Fiscal Conservatism in Action
- Thread starter Mani
- Start date
This is way too limited. Over the same time frame, I checked the numbers for a variety of economic indicators - unemployment, GDP growth, etc.
For pretty much all the indicators, the rankings of the presidents mostly had the democrats in the top spots and the Republicans in the bottom spots. It was very clear.
The one thing you can pretty much count on with the Republicans is increased concentration of wealth.
For pretty much all the indicators, the rankings of the presidents mostly had the democrats in the top spots and the Republicans in the bottom spots. It was very clear.
The one thing you can pretty much count on with the Republicans is increased concentration of wealth.
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Isn't that amazing? I wonder when the R's will come out claiming it was the congress who did it & not the president.
While it is true that congress makes the laws, it is the prresidents administration which sets the tone and direction.
BTW OP you need to add some comment in the first post.
While it is true that congress makes the laws, it is the prresidents administration which sets the tone and direction.
BTW OP you need to add some comment in the first post.
Interesting. So you are promising a unsustainable rate of return under democrat presidents?
Correlation != causation.
Correlation != causation.
So you DO believe Correlation = Causation
Actually what's funny is that when Obama is president - the market wil probably do well, since it's taken about this long to recover from the out of control, unsustainable bubble that was during the clinton years (plus the credit bubble). Obama caused the stock market to go up!
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you DO believe Correlation = Causation
Actually what's funny is that when Obama is president - the market wil probably do well, since it's taken about this long to recover from the out of control, unsustainable bubble that was during the clinton years (plus the credit bubble). Obama caused the stock market to go up!
Funny, the market is still correcting from the Clinton years. I guess Bush and his reckless fiscal policies and deficit spending have absolutely nothing to do with it. That bubble popped long ago and has been on the upswing since 2003...time to let that ole idea go.
Again, you can read it anyway you want. The numbers are pretty damning.
So you think 15.2% ROR is sustainable for 8 years? That wasn't a bubble?Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you DO believe Correlation = Causation
Actually what's funny is that when Obama is president - the market wil probably do well, since it's taken about this long to recover from the out of control, unsustainable bubble that was during the clinton years (plus the credit bubble). Obama caused the stock market to go up!
Funny, the market is still correcting from the Clinton years. I guess Bush and his reckless fiscal policies and deficit spending have absolutely nothing to do with it. That bubble popped long ago and has been on the upswing since 2003...time to let that ole idea go.
Again, you can read it anyway you want. The numbers are pretty damning.
What's the ROR over 16 years with Clinton/Bush?
And of course, this was probaby put together very recently, instead of when the market was 14,000.
But hey, if you want to believe presidents fiscal policy can influence the stock market more than GDP, the Fed, demographic factors, and world economic factors, enjoy your fantasyland, I won't bother you.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you think 15.2% ROR is sustainable for 8 years? That wasn't a bubble?Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you DO believe Correlation = Causation
Actually what's funny is that when Obama is president - the market wil probably do well, since it's taken about this long to recover from the out of control, unsustainable bubble that was during the clinton years (plus the credit bubble). Obama caused the stock market to go up!
Funny, the market is still correcting from the Clinton years. I guess Bush and his reckless fiscal policies and deficit spending have absolutely nothing to do with it. That bubble popped long ago and has been on the upswing since 2003...time to let that ole idea go.
Again, you can read it anyway you want. The numbers are pretty damning.
What's the ROR over 16 years with Clinton/Bush?
And of course, this was probaby put together very recently, instead of when the market was 14,000.
But hey, if you want to believe presidents fiscal policy can influence the stock market more than GDP, the Fed, demographic factors, and world economic factors, enjoy your fantasyland, I won't bother you.
I didn't state it wasn't a bubble, I stated that the bubble was popped by 2003 and that you can't still blame the current shit on Clinton's bubble.
Of course it's recent, it's the latest data at the time when it was compiled. We'll see how it ends up but you don't get to cherry pick your high point and say "oh, lookie how it was then".
If fiscal policy doesn't have anything to do with the GDP and the rest of economy, why not borrow and pump a few more trillion into the economy to stimulate. 100% pure market drive with no negatives (since fiscal policy doesn't effect anything). Talk about fantasyland. :roll:
The PRESIDENT can borrow and pump trillions into the economy? Wow, I missed that in civics.Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you think 15.2% ROR is sustainable for 8 years? That wasn't a bubble?Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: alchemize
So you DO believe Correlation = Causation
Actually what's funny is that when Obama is president - the market wil probably do well, since it's taken about this long to recover from the out of control, unsustainable bubble that was during the clinton years (plus the credit bubble). Obama caused the stock market to go up!
Funny, the market is still correcting from the Clinton years. I guess Bush and his reckless fiscal policies and deficit spending have absolutely nothing to do with it. That bubble popped long ago and has been on the upswing since 2003...time to let that ole idea go.
Again, you can read it anyway you want. The numbers are pretty damning.
What's the ROR over 16 years with Clinton/Bush?
And of course, this was probaby put together very recently, instead of when the market was 14,000.
But hey, if you want to believe presidents fiscal policy can influence the stock market more than GDP, the Fed, demographic factors, and world economic factors, enjoy your fantasyland, I won't bother you.
I didn't state it wasn't a bubble, I stated that the bubble was popped by 2003 and that you can't still blame the current shit on Clinton's bubble.
Of course it's recent, it's the latest data at the time when it was compiled. We'll see how it ends up but you don't get to cherry pick your high point and say "oh, lookie how it was then".
If fiscal policy doesn't have anything to do with the GDP and the rest of economy, why not borrow and pump a few more trillion into the economy to stimulate. 100% pure market drive with no negatives (since fiscal policy doesn't effect anything). Talk about fantasyland. :roll:
BTW, fiscal policy does impact the economy, just to a much lesser degree than the previously mentioned factors. Which is why "rebate checks" didn't do shit.
Well, the good news is, your paying off your house and getting yourself into a good financial position, you owe all that to BUSH! I charted out a graph that PROVES it!
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, the good news is, your paying off your house and getting yourself into a good financial position, you owe all that to BUSH! I charted out a graph that PROVES it!
LOL, if that's true, then I guess I can give my 45% paycut (100% overtime cut and 5% paycut on base) + my 50% decline in my equity accounts on him too, especially since 100% of the above occured on his watch!
My chart states that I'm declining!
You must have stopped charting me at DOW 14,000 also! :QThis comparison is pretty weak. I think this link proves one thing. When good times are good minus Clinton, a republican will return more in the stock market.
That is if you believe a president has full control of the economy.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
The statements made by the republicans in this thread are lolz. The numbers don't lie. Interpret them as you will. The numbers showing federal spending under republican and democratic presidents since Carter also don't lie (Republicans increase it faster). So many support the republicans because they simply hate admitting fault. Their pride is too high, their self-esteem too low to admit it.
True, but what an amazing coincidence isn't it? I suppose it's not Bush's fault that the federal deficit has increased nearly 2x from when he took office? I suppose all of those economic policies pushed by Bush's Administration and the GOP Congress have nothing to do with anything, right?
Uh huh.
Uh ... have you been paying attention recently? Bush just did exactly that. $750 Billion to start, and the experts are claiming the true cost could easily expand to $3 Trillion.
Guess it's time to revise the civics textbooks, huh?
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Concentration of wealth is not done at the expense of another group of people, so if thats the best argument you have you're standing on very, very thin ice.
No but my point stands. When the good times are good, they are better when a republican is at the helm. Bush got the double whammy. Clintons bubble bursted when he came in and a financial meltdown in his last year in office.
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Maybe if Bush hadn't pushed piss poor fiscal policy (i.e. higher spending and deficits), maybe he wouldn't have been "as bad". Of course, the trillion dollar bandaid at the end might get him to break even on the markets, well, at least the dow. The rest of the markets (general S&P, Nasdaq) are pretty much a lost cause for Bush.
Look I wont defend Bush's policy of a weak dollar. I think we cut off our nose to spite our face on that one. But he did get nailed with Clintons bubble bursting that was completely out of his control. This latest round of shit has enough blame to go around he is surely mixed in.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter