I want Romney to win so my stocks will go up

[Alexander's Horse]

I really can't stand the guy but he should be able to move markets up.

Obama? Yeah well, nice guy but money talks and BS walks baby

[giblets]

"Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House: BGOV Barometer"

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,” Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York, said in a telephone interview. “Is it because Republicans mishandled the economy, or inherited a weak economy? I’ll leave that to others.”

Some of the difference may stem from the fact that every Republican president since at least the end of World War II has faced a recession during his first term in office, Stovall said. Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 --started with Republicans in the Oval Office.
Wall Street Republicans

Democratic administrations also may be more likely to spend money on government programs that stimulate the economy, Stovall said.

“I dare say that most people on Wall Street are Republicans,” Stovall said. “But it appears the bread is buttered on the Democratic side.”

The S&P 500 yesterday hit its highest intra-day level since June 2008 and closed at 1,362.21, the highest since last April 29. The benchmark index is up 8.3 percent so far in 2012, the biggest year-to-date gain at this point since 1991.

Since Kennedy took office, the Democratic S&P fund logged a 992 percent gain, versus 109 percent growth for the opposition party, even though Democrats occupied the White House for 23 years over the period, compared with 28 years of Republican presidential leadership.

The annualized return for 23 years of Democratic administrations is 11 percent, or four times the 2.7 percent annualized return during 28 years of Republican presidencies.
Democratic Edge

Investing $1,000 in funds that mirror the Dow Jones Industrial Average under the same conditions, Democratic investors would have had $7,550, versus $2,716 under Republicans.

The Democratic edge is so large that the party comes out ahead even without counting Bill Clinton (the Democrat with the biggest S&P 500 gain) and George W. Bush (the Republican with the worst market record). A hypothetical $1,000 investment under Democrats excluding Clinton was worth $3,539 versus $3,296 invested under Republicans except Bush.

Adding Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican column doesn’t overcome the Democratic advantage, either: $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 in January 1953 would have been worth $4,796 after 36 years under Republican chief executives -- still less than half the $10,920 nest egg accumulated in 23 years under Democrats.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html

Probably just a coincidence.

[Alexander's Horse]

Sorry Gribbler, greed and class interest, which Romney personifies, is overcoming my scruples....

[Dinner]

FACT: Ever since WW2 the economy has done better under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones.

Another FACT: Lowering marginal tax rates for people making over $200,000 per year has almost no effect on the national economy. Barely measurable.

[Kuciwalker]

FACT: the econometrics y'all are doing are even stupider than what normally gets published

[The Mad Monk]

I want Romney to win to rid the nation of an incompetant president.

I will vote Democrat in four years if he proves to be as incompetant.

[giblets]

FACT: Ever since WW2 the economy has done better under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones.

Wasn't that true before WW2 too? Look at how the economy shrank under Hoover and grew under Roosevelt. Republicans don't seem to have much to show for.

[DaShi]

I want Romney to win to rid the nation of an incompetant president.

I will vote Democrat in four years if he proves to be as incompetant.

Obama hasn't been very incompetent. However, if you listen to a narrow range of conservative pundits, then I could see why you would think that.

[regexcellent]

Wasn't that true before WW2 too? Look at how the economy shrank under Hoover and grew under Roosevelt. Republicans don't seem to have much to show for.

Roosevelt was probably our worst president ever. He had no respect whatsoever for the principle of limited government.

[Dinner]

If you go by economic growth and reductions in poverty then he was THE best President ever. That's why the wing nuts are always trying to rewrite history to claim he was bad. His record proves their ideology wrong.

[regexcellent]

I don't care about that, I care about the long-term implications of things like Social Security and other horrible abortions. And the whole "it is now acceptable to run deficits" thing. And the whole four terms thing. And the whole not giving a **** about federalism, or limits on his power, or any of that. That is way more important than the few years of our history when he was president, and how people lived then.

Anyway, there's no reason to believe any of the stupid alphabet soup programs he created did anything for the economy except to prolong the depression. As I understand it increasing the money supply was pretty much the only thing that mattered.

[giblets]

What was wrong with four terms? It was clearly the will of the people to keep electing FDR instead of having to suffer under another Republican administration.

[regexcellent]

Nobody should be allowed to hold power indefinitely whether the people want it or not. George Washington would have been re-elected to his grave but he wisely chose to set a precedent, which only one successor failed to follow.

[DaShi]

reg doesn't believe in democracy.

[giblets]

George Washington would have been a better president than John Adams. If the guy you already have is doing a great job it doesn't make sense to replace him. On the other hand, if FDR hadn't done it no one would have bothered with amending the Constitution and Bill Clinton would have served four terms and that would have been a vast improvement over George Bush, so there are some drawbacks to FDR's decision.