Market OVER 17K!!!!

[Redfish]

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

parrots just repeat what they have been taught, they are not capable of rational thought.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

That seems to be the case, yeah.

 

[Faun]

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.

Claiming they all had the same intelligence is a lie. The President and some select intelligence committees in Congress had a 96 page NIE whereas everyone else in Congress had a 28 page redacted version of that NIE.

 

[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.

Claiming they all had the same intelligence is a lie. The President and some select intelligence committees in Congress had a 96 page NIE whereas everyone else in Congress had a 28 page redacted version of that NIE.

Bullshit, members of congress have security clearances, they had access to all of the intel. AND they made the same wrong conclusions about it and are on record saying it.

I get it that you hate Bush and are determined to repeat the dem/lib talking points on this even when shown the facts. I guess its a sign of a low IQ.

 

[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 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%

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

Yes, you're correct. During H.W. Bush's administration return was 10.164. However, the average annual return for Democrat administrations during this period was twice that of republicans.

Also since 1900, the market has fared much better under Democrat administrations than Republicans.
http://blog.cmcmarkets.com.au/asset...he-us-presidential-election-mean-for-markets/

 

[Redfish]

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%

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

borrowing money to "pump into the economy" may cause short term gains, but in the long run it will damage the economy. 17 trillion in debt today, over 20T when obama leaves office. he will have presided over creating more debt than all previous presidents combined. If you think this is good for the country, you are an idiot.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

What I see repeatedly on here are posts like this, "I love how the far left doesn't understand (fill in the blank)."

But then the O/P never backs up their comments with facts or data. Just so much pixelated methane.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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

parrots just repeat what they have been taught, they are not capable of rational thought.

Doubling down on nothing, I see. You two are like a Seinfeld episode.

 

[Redfish]

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

What I see repeatedly on here are posts like this, "I love how the far left doesn't understand (fill in the blank)."

But then the O/P never backs up their comments with facts or data. Just so much pixelated methane.

its been explained to you many times, if you are unable to comprehend, you have the problem.

pixelated methane--------------I like that, it describes almost every liberal post that has ever appeared on this message board.

 

[Redfish]

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

parrots just repeat what they have been taught, they are not capable of rational thought.

Doubling down on nothing, I see. You two are like a Seinfeld episode.

great show, you do know that it was fiction don't you?

 

[Sallow]

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%

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

borrowing money to "pump into the economy" may cause short term gains, but in the long run it will damage the economy. 17 trillion in debt today, over 20T when obama leaves office. he will have presided over creating more debt than all previous presidents combined. If you think this is good for the country, you are an idiot.

And that's bullshit.

You think if you repeating a lie it suddenly becomes true?

Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all the other Presidents combined.

Most of his administration was SPENT paying down BUSH'S debt.

Obama didn't start 2 wars. Bush did.
Obama didn't give tax cuts to the rich. Bush did.
Obama didn't start the Department of homeland security. Bush did.
Obama didn't create the Medicare Drug Benefit. Bush did.
Obama didn't get rid of Paygo. Bush did.
Obama didn't start up the anti-ballistic nuclear missile program. Bush did.
Obama didn't order up a bunch of F22 raptors. Bush did.
Obama didn't ship billions of American Dollars on wooden pallets via cargo plane to Iraq. Bush did.

 

[Kosh]

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

borrowing money to "pump into the economy" may cause short term gains, but in the long run it will damage the economy. 17 trillion in debt today, over 20T when obama leaves office. he will have presided over creating more debt than all previous presidents combined. If you think this is good for the country, you are an idiot.

And that's bullshit.

You think if you repeating a lie it suddenly becomes true?

Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all the other Presidents combined.

Most of his administration was SPENT paying down BUSH'S debt.

Obama didn't start 2 wars. Bush did.
Obama didn't give tax cuts to the rich. Bush did.
Obama didn't start the Department of homeland security. Bush did.
Obama didn't create the Medicare Drug Benefit. Bush did.
Obama didn't get rid of Paygo. Bush did.
Obama didn't start up the anti-ballistic nuclear missile program. Bush did.
Obama didn't order up a bunch of F22 raptors. Bush did.
Obama didn't ship billions of American Dollars on wooden pallets via cargo plane to Iraq. Bush did.

And the far left Taliban talking points and propaganda come out!

More proof that this is about pushing an fail religious belief in the far left than dealing with anything factual.

 

[Redfish]

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

borrowing money to "pump into the economy" may cause short term gains, but in the long run it will damage the economy. 17 trillion in debt today, over 20T when obama leaves office. he will have presided over creating more debt than all previous presidents combined. If you think this is good for the country, you are an idiot.

And that's bullshit.

You think if you repeating a lie it suddenly becomes true?

Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all the other Presidents combined.

Most of his administration was SPENT paying down BUSH'S debt.

Obama didn't start 2 wars. Bush did.
Obama didn't give tax cuts to the rich. Bush did.
Obama didn't start the Department of homeland security. Bush did.
Obama didn't create the Medicare Drug Benefit. Bush did.
Obama didn't get rid of Paygo. Bush did.
Obama didn't start up the anti-ballistic nuclear missile program. Bush did.
Obama didn't order up a bunch of F22 raptors. Bush did.
Obama didn't ship billions of American Dollars on wooden pallets via cargo plane to Iraq. Bush did.

Nice try, but the facts prove you wrong.

debt when Bush left office 10T

debt today 17T

probable debt when obama leaves >20T

Our national budget and spending is determined on an annual basis. (when we have a budget, obama has yet to sign one).

10 T in debt belongs to obama, that is fact. he will have more than doubled the debt in 8 years, that is also fact.

 

[RandallFlagg]

My 401K .... pension plan ... personal investments

are smiling.

I STRONGLY suggest that you enjoy it now. China and QE are propping up the stock market right now. QE is scheduled to end in October.


As fast as it hit 17K - it will just as easily drop back to 12K.


Watch and see.

 

[skookerasbil]

Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick Tick

lol.....the meatheads have no clue whats coming!!


The Dow Jones Industrial Average: A Fata Morgana Washington's Blog


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-02/stocks-are-officially-more-overvalued-during-last-bubble-peak

 

[Zander]

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%

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

more than causal? It is either causal or it isn't. In this case it's no more causal than these examples...

"Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time." ~ George Carlin

Do you know what causal means?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I wonder if any of our USMB nutters are worse off financially now than they were in.....say.....July of 2009?

Anyone?

 

[skookerasbil]

It's more than a causal relationship. Historically, the market has performed significantly
better when the president is a Democrat rather than a Republican.

President Clinton, who enjoyed strong market returns throughout most of his two terms, signed
into law significant pro-growth legislation, including free trade agreements and a cut in the capital gains tax rate. Obama signed into law and made many decisions that pumped hundreds of billions into the economy and restored economic confidence. By contrast republican presidents have invested their political capital and trillions of dollars oversea with rather poor returns.

borrowing money to "pump into the economy" may cause short term gains, but in the long run it will damage the economy. 17 trillion in debt today, over 20T when obama leaves office. he will have presided over creating more debt than all previous presidents combined. If you think this is good for the country, you are an idiot.

And that's bullshit.

You think if you repeating a lie it suddenly becomes true?

Obama didn't accumulate more debt than all the other Presidents combined.

Most of his administration was SPENT paying down BUSH'S debt.

Obama didn't start 2 wars. Bush did.
Obama didn't give tax cuts to the rich. Bush did.
Obama didn't start the Department of homeland security. Bush did.
Obama didn't create the Medicare Drug Benefit. Bush did.
Obama didn't get rid of Paygo. Bush did.
Obama didn't start up the anti-ballistic nuclear missile program. Bush did.
Obama didn't order up a bunch of F22 raptors. Bush did.
Obama didn't ship billions of American Dollars on wooden pallets via cargo plane to Iraq. Bush did.

Oh s0n....perhaps you missed it on Obama yesterday>>>>


wOrSt in 70 years s0n



And nobody cares about George Bush anymore.

 

[Rozman]

Thanks Obama!

For what exactly?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Thanks Obama!

For what exactly?

All things gay..