL...  So Toro posts a graph which sets the market performance against the PRESIDENT over the measured period TORO produced in his graph...  

Another member comes to post a graph of the same period, which shows the Market performance relevant to legislative majorities...  THEN Toro complains that 'THAT measured period can't really show the whole story... '

Now friends, let's be honest... Toro is a 'statistical liar...'   and it's just really no more complex than THAT; and you know what they say about those that use statistics to lie!

LOL... 



Leftists...

(Next we'll have Toro complaining that she's being unfairly characterized as a Leftist... and after only promoting 'the sound fiscal policy of Hoover and FDR and setting up two graphs to prove that the Left produces superior market growth...)

Sadly, the truth  is the where free market capitalism has built a strong market, Collectivist, anti-Capitlaism policy comes along and crashes that market and the Left then wants to look upon the increase in Market value from the point where they crashed it and ONLY TAKE CREDIT FOR THE GAINS...  

Yep... That's a Leftist alright... she's ALL about the rights and NEVER ABOUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THOSE RIGHTS!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet there's nothing on the record where such a refutation has occured...  Now THATS SWEET IRONY right there...  The old "revisionist claiming revisionism...' *CLASSIC!*
> 
> All toro needs to do, is post the argument wherein these would-be refutations exist...
> 
> *WARNING: DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH!  Doing so while waiting on a Leftist to support their empty assertions will cause serious bodily injury and/or death!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that you have to regurgitate lies to support your ideological worldview, since you offer no actual facts and misunderstand basic terms and even a cursory understanding of economics, otherwise your life falls apart.
> 
> But consider that even the world's most acclaimed conservative economist - Milton Friedman - disagrees with your bizarre and laughable theories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a result of examining more closely the key years between 1929 and 1933, Friedman and Schwartz first concluded that the Great Depression was not the necessary and direct result of the stock-market crash of October 1929, which they attribute to a speculative investment bubble. (The popping of the &#8220;bubble&#8221; may have been instigated by the Federal Reserve&#8217;s raising of the discount rate&#8212;the interest rate the Fed charges on loans to commercial banks&#8212;in August 1929. The cause of the speculative bubble that led to the crash is a somewhat controversial topic. Whereas Friedman and Schwartz accepted that the bubble was caused by investors, seemingly endorsing&#8212;at least partly&#8212;the Keynesian &#8220;animal spirits&#8221; explanation, Austrian economists have argued otherwise.) In fact, they believed that the economy could have recovered rather rapidly if only the Fed&#8212;the central bank of the United States &#8212;had not engaged in a series of disastrous policies in the aftermath of the crash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Great Depression According to Milton Friedman | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
> 
> So you run off back to your intellectual masturbation with your John Birch Society readings and have at 'er.  I wouldn't want your head to explode.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...

SO you contest my argument; that the Fed and US Federal Policy (disasterous policy inacted by the Democrat controlled Congress and signed by then President Hoover & later FDR...) that the recession of 29 would have been but a blip on the economic radar and not turned into a global depression had *Leftist policy not been implemented...* and you seek to prove your argument by referencing Friedman and company who subscribe to my reasoing...  

LOL... BRILLIANT!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Diuretic said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations make money while unemployment remains high.
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You worked it out!  You know how it goes, a corporation lays off hundreds of workers and its stock price goes up!  Amazing innit?
Click to expand...


Yeah, it likes MAGIC!

Of course the purpose of a Corporation is to make profits...  and NOT to provide jobs.

Leftists erroneously 'feel' that the purpose for a Corporation is to provide a job to anyone who 'needs' one.

LOL... but that's what makes them so precious!


----------



## anna

The messiah is a  charlatan!!!!   A fraud, a phony, and a phucking quack!!!!  Are you proud now white liberal america???? The blacks had an excuse to be duped by hussein!! What the phuck was yours???


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Diuretic said:


> Capitalism ed - it has been saved.



Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot be destroyed, thus attempts to 'save capitalism' are fool's errands.

In point of FACT, what was 'saved' were the corporate institutions which are propping up the House of Economic-cards built by the US Federal Reserve and the World Bank... The psuedo-capitalist institutions which deal out the Fascist Cards from the Progressive Deck; thus, what was "saved" was Fascism.

Remember friends... Progressives long ago came to understand that the cooperative nirvana was a human impossibility...  that the only means to sustain the pie in the sky social contract which they falsely believe is the scientific answer to all human ills, is through the productive means of 'controlled capitalism'...  thus they spent the world into bankruptcy to once again stave off the inevitable collapse of the aformentioned house of Socialist-cards.

Remember the Fascist formula... when times are good those institutions make money from the market, when times are bad those institutions GET money from the Government...

Thus the natural formula of risk/benefit-v-loss is out the window for those institutions; which ultimately proves their unsustainability; which proves that they should not exist and which proves that as long as they exist the market which they serve is doomed to failure.

But hey... to fix it all that has to happen is the entire economy built around them has to be scrapped and a new one developed from the ground up... its no biggy really.

Nature will work it all out as she always does... and of course the few surviving leftists will blame it all upon CAPITALISM... and its inherent flaws.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Diuretic said:


> I think Toro lives in Florida.
> 
> It's a damn sight warmer than Sask.  I thought they were taking the piss out of me when they told me why they have those little plug thingies on the front of their cars - frozen oil????



ROFL...  Florida has just about as many Candians living here as does Canada... 

Being a Cannukistani would explain Toros tendency to reject any thought which can't be expressed in 10 words or less... or a pretty colored picture; and the oxymoron found in the term "Canadian Capitalist" is HYSTERICAL!


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> Uh, no.  You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.
> 
> Here's the way it is.  In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats.  That is a fact.  The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid.  It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.
> 
> Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong.  And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither.  Your ways are those of the idealogue.  You have become what you hate the most.



This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum."  It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.  They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.

Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses.  Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts.  I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.

I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats.  If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.

And I don't hate anybody.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot be destroyed, thus attempts to 'save capitalism' are fool's errands.



When you understand simple concepts such as "production" and "consumption" we might listen to you opine about economics.  Otherwise, there is no point.


----------



## DavidS

DiveCon said:


> so it got back what it lost yesterday



Actually, it's getting back what it lost under Bush.


----------



## Xenophon

All of this tells me they didn't need to waste all that money on a 'stimulous' which according to the dems doesn't kick in till next year.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.
> 
> Here's the way it is.  In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats.  That is a fact.  The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid.  It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.
> 
> Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong.  And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither.  Your ways are those of the idealogue.  You have become what you hate the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum."  It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.  They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.
> 
> Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses.  Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts.  I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.
> 
> I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats.  If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.
> 
> And I don't hate anybody.
Click to expand...


So what Toro wants is for people to disregard her ideologue deceptions... Which is fair enough for me...

The fact is that whether working under the rubric of "Republican" or "Democrat" any policy which discourages the freedom (Leftist Policy) causes the equity markets to contract and policy which reflects American principle encourages the growth in equity markets...   PERIOD.

Toro is a leftist, who prides herself on being half-right and half wrong at all times... this on the erroneous premise that 'no one can be right all the time'...  Naturally such a premise is half wrong all the time, so she finds great pride in her .500 average.

All Capital markets will expand under periods where the immutable rights of humanity are recognized and defended and they will recede when those rights and the responsibilities inherent in those rights are ignored.

The current economic crisis is 100% a function of those rights and responsibilities being ignored... as is the case in every instance of such crises.

It's no more complex than that... the problem is that despite the simplicity of these circumstances, such falls well beyond the means of the average leftist intellect to comprehend...  which provides yet another example of why leftists should never be allowe within 10 miles of a voting booth; they simply lack the intellectual means to understand the principles at play.

Nothing new here...  I mean Toro is apparently a CANADIAN, she isn't even a US Citizen, let alone an AMERICAN!  So who gives a fuck what this piece of shit feels about anything?

Is there ANYTHING more useless than the ignorant based opinion of a CANADIAN?

ROFL... Get serious... they're CHILDREN, for God's sake...   There are no adults in a socialist society... and onyl fools give two shits about what children 'feel'...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism is the natural order of economics... it cannot be destroyed, thus attempts to 'save capitalism' are fool's errands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you understand simple concepts such as "production" and "consumption" we might listen to you opine about economics.  Otherwise, there is no point.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO... So what Toro is saying is she *wants *to respond to the referenced assertion, but she is simply unable to do so...; as she has learned, that to engage an American is to LOSE!  Thus she trots out these addle-minded, irrelevances... in hopes of changing the subject.  But that's a Canadian for ya... 

The fact remains that Capitalism is the natural order and cannot be destroyed... PERIOD!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

The dow has stayed over 9,000 for a few weeks now as the steady stream of government defecit spending continues.  This is good.

Now what happens to us when the interest from this defecit spending catches up to us as our deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, a new record high and 3x where it was in July of 2008?

I can tell you what happens...1 of 2 things will have to happen.

1) Raise Taxes to pay the interest on the debt

2) Allow inflation so that you can increase tax revenues while keeping the tax rates the same.

Its very basic economics.  

We should be taking all the money the banks are paying back and some of the money allocated for the stimulus and put it straight on our debt, especially debt owned by foreign nations.

I'm not trying to be a "downer" about this good news for the stock market, i'm just playing chess with the economy instead of checkers.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The dow has stayed over 9,000 for a few weeks now as the steady stream of government defecit spending continues.  This is good.
> 
> Now what happens to us when the interest from this defecit spending catches up to us as our deficit is 1.7 trillion dollars, a new record high and 3x where it was in July of 2008?
> 
> I can tell you what happens...1 of 2 things will have to happen.
> 
> 1) Raise Taxes to pay the interest on the debt
> 
> 2) Allow inflation so that you can increase tax revenues while keeping the tax rates the same.
> 
> Its very basic economics.
> 
> We should be taking all the money the banks are paying back and some of the money allocated for the stimulus and put it straight on our debt, especially debt owned by foreign nations.
> 
> I'm not trying to be a "downer" about this good news for the stock market, i'm just playing chess with the economy instead of checkers.



Sadly, taxes can't be raised sufficiently to keep up with the interests on such absurd levels of debt.. as to do so would crush the possible levels of productivity and kill the economic potential... thus inflation will go hyper and it will soon cost $100 for a loaf of bread..

The US is certifiably doomed, as an economy... the only hope we have is that there remains sufficent levels of testosterone in the US for Nature to implement her time tested cure for such catastrophic cultural turns wherein the US culture goes to war to eliminate the Leftists among us and comes out on the other side, once again a free nation.

If not we'll be invaded by a nation with sufficient levels of such and become THEM!


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  You have an excuse for posting the same old garbage over and over again because you live in Canada, but you really should stop it because it just makes you look stupid.
> 
> Here's the way it is.  In the United States, the market has done worse under the Democrats.  That is a fact.  The reason why you want to limit the data to 20-25 years is because there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and older data is simply not valid.  It is obvious by your posts that you want the Democrats to look better than the Republicans when it comes to the economy, but the data doesn't show that.
> 
> Again, I can understand your position because you live in a country that approves of such things as Keynesian economics and Nationalized everything and you sincerely want to believe that Canada has it 'right', but you are simply wrong.  And before you use the excuse again that I am some kind of Bush-loving Republican, note yet again that I am neither.  Your ways are those of the idealogue.  You have become what you hate the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while from a poster not named "PubliusInfinitum."  It demonstrates, yet again, that people should not listen to ideologues because ideologues will continue to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of the facts.  They will twist whatever data they see to fit their worldview because they can't bare to face the facts that their cherished beliefs just might be wrong.
> 
> Stocks have done better under Democrat Presidents than Republican Presidents, and under Democrat Congresses than under Republican Congresses.  Stick your head up your ass as far as you want, but that doesn't change the facts.  I'll take my data from a reputable firm such as Ned Davis Research than an ideologue with a political axe to grind.
> 
> I couldn't give a damn about Republicans or Democrats.  If it comes across that I support the Democrats more than the Republicans that is only because Republicans here post more stupid shit than Democrats, like this post above.
> 
> And I don't hate anybody.
Click to expand...


You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue.  Sad.

Here's more data for you the chew on:

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

And you call me a Republican?    That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter!  Very sad indeed.

Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States.  That's fine.  But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't.  Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.

Good day.


----------



## david85282

Damn robots.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

david85282 said:


> Damn robots.



yeah... but they do the very BEST they can... GOD BLESS 'EM!...  

LOL...
.
.
.
.
Leftists...


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue.  Sad.
> 
> Here's more data for you the chew on:
> 
> Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
> 
> And you call me a Republican?    That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter!  Very sad indeed.
> 
> Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States.  That's fine.  But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't.  Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
> 
> Good day.



I read your post.  And I read the Cato piece.  You are data mining. You  conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument.  Ideologues do that.  

Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans.  You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue.  Sad.
> 
> Here's more data for you the chew on:
> 
> Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
> 
> And you call me a Republican?    That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter!  Very sad indeed.
> 
> Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States.  That's fine.  But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't.  Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post.  And I read the Cato piece.  You are data mining. You  conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument.  Ideologues do that.
> 
> Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans.  You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.
Click to expand...


Uh, no.  Wrong again.  You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct.  Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s.  It just doesn't work that way.  And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong.  Idealogues do that to prove a point.  Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it.  Idealogues never do.

Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want.  It amuses me.


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> Uh, no.  Wrong again.  You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct.  Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s.  It just doesn't work that way.  And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong.  Idealogues do that to prove a point.  Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it.  Idealogues never do.
> 
> Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want.  It amuses me.



Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning!    Yeah, that's real intelligent!

*I* am not making an argument about ideology.  *You* are.  I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time.  I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.

You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!"  Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.

There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats.  But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  Wrong again.  You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct.  Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s.  It just doesn't work that way.  And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong.  Idealogues do that to prove a point.  Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it.  Idealogues never do.
> 
> Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want.  It amuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning!    Yeah, that's real intelligent!
> 
> *I* am not making an argument about ideology.  *You* are.  I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time.  I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!"  Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
> 
> There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats.  But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
Click to expand...

except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
when either party has full control they dont do well


----------



## Toro

DiveCon said:


> except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
> just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
> when either party has full control they dont do well



The best is when you have gridlock.

And the reason for this is probably because checks in Congress don't allow the other party to go over board and do too many stupid things.

It's one reason why I want the Republican party to be competitive.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> except they havent done better under dems when a dem was in the whitehouse as well
> just like they did better when the GOP had congress and the dem had the whitehouse
> when either party has full control they dont do well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best is when you have gridlock.
> 
> And the reason for this is probably because checks in Congress don't allow the other party to go over board and do too many stupid things.
> 
> It's one reason why I want the Republican party to be competitive.
Click to expand...

and what we have right now is not that
and since it was by far better with the GOP in charge of congress(where control really is) and the Dem as POTUS, then we have to hope that the GOP can get its collective head out of its collective ass and get back control of at least the house


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't read my post which proves that you're the idealogue.  Sad.
> 
> Here's more data for you the chew on:
> 
> Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary
> 
> And you call me a Republican?    That reminds me of the time you disagreed with one of my posts and went off claiming that I was a Bush supporter which had absolutely nothing to do with the argument and I'm not even a Republican or have ever been a Bush supporter!  Very sad indeed.
> 
> Now seriously, I forgive you for not understanding the data or understanding the political parties in the United States.  That's fine.  But don't act like you know what you're talking about because you don't.  Unfortunately, you're just crawl back under your idealogical rock and believe whatever your masters tell you to believe.
> 
> Good day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read your post.  And I read the Cato piece.  You are data mining. You  conveniently pull out data that suits your own argument.  Ideologues do that.
> 
> Simple fact - stocks have done better under Democrats than Republicans.  You can spin it all you want, but them's the facts.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...  now that's SWEET IRONY right there!  A gal whose entire schtick is represented by posting GRAPHS accusses her opposition of mining data...  A stat-liar...  "mining data"...

ROFL...  Oh GOD!  That's precious...


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  Wrong again.  You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct.  Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s.  It just doesn't work that way.  And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong.  Idealogues do that to prove a point.  Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it.  Idealogues never do.
> 
> Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want.  It amuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning!    Yeah, that's real intelligent!
> 
> *I* am not making an argument about ideology.  *You* are.  I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time.  I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!"  Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
> 
> There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats.  But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
Click to expand...


Oh but you ARE making an ideological argument... as you always do.  You're simply, as you always do, trying to conceal your ideological failure, through the tepid appearance of 'analyzing data.'  Sadly for you, stoic analysis of data doesn't conceal your intent when your data consistantly props up a laughably discredited economic scheme.

Leftist economics CAN NOT SUCCEED in doing ANYTHING except discourage the growth of capital...  and why is that?  Because Leftist economics STEALS CAPITAL to fund productivity killing SUBSIDIES!  Subsidies which the Leftist use to garner POWER.  No Subsidies... No Leftist POWER!  Leftist schemes discourage independence, thus they discourage initiative, which further discourages independence... Leftist schemes sets obstacles in front of entrepenuers, traps which make it far less likely for the INDIVIDUAL to step out of dependence and pursue the fulfillment of their lives...  thus Leftist economics discourages, from the most basic level; that of the individual, to establish themselves as independent of the need of any subsidy... subsidies which are funded through the allianace with global corporations; which the leftist policies seek to sustain... as those corporations are the engine which drives the fascist 'social contract;'  that which provides the funding for the aforementioned subsidies.

Thus where data is said to bolster the conclusion: 'Equity markets under Left control out perform equity markets under American control...' which is to say control by those who implement policy that cuts restrictions to individuals seeking independence... cuts financial liabilities to individuals, reduces the burden of government regulations...  then such Data is most certainly being misrepresented.

Now you've admitted the basis for this early on in this thread; where you stated that the reason that the market will outperform under the Marxist Hussein, is because the shares are cheaper than they were under the previous administration.

Now the reason, which you overtly omit, that the shares are cheaper; is that *LEFTIST POLICY FORCED THE MARKET TO CRASH*...  

Specifically the Leftist polciy which forced lenders away from sound acturial lending practices, into practices which were not sound; which provided for ridiculously easy access by the unqualified, to highly sought financial instruments; instruments which loaned enormous sums of money which was secured to real-estate; the Ideological left further GUARANTEED these loans, in the face of *the mathematical certainty* that there existed insufficient means for ANYONE, which includes the US Federal Government, to come anywhere CLOSE, to even BEGIN to execute such a GUARANTEE; and when that certainty, that such a policy would drive the cost of real-estate beyond the means of the market to sustain those costs... the Leftist policy then *FORCED* the system to crash...  Meaning there was no other potential alternative....  but that the Lending industry and the equity markets tied directly to it MUST CRASH to correct for the unsustainable over-valuation...

Now the 5 trillion dollars paid by the US Federal government in TARP and the bailout schemes amounts to a tiny FRACTION of those guaranteed liabilties; and what's worse is that those subsidies have sustained the same players which FAILED TO REJECT THE ABSURDLY FOOLISH POLICY BEING FORCED UPON THEM BY THE LEFT; thus leaving the SAME players in play, who are just as certain to do the SAME DAMN THING, *AGAIN*... only next time on a much more egregeously fragile economy... and this due to the simple fact that the same over-priced instruments are STILL IN PLAY; STILL WORKING AS A MASSIVE DRAG ON THE ECONOMY.

Of course, HAD those lenders *NOT* allowed the Left to force such policy onto the system, there would have been no bubble to crash... HAD the AMERICANS not allowed the Left to bail out companies which had dishonored their fiduciary responsibility to NOT depart from sound lending practices; there would be no MASSIVE DRAG REMAINING TO DRAG THE MEANS OF THE ECONOMY TO PERFORM... thus recover... 

It's not a complex calculation Toro...  The Left is 100% responsible for that recession; and they're 100% responsible for the DEPRESSION resulting from their having sustained the drag which prevents the economy from recovering.

Thus the reason that the MARKET 'outperforms' under Leftist governance is that *THEY CRASHED THE MARKET!*

Now when one causes MASSIVE LOSSES... One can't then turn around and CELEBRATE the GAINS which are part and parcel of the market simply returning to where it was previous to the CRASH THEY CAUSED!

And THAT is what you're arguing... and given that you've CHRONICALLY declared yourself an EXPERT in all matters economic... its not reasonable to believe that you could be missing this OBVIOUS, UNAVOIDABLE, INCONTESTABLE, IRREFUTABLE POINT... thus given your self declared expertise, you're then necessarily *OMITTING* THAT POINT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE; ergo... you're a LIAR, of the Leftist (delusional) idealogical variety...  whose ONLY potential defense here, is that you're not really an expert in such matters... just a common leftist dousche-bag, who's out to bolster a wholly discredited economic scheme.


----------



## xsited1

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  Wrong again.  You can insult me all you want, but it won't change the fact that what I have posted is correct.  Again, I don't expect you to understand the fact that there have been significant changes in the Democrat and Republican parties over the years and you cannot simply group, say, Democrats of the 40s with those of the 90s.  It just doesn't work that way.  And the data is very clear for the past 25 years, but you are trying to throw extraneous data into the mix which clearly does not belong.  Idealogues do that to prove a point.  Again, you have become what you hate the most, but you will never see it.  Idealogues never do.
> 
> Now please continue with your insults and calling me a Republican or a Bush supporter or whatever you want.  It amuses me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, like your "You are Canadian" line of reasoning!    Yeah, that's real intelligent!
> 
> *I* am not making an argument about ideology.  *You* are.  I am merely stating facts and I am not passing any judgment on ideology or agenda on any political party at any time.  I have merely shown that for as long as data has been collected - and I have the daily data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average going back to 1896 - that stocks have outperformed when Democrats are in charge.
> 
> You, on the other hand, are rationalizing political agendas. "Well, they really weren't Republicans back then like they are today!"  Frankly, I don't care, but I do know that generally, Republicans are and have been pro-business while Democrats less so.
> 
> There are reasons why stocks have generally done better under Democrats, and those reasons aren't necessarily flattering to Democrats.  But people in ideological straight-jackets are more concerned about getting into political pissing matches than actually learning things that can help them make money.
Click to expand...


Yes, I see your problem very clearly now.  In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well.  Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid.  That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment.  That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.  

*Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.*

But I do see another problem which I've already discussed.  You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue.  This is an even bigger problem.  Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message.  However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off.  I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways.  In the meantime, good luck to you.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

ROFLMNAO... I love how this thread was moved off the table, to a lower profile forum.

But... that is a fair indicator that the left has had their ass handed to them... when a comrade finds such is sufficiently obvious that they need to concela that loss by moving it.

LOL...


Leftists...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Chris said:


> Not really....
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
> 
> The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
> 
> Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
> 
> The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
> 
> "The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
> 
> CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009



Just remember to be intelectually honest chris.   Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.

If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.

Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.

And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
> 
> The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
> 
> Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
> 
> The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
> 
> "The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
> 
> CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just remember to be intelectually honest chris.   Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.*
> 
> If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
> If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.
> 
> Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.
> 
> And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.
Click to expand...


But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

edthecynic said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
> 
> The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
> 
> Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
> 
> The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
> 
> "The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
> 
> CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just remember to be intelectually honest chris.   Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.*
> 
> If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
> If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.
> 
> Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.
> 
> And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.
Click to expand...




That was a good one....funny stuff you should take that on the road and start a comedy tour.

Go read some of my bush bashing over the stimulus plan and then come back and post again assumption master.


----------



## edthecynic

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Just remember to be intelectually honest chris.   Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.*
> 
> If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
> If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.
> 
> Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.
> 
> And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But of course, you right wing zealots don't have to be "intellectually honest" you can blame the bad economy on Obama before he even takes office and deny him credit after he takes office and the economy improves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a good one....funny stuff you should take that on the road and start a comedy tour.
> 
> Go read some of my bush bashing over the stimulus plan and then come back and post again assumption master.
Click to expand...


What does Bush have to do with the fact that CON$ were blaming the bad stock market on Obama BEFORE he took office claiming the market was reacting to what he planned to do and then being intellectually dishonest by not giving him credit now that it is headed up again???

Obama Recession in Full Swing
*November 6, 2008*
RUSH: *The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. * This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.  *

January 15,2009
RUSH:   * It's entirely fair to call this Obama's stock market because it's reacting to what Obama's plans are for the economy.* *It's not reacting to Bush.  Bush isn't on anybody's mind here.  *
*Financial markets are a rough predictor of future economic performance, and based upon what the markets know of Obama's plans,* it's giving him a failing grade.  I'm not being political.  The markets deal in bottom lines.  It takes the pulse of millions of investors, both in this country and abroad, to report the results, unfiltered.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Let me be the douchenheimer and answer you with a question

Since when did anything cons do have to do with my postings that you deemed "far right"?

I wasn't saying those things then, i was the guy saying "NO BAILOUTS F-U-BUSH then the guy saying WTF OBAMA CUT THE BUSH SPENDING HABITS OUT NOW!!!!" so WTF is your problem?

I've been consistent....i've been angry at bush for not paying down the debt when he had the opportunity prior to the beginning of 2007 and i'll be just as angry at obama for continuing to increase my country's debt.....debt only serves to pull wealth out of our nation.


----------



## edthecynic

elvis3577 said:


> I think the stock market will make big gains over the next few years and Obama will get a lot of undeserved credit for that.



Obama Recession in Full Swing
*November 6, 2008*
RUSH: *The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen.  Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. * This is an Obama recession.  Might turn into a depression. * He hasn't done anything yet but his ideas are killing the economy.  His ideas are killing Wall Street.  *

January 15,2009
RUSH:   * It's entirely fair to call this Obama's stock market because it's reacting to what Obama's plans are for the economy.* *It's not reacting to Bush.  Bush isn't on anybody's mind here.  *
*Financial markets are a rough predictor of future economic performance, and based upon what the markets know of Obama's plans,* it's giving him a failing grade.  I'm not being political.  The markets deal in bottom lines.  It takes the pulse of millions of investors, both in this country and abroad, to report the results, unfiltered.[/quote]



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really....
> 
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks sustained gains Wednesday after the Federal Reserve held interest rates near historic lows and signaled the economy has finally started to stabilize.
> 
> The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 120 points, or 1.3%, giving up bigger gains. The S&P 500 (SPX) index rose 11 points, or 1.1%. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) advanced 29 points, or 1.5%.
> 
> Wall Street rallied leading up to the Fed announcement as signs of improvement in the housing market pushed investors back into stocks following a two-day retreat.
> 
> The market seesawed a bit after the announcement, with the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 pushing toward fresh 2009 highs, before trimming those gains by the close.
> 
> "The Fed reinforced what investors already knew, that the economy has gotten a little better," said James Barnes, fixed income portfolio manager at National Penn Investors Trust.
> 
> CNNMoney.com Market Report - Aug. 12, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Just remember to be intelectually honest chris.   Now ANYTHING that happens to the economy is 100% obama's baby according to you.*
> 
> If it keeps getting better its because of Obama's Plans
> If it gets worse its because of Obama's plans.
> 
> Just wait until his record national defecit and debt spending catches up to us......just remember when it does who made it happen, Obama.
> 
> And I hope I'm wrong about that last bit and he actually decides to make the cogress pay down the debt.
Click to expand...




PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Let me be the douchenheimer and answer you with a question
> 
> Since when did anything cons do have to do with my postings that you deemed "far right"?
> 
> I wasn't saying those things then, i was the guy saying "NO BAILOUTS F-U-BUSH then the guy saying WTF OBAMA CUT THE BUSH SPENDING HABITS OUT NOW!!!!" so WTF is your problem?
> 
> I've been consistent....i've been angry at bush for not paying down the debt when he had the opportunity prior to the beginning of 2007 and i'll be just as angry at obama for continuing to increase my country's debt.....debt only serves to pull wealth out of our nation.



You keep trying to change the subject away from the "intellectual honesty" you require of Libs but have not required of any CON$ on this thread who deny credit to Obama for the improved market after already having blamed him BEFORE he even took office.

Only a CON$ervative zealot would try to pass themselves off as "consistent" because they were angry at Bush but who express no demand for CON$ to have the same "intellectual honesty."

Had you demanded the same "intellectual honesty" from those who said Obama will get "UNDESERVED CREDIT" for the improving economy, then I would buy your "consistency" claim.


----------



## Toro

xsited1 said:


> Yes, I see your problem very clearly now.  In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well.  Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid.  That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment.  That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.
> 
> *Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.*
> 
> But I do see another problem which I've already discussed.  You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue.  This is an even bigger problem.  Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message.  However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off.  I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways.  In the meantime, good luck to you.



And in the investment business, we have a name for guys like you: Unemployed.

You have made this into a political pissing match.  They werent really Republicans then! They werent really Democrats then! You dont understand the parties! They were different!  Youre Canadian! Yeah, yeah, as if all that matters.  

The data is useless!  No, the data is not useless.  You do not understand it, and you appear to understand even less all the variables surrounding the outcome and the context in which it is set, which is odd given that you are in the scientific community.

Its amusing to have you lecture me about the uselessness of data when you present financial market returns for a mere 20 years, and then somehow ascribe that to politics.  What a joke.  If an analyst came to me with an investment idea on the market based on 20 years of data, Id throw him out of my office.  Presenting such limited data without understanding context, history, and extraneous forces is exactly why Wall Street totally fucked up the financial crisis, and why your argument is irrelevant.

Back before we collapsed, I used to listen to Wall Street rocket scientists with no understanding of financial history try to sell me structured finance products.  They would tell me why I should buy a swap with underlying collateral of a collateralized debt obligation rated AAA constructed out of mezzanine subprime residential mortgage backed securities. In English, that means they wanted me to invest in subprime bonds.  They based their argument just like you have   over the past 20 years, the default rate for subprime mortgages had been 5%-7% on average, and for the AAA CDO security they were pushing to lose money, the default rate would have to be 40%, a once in 20,000 year event.  This was even more unlikely given that home prices had risen for 60 years.  

Well, we know how that turned out, dont we?  

Those guys who tried to sell me the CDO, the guys who tried to sell me a product based on 20 years worth of data, have been fired, as have thousands like them.

Looking at 20 years worth of data can not only be useless in finance, it can give you completely wrong conclusions because there are many variables.  For someone like yourself in the scientific community, it is akin to identifying a variable you want to test but not controlling for any other variables.  That is why saying You dont understand the political parties!  You can only look at 20 years of data! is a simply flat out wrong.  It is irrelevant.  There are so many variables outside of politics that making such a statement is not only pointless, it is dangerous.

But hey, Im willing for you or anyone to step up and prove me wrong.  This discussion started with me saying to PI that the market will perform better under President Obama than under President Bush.  If you think I am wrong, put your money where your mouth is.  Walk the talk.  Enter into a swap with me.  I say the market will do better under Obama than it did Bush.  Email me and we can set this up.  If you want to trade against me and think you can outsmart me in the markets, Im more than happy to oblige.  

Here is the performance of the market under Bush from when W was inaugurated.  







And here is the performance of Obama since he was inaugurated.  Its still early and there is still 3.5 years (or more) to go.






Now, if it were true that what really mattered to market performance was policy and ideology  as you are arguing  and that short time periods are the proper time frames to judge performance, then lets look at how socialist countries have done.  We all know, after all, that socialism is bad and freedom is good, at least when it comes to the performance of capital markets, and that this truism is universal and applicable everywhere all the time.

Here is the performance of the US stock market when Bush was President relative to the socialist countries of Sweden and France.  The white line is Sweden, the green line is France, and the red line is the US.

_<Oops!  Graph to come!>_

The socialist countries did better than the American market when Bush was President!  My, oh my!  How ego-deflating!

Lets look at another socialist country Canada, where they have, as you said, Keynesianism and have nationalized everything!  Canada is the white line, the US is in green.  Look at how much better those socialists did than America under Bush!  It must be painful for a freedom-loving American ideologue to see Canadian socialists do so much better!






Heck, here is Venezuela  home of the Bolivaran Revolution  compared to the US under Bush!  Venezuela is white, the US green.  Its not even close.






But you keep comforting yourself with your beliefs xsited.  You keep thinking that what really matters are ideology and the policies of the political parties.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

I think ed has a learning disability that prevents him from grasping an ENTIRE post before he blathers off on something that would make no sense in the FULL CONTEXT of my post.


----------



## pete

> Oil prices also shed $4 a barrel as the Reuters/University of Michigan consumer sentiment survey showed a growing number of Americans grew increasingly worried over jobs and wages. Its preliminary reading of the index of confidence fell to 63.2 from 66.0 in July, well below market expectations for a reading of 68.5.
> 
> The weak data eclipsed reports that showed U.S. industrial output gained for the first time in nine months and that inflation was muted in July. For details, see [ID:nN14304812]
> 
> "The consumer confidence number weighed heavily on the market's thinking today and added to concerns that the market has rallied too far, too fast against the growth outlook," said Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer at Clearbrook Partners in Princeton, New Jersey.



GLOBAL MARKETS-Stocks, oil fall as US consumers' mood sour | Markets | Markets News | Reuters


----------



## pete

> The Dow Jones industrial average fell 76.79, or 0.8 percent, to 9,321.40 after falling as much as 165 points after the consumer sentiment survey was released.



The Associated Press: Stocks drop as investors worry about consumers

So much for the gain!


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see your problem very clearly now.  In the Scientific community, we have people like yourself as well.  Your problem, in this case, is that you are assuming that 'Republican' and 'Democrat' mean the exact same thing throughout history and so therefore your data is valid.  That's like including data for a day when the laboratory equipment was out of calibration because, after all, it's the same laboratory equipment.  That's just silly, but understandable since you are just a slave to data regardless of how it was obtained or a clear understanding of the parameters being measured.
> 
> *Until you can understand this error, the data you present is useless.*
> 
> But I do see another problem which I've already discussed.  You don't believe what you are doing is wrong and you don't believe you are an idealogue.  This is an even bigger problem.  Again, in the scientific community, your presentation of data would be slammed so many times that you would eventually get the message.  However, if someone is living in denial about who they are, all bets are off.  I'll pop back in from time to time to do an 'idealogue intervention' for you in the hopes that you will realize the lie you are telling yourself and change your ways.  In the meantime, good luck to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in the investment business, we have a name for guys like you: &#8220;Unemployed.&#8221;
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...

Now let the record reflect that Toro just posted 4 feet of insipid drivel and snappy little graphs which prove absolutely NOTHING.

(And THAT douschebag, brings an end to you busting MY BALLS over lengthy posts...)

Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...

And again she wants to ignore that Gains which comes as a result of CRASHES WHICH THE LEFTISTS CAUSED!  Which means that those 'gains' aren't actually 'GAINS' DUMBASS..  Meaning that when a Market is at 13000 and Leftist policy drives that market down to 6800... GAINS do not begin until the market is BACK to where it was BEFORE YOU CRASHED IT.


Now Toro wants to pretend that all of that is merely POLITICS... that money can be made on the rising market... which is true...  but the premise she is selling is FALSE and that premise is that Leftists are better stewards of the equity markets than are Americans... and that is simply not the case.

Money can be made on decling markets... that such is the case in NO WAY proves that declining markets are preferred...


And it's just no more complex than that... its just that as simple as it is, it is vastly beyond the means of the average Canadian to understand it.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...



Since you aren't very bright PI, I'll spell it out to you clearly.

*The returns of the market have historically had little to do with the party in power.  The returns are driven primarily by variables outside of legislative politics.* 

The data that I have presented does not confirm that the market does better under leftist governments.  The data I have presented confirms that _there is no evidence that the market does better under right-wing governments._

In fact, what has been statistically confirmed is that the market usually does better in the year following when the government's budget deficit expands and it does worse when it contracts.  Fiscal irresponsibility used to be a Democrat trait only but now the Republicans have happily become just as financially reckless.

So if you are an Obama-hater, and you are using the stock market to support your anti-Obama argument, you better be careful because you are almost certainly going to look stupid in the future.  The market almost certainly will do better under Obama than it did under Bush.

But if you don't believe me and you think I'm wrong, then walk the talk and enter into a swap with me that the market will do worse under Obama than Bush.  Money talks, bullshit walks.


----------



## Toro

Or to put it another way, _there is no evidence that the market does worse under Leftist governments_, despite what the right-wing shills and hacks might say.

Here is the graph of Sweden, France and the US when Bush was in office.  France is the white line, Sweden is the green line and America is the red line.  The US did worse.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again Toro comes to repeat her long discredited cries that Markets do better under leftists Presidents or Leftist controlled legislatures...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you aren't very bright PI, I'll spell it out to you clearly.
Click to expand...


Gee Dousche-bag that's mighty Canadian of ya...



> *The returns of the market have historically had little to do with the party in power.  The returns are driven primarily by variables outside of legislative politics.*



Yeah returns on equities are pretty much like the returns on everything else... 'what was the share bought for and what was it sold for...

YOU want to look at one facet of the process...  and take the streaming values out of the equation...  in the graph where you show market performance under Bush... you want to project that Bush is a Republican... you want to focus on the latter side of the graph where equity values plummeted... ignoring the earlier steady increase in values from where the policies of the former administration resulted in an attack upon the US; an attack which occurred in the physical heart of the equities market; which caused a massive and sudden DECLINE in the value of that market...  you want to imply that such a decline is irrelevant to Federal Policy...  but in truth, Federal policy made it possible for those who perpetrated that attack to DO SO, thus such policy is INTRINSIC TO THAT DECLINE.  

You THEN want to claim that the steady increase in equities, which resulted from the destabilization of the US Security and the US economy, which REALIZED a TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS due to that 3 hour event which was made possible by the panty waist, pre-9-11 'no one is plotting an attack on the US' paradigm... a paradigm established by the feminized pie in the sky, ideological left; was irrelevant to the policies instituted, which were at diametric opposition TO THE FORMER Administration and which are now diametrically opposed to the CURRENT Administration; you want to set aside ANY relevance to the policy which prevented FURTHER attacks, which would have certainty driven the US economy, thus the equity market down FURTHER...

Hells bells, according to YOU, as far as the Market GAINS are concerned, Bush should have surrendered to Islam and driven the market to ZERO...  IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF GAISN THERE!

But that is ALL in keeping with your wanting to set aside the Leftist policy which caused the Market crash in 08, when the Real Estate market wents tits up; as a 100% result of Leftist policy whihc forced mortgage lenders to set aside their fiduciary responsibility to lend money based upon sound, time tested actuarial lending models...

Now... one can't be taken seriously as a expert on ANYTHING, if one wants to claim that Market Performance is purely a function of the natural gains which follow a CRASH...  and this is because THOSE GAINS are realized at the expense of those who LOST...

Now the SWEET Irony here, friends... is that Toro is one of the Centrists who sing the everpresent mantra that "Capitalism" NEEDS the Left to MODERATE it...   You know that one... its the one where the erudite Centrist proudly stands to DEFEND Capitalism... against the onslaught of Leftism; and does so by pointing out that what's needed is a MIXED Economy...  

The Irony is found where the CENTRISTS, in particular THIS Centrist, who comes to note a LIE... "Markets sitting under Leftist government outperform markets which sit under American control."  Where the Centrist is CELEBRATING the starkly REDUCED EQUITY VALUE and SETS ASIDE THE FACT THAT THE CRASH THAT REDUCED THOSE PRICES FOR THOSE SHARES WAS CAUSED BY LEFTIST POLICY AND COST TENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THEIR LIFE'S SAVINGS!

In FACT: Had the Left been prevented from gaining power; they would not have instituted their ridiculous policy and the real-estate market would not have BUBBLED; thus would not have POPPED and the equity markets would not have lost 50% of their value to give these REALLY GREAT SHARE PRICES...  The Market would have continued on a steady, sustainable climb, with minor corrections here and there as segments of the economy ebb'd and flowed; along with the natural errors and lucky strikes of the process...




> The data that I have presented does not confirm that the market does better under leftist governments.  The data I have presented confirms that _there is no evidence that the market does better under right-wing governments._



Yeah... your data is insufficient to establish anything but the tracking stream of the respective market for the relevant period...  

What establishes that equity market do better under American control is that American policy decidedly favors COMMERCE...  it also establishes the inverse where Leftist governments institute additional liabilities into commerce, thus discouraging risk, by punishing profits...



> In fact, what has been statistically confirmed is that the market usually does better in the year following when the government's budget deficit expands and it does worse when it contracts.  Fiscal irresponsibility used to be a Democrat trait only but now the Republicans have happily become just as financially reckless.



Golly... I wonder if that is because the policies which induce budget deficits are a function of Leftist policy which caused the Economy to shrink... thus the period of deficit spending is correlated to the period which follows a shrinking economy... which the natural cyclical order requires is a GROWING economy... one which would have GROWN faster, absent the deficit spending, but grows nonetheless DESPITE the deficit spending.  

Equities, under natural circumstances, increase in value as the underlying value of the secured asset increases in value; thus where a  company grows in terms of sales... it grows to accomodate those sales, thus it's inherent value increases...  this usually occurs when the economy within which that company is riding EXPANDS... OKA: increasing in value.  Ergo; where the economy expands, the underlying mechanisms which sustain that economy also increase in value...

Again... its not particularly complex... just well beyond the means of the fascist Canadian to get their resin soaked 'feelings' around it, Hoser.

Fiscal irresponsibility is a LEFTIST trait... it just used to be that Leftists were confined to the Democrat Party... but fascism having completely dominated the DEMOCRAT party has  now infected the Republican party...  and sadly, for you...  the irrepsponsible socialist policy of fascism remains irresponsible without regard to which brand of fascist is implementing it.



> So if you are an Obama-hater, and you are using the stock market to support your anti-Obama argument, you better be careful because you are almost certainly going to look stupid in the future.  The market almost certainly will do better under Obama than it did under Bush.



ROFL...

Yeah... cause my hate for irresponsible, tyrannical fascist policy will override my means to remind people of the CRASH which the Left caused, that provided for the Market to be ABLE TO RETURN TO WHERE IT WAS BEFORE THE LEFT CRASHED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET; and I'll never be able to PROVE the DECADES LONG EFFORTS BY THE LEFT which prevented and continues to PREVENT the US from DRILLING FOR OIL, Natural Gas, build Nuke power plants and all the OTHER hinderances, such as BUILDING NEW REFINERIES... to DISTILL THOSE NATURAL RESOURCES INTO FUELS... and the VERY REAL THREATS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ADD TRILLIONS IN NEW TAXES AND REGULATORY FEES ON CARBON FUELS... all of which THE LEFT PRODUCED TO DRIVE THE PRICE OF GAS To $5.00/gal just prior to the Market COLLAPSING... and which will be at the foundation of when the proice of GAS GOES TO $10...   I'll just grab a copy of the BOY King explaining how he wasn't upset that gas was $5/gal, he was just dissapointed that the price had risen so quickly...

Don't worry about me, Toro, I'll be ok...



> But if you don't believe me and you think I'm wrong, then walk the talk and enter into a swap with me that the market will do worse under Obama than Bush.  Money talks, bullshit walks.



OH! SWEET!  You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency...  As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated.  So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.



I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.

If that works for you... it works for me.


----------



## Toro

PubliusInfinitum said:


> OH! SWEET!  You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency...  As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated.  So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.
> 
> If that works for you... it works for me.



I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush.  Wise move PI.  Its a dumb bet otherwise.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH! SWEET!  You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency...  As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation is seated.  So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege... and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.
> 
> If that works for you... it works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush.  Wise move PI.  Its a dumb bet otherwise.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO...

Well only a fool in the extreme could respond to my argument with such profound irrelevance.

Again friends, Toro only wants to look at the GAINS and to overtly dismiss the LOSSES which were caused by the SAME LEFTIST POLICY as is endorsed and implemented by the BOY King ...

And this is why you should NEVER take your investment dollars to ANY equities trader who, on ANY LEVEL, defends the policies of FDR or supports the fascist policies of the ideological left...  

Never forget, the ideological left is an INVALID ideology... such policies as those endorsed by the left, are untenable... mathematically and morally; thus moderate, centrist, progressive, liberals who call for "mixed" economies are endorsing nothing BUT leftism and as such are nothing less than the 'Domestic Enemies' which all Federal oathes require one swear their honor to defend against and whim we americans will deal with once and for all, when Nature determines that its time to deliver "The Cure."

Just keep your powder dry and and wait for these panty waist, feminized leftist fucks to make their move... then gut them like a collective fish, to the last pathetic bitch...  and rest assured few bitches are more pathetic than Canadian "men."


----------



## Toro

I didn't think you'd take the bet.

That's twice now you've backed down - first Palin for President and now Obama v Bush.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Toro said:


> I didn't think you'd take the bet.
> 
> That's twice now you've backed down - first Palin for President and now Obama v Bush.



ROFLMNAO... that's so sad...  But it wouldn't be so pathetic if she didn't really BELIEVE IT!

The thing about the Leftists is how they can so resemble an American on the outside; without a SCINTILLA of the guts that actually makes an American... an American.

Now this should help explain why the left is unable to see how anyone could argue the existance of "American Exceptionalism."   First they lack the intellectual means to recognize America as being anything beyond a reference of geography; second the only thing exceptional about the Leftist ideology is it's deception... as liars go... NOTHING can 'outperform' a Leftist liar.  It's pure instinct to these clowns...

Now for the record, as is nearly always the case, where a Leftist comes to porject a given trait upon their opposition, they are typically found exemplifying that trait... and this is no exception.  

I clearly accepted the offer to exchange value for value, at a future point, wherein a given set of pre-determined parameters were established.  The value set for exchange was the means of the contestants to contribute to thise site and the parameters were determined to be the performance of the equity markets; where I determined that the Hussein Markets would not out perform the Markets of the Conservative Legislature from 1994-1998... and that such performance would be adjusted for inflation... with inflation determined by the price of a Barrel of Oil, a Block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate, of the biggest/first plumber in the NYC Yellow pages; each set from the beginning of the Hussein regime to the end of his term on roughly 20 January, 2013.

This douschebag has obtusely rejected that acceptance and now comes to project the inverse.  The same is true for the other offer she made... where SHE rejected the offer and now comes to project the inverse.

It's a LIE!  And it's no more complex than that... BUT!  What's more is THIS lie is, for all intents and purposes, the same value of lie; comprised of the same obtuse revisionism of the lies which comprise the above 'opinion' that Equity Markets subject to Leftist policy out perform equity markets subjec to pro--commerce policy of American controlled legislatures...  

And this friends is what we call CHECK MATE!  

The record is clear and quite incontrovertible... with the empty denials of the opposition being wholly irrelevant to the immutable truth embedded in that record.

And the best part... it took no effort what so ever to refute it...

Below is the post wherein the douschebag in question first sought to reject the acceptance of her offer... thus setting the TRUTH to her LIE!



Toro said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> *OH! SWEET!  You want to exchange value for value over the consideration of future performance, against past performance... that works for me... *except I wouldn't do so using the Bush Presidency...  *As you know I am of the mind which looks to the incontrovertible fact that pro-commerce, thus pro-freedom policy which is implmented by an American controlled legislature will always outperform the periods wherein a Leftist legislature, without regard to their Party affiliation* is seated.  So I'll set the terms... to the period of 1994-1998; against the 2009-2013 period of the Leftist Hussein regimes Excutive and legislative anti-American, tyrannical control of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> *I'll swap your privilige to come into this forum and express yourself for my privilege...* and we're going to define the scope of that 'performance' by summing the values of the respective markets, calculated to neutralize INFLATION... and not the deceptive political cranks version of inflation... I will calculate inflation upon three primary indices... the price of a barrel of gasoline, the cost of a block of Wheat and the posted hourly rate of the largest advertisement in the NYC Yellow pages for PLUMBERS, correlated from today's price and the relevant price of the date of the next swearing in of the US Executive... roughly 1/20/2013.
> 
> If that works for you... it works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will take that as an admission that you believe that the market under Obama will do better than it did under Bush.  Wise move PI.  Its a dumb bet otherwise.
Click to expand...


Notice that the offer was accepted and that the terms were established... where upon she simply determined that the terms which normalized the equation would leave her with no means to prevail... thus she opted to REJECT THE ACCEPTANCE and project the inverse (the lie) onto her oppositionn...

CLASSIC Leftist revisionism... and a micro-example of precisely how Fascists and Communists became historical 'right-wingers'... and again... 

The BEST PART IS THAT SHE ACTUALL BELIEVES IT!

Funny stuff...


----------

