Market OVER 17K!!!!

[Sallow]

What a joke you make. It isn't a day that goes by that America isn't compared to those same small countries by the left.

Okay.

Today is 07/03/2014.

Link a column making a comparison between America and Singapore/Austria/Hong Kong - where the writer is saying we'd be better off if only we adopted <FILL IN LIBERAL POLICY>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-worst-maternity-leave-laws-on-earth.html

Do you understand english, man?

First you link to another thread, which has a column in it.

Do you read the column?

There is no Austria or Hong Kong or Singapore.

There isn't even any small countries.

This isn't even REMOTELY what I challenged you to do.

 

[Zander]

I've got a great investment for everyone celebrating Dow 17000

Give me $1,000.00 today. In 14 years I will give you back $1,191.00

Sound good?

That is the real return of the SP500 since 2000 (including reinvesting dividends!)

 

[nodoginnafight]

The wealthy and greedy bankers must be cleaning up....

What about everyone else (54% of Americans) who have investments ??????

I wonder how many times this ignorant assumption that only wealthy people have investments is going to get trotted out?

I guess once for every ignorant poster.....

When the rich take back their money when the stock market crashes whose money do you think they will be taking?

Ok - check your question "when the rich take back their money ..."

"... whose money will they be taking?"

Ummmmmmm .... geee ...

If they take THEIR money they will be taking THEIR money.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I've got a great investment for everyone celebrating Dow 17000

Give me $1,000.00 today. In 14 years I will give you back $1,191.00

Sound good?

That is the real return of the SP500 since 2000 (including reinvesting dividends!)

Wow! that is a serious ROI!!!!

 

[Sallow]

What about everyone else (54% of Americans) who have investments ??????

I wonder how many times this ignorant assumption that only wealthy people have investments is going to get trotted out?

I guess once for every ignorant poster.....

When the rich take back their money when the stock market crashes whose money do you think they will be taking?

Ok - check your question "when the rich take back their money ..."

"... whose money will they be taking?"

Ummmmmmm .... geee ...

If they take THEIR money they will be taking THEIR money.

The rich generally don't invest their own money.

They invest other people's money.

Then take the profit.

 

[Redfish]

You do know that the bill for the unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on the 2009 books, right? Bush didn't want to look bad before he left office.

that spending was authorized by congress, both parties voted for that spending. NO president can spend money on wars or anything else on his own.

Of course, you want to give obozo that power

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Bush lied and told Congress that it would only cost $50B

"""In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.""
War costs may total $2.4 trillion - USATODAY.com

Quite a whopper he told, no?
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters

NO one lied. Both parties in congress voted to authorize and fund the stupid Iraq "war". You are the one who needs to stop lying.

 

[nodoginnafight]

NO one lied.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

I've got a great investment for everyone celebrating Dow 17000

Give me $1,000.00 today. In 14 years I will give you back $1,191.00

Sound good?

That is the real return of the SP500 since 2000 (including reinvesting dividends!)

How about instead of seeking profit, everybody gave you 1000.$ and you dispensed it based on the most need..... A utopian altruistic paradise !

 

[Sallow]

that spending was authorized by congress, both parties voted for that spending. NO president can spend money on wars or anything else on his own.

Of course, you want to give obozo that power

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Bush lied and told Congress that it would only cost $50B

"""In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.""
War costs may total $2.4 trillion - USATODAY.com

Quite a whopper he told, no?
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters

NO one lied. Both parties in congress voted to authorize and fund the stupid Iraq "war". You are the one who needs to stop lying.

Actually..no.

The Bush administration did lie.

The Congress and the President don't have the same access to intelligence.

Bush knew what he was saying publicly was untrue.

 

[Freewill]

Okay.

Today is 07/03/2014.

Link a column making a comparison between America and Singapore/Austria/Hong Kong - where the writer is saying we'd be better off if only we adopted <FILL IN LIBERAL POLICY>

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-worst-maternity-leave-laws-on-earth.html

Do you understand english, man?

First you link to another thread, which has a column in it.

Do you read the column?

There is no Austria or Hong Kong or Singapore.

There isn't even any small countries.

This isn't even REMOTELY what I challenged you to do.

You wanted a link to where a liberal was comparing the US to other countries. The article said every other country so I assume that meant every other country.

I English your second language and you don't have a first?

 

[Dot Com]

Hooah, corporate wealth is increasing.

Cheap ZIRP money from Banks played in the Stock Market Casino creating Asset Bubbles.

Stop w/ the rw class warfare.

 

[Flopper]

Firstly, the stock market is not "the economy". Secondly, the occupant of the WH has very little to do with stock market performance, despite partisan claims to the contrary.

That being said, I wish that the Dow hitting 17,000 was "good for the economy", but it's not. It's not even good for investors!! The following charts require little explanation. So far, the 21st Century has not been especially kind to equity investors.....

Here is the "nominal" chart since 2000 (nominal is non inflation adjusted)

Looks good, right?

Now let's adjust for inflation ...

14 years later and the SP500 is still down 9% and the Nasdaq is down almost 40%. But the DOW is UP almost 3%!!! Let's celebrate WOOHOO!!!

Celebrate? Only if you're ignorant of the corrosive effects of inflation.

Your conclusion depends on the dates picked.

The annualized return of the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation with dividends reinvested was:
Bush administration -5.687%
H.W. Bush Administration 2.107%
Clinton Administration 14.538%
Obama administration 15.588%


Here's the calculator. Pick your dates.
S&P 500 Return Calculator - Don't Quit Your Day Job...

 

[deltex1]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...w-hits-new-record-on-track-to-hit-17k-71.html

LOL..

Buying champagne tonight for my 4th of July party tomorrow!

Woot.

Spend some of that money on guns Sallow....the possible revolt may start on Wall Street and work it's way north to your humble apartment.....lmao!

 

[Redfish]

Please stop embarrassing yourself. Bush lied and told Congress that it would only cost $50B

"""In the months before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the Bush administration estimated the Iraq war would cost no more than $50 billion.""
War costs may total $2.4 trillion - USATODAY.com

Quite a whopper he told, no?
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study
Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters

NO one lied. Both parties in congress voted to authorize and fund the stupid Iraq "war". You are the one who needs to stop lying.

Actually..no.

The Bush administration did lie.

The Congress and the President don't have the same access to intelligence.

Bush knew what he was saying publicly was untrue.

Horseshit---------they had EXACTLY the same intel. Saddam fooled everyone.

Yes, Bush wanted to knock Saddam out--------so did the Clintons, Kerry, Gore, the UN, the UK, the EU, France, Germany, Spain, Saudi Arabia, et al.

Your revisionist history will never fly.

 

[Zander]

Firstly, the stock market is not "the economy". Secondly, the occupant of the WH has very little to do with stock market performance, despite partisan claims to the contrary.

That being said, I wish that the Dow hitting 17,000 was "good for the economy", but it's not. It's not even good for investors!! The following charts require little explanation. So far, the 21st Century has not been especially kind to equity investors.....

Here is the "nominal" chart since 2000 (nominal is non inflation adjusted)

Looks good, right?

Now let's adjust for inflation ...

14 years later and the SP500 is still down 9% and the Nasdaq is down almost 40%. But the DOW is UP almost 3%!!! Let's celebrate WOOHOO!!!

Celebrate? Only if you're ignorant of the corrosive effects of inflation.

Your conclusion depends on the dates pick.

The annualized return of the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation with dividends reinvested was:
Bush administration -5.687%
H.W. Bush Administration 2.107%
Clinton Administration 14.538%
Obama administration 15.588%


Here's the calculator. Pick your dates.
S&P 500 Return Calculator - Don't Quit Your Day Job...

Are you suggesting that stock market performance has a causal relationship with the political party of the occupant of the white house?

PS - your numbers are wrong.
BUSH Sr took the office on Jan 20 1989 and stepped down jan 20 1993. Using your source (jan 89-jan 93) the return was - 10.164%
Clinton = 14.351%
Bush W =-5.811%
Obama= 15.617% (through June)


reagan = 11.072%
Carter = 1.252%

 

[Sallow]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-the-worst-maternity-leave-laws-on-earth.html

Do you understand english, man?

First you link to another thread, which has a column in it.

Do you read the column?

There is no Austria or Hong Kong or Singapore.

There isn't even any small countries.

This isn't even REMOTELY what I challenged you to do.

You wanted a link to where a liberal was comparing the US to other countries. The article said every other country so I assume that meant every other country.

I English your second language and you don't have a first?

"I English"?

What the fuck does that mean?

And:

Okay.

Today is 07/03/2014.

Link a column making a comparison between America and Singapore/Austria/Hong Kong - where the writer is saying we'd be better off if only we adopted <FILL IN LIBERAL POLICY>

Where do you see "other countries"? Point it out? The EXACT sting..

Because YOU DON'T.

Boy I am glad you don't write code.

 

[Redfish]

NO one lied.

Keep telling yourself that.

Repeating something you believe to be true is not lying (even if it is not true).

Both Clintons said the exact same thing based on the exact same intel----were they lying?

 

[KNB]

No, the Bush administration lied.

They lied. They manipulated false intelligence to justify the invasion. They lied.

This isn't "revisionist" history. It's recent history. And there are declassified government documents online which prove it.

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

 

[Kosh]

I love how the far left does not understand what they post or how they even do not understand the market..

 

[Redfish]

No, the Bush administration lied.

They lied. They manipulated false intelligence to justify the invasion. They lied.

This isn't "revisionist" history. It's recent history. And there are declassified government documents online which prove it.

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

Repeating a lie does not convert it to truth-------------------------

They all had the same intel and they all came to the same stupid conclusions about it.

or, are you now claiming that Bush was such a genius that he could convince virtually the entire world to buy into a lie? I thought you said he was an idiot. Now you are saying that he was a great orator and manipulator of humanity.