Warren Buffett supports Hillary
- Thread starter Topspin
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Take a look at your own article...the BEST times for the market are when the White House is controlled by one party and Congress by the other, creating a stalemate....
THE BEST market years were when Reps controlled Congress and Billary was Pres.
Hence.... the politicians weren't able to muck up the market with their idiotic policies.
But again, I am sure your numbers are soothing to you. But they do not take into account the market cycles, the bad policies that had to be overcome, or new innovations from the American work force.
THE BEST market years were when Reps controlled Congress and Billary was Pres.
Hence.... the politicians weren't able to muck up the market with their idiotic policies.
But again, I am sure your numbers are soothing to you. But they do not take into account the market cycles, the bad policies that had to be overcome, or new innovations from the American work force.
Indeed.
But, that still doesn't explain the long term trends. Dems held congress for most of the last 70 years.
Has anybody ever figured out why neither maryann or the movie star were doing it with the professor?
I mean, stuck on an island with an idiot, a fat guy, and a brainy, cute professor. I would have kept him busy.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Cypress... AGAIN... shows just the dow, does not factor in anything other than raw numbers, and just shows who was President.
Tell me one thing Ford did to effect his returns. Or Clinton for that matter. (and I am talking about what they did on their own... because that is what your chart indicates... that somehow the President is responsible for the market performance all on his own)
Tell me one thing Ford did to effect his returns. Or Clinton for that matter. (and I am talking about what they did on their own... because that is what your chart indicates... that somehow the President is responsible for the market performance all on his own)
They were busy making Gilligan bump his head and somehow magically producing sugar and heavy cream for their banana cream pies.
Yeah, weird. It's something you never noticed when you were a kid, because then, you know, banana cream pie looked good.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"Indeed.
But, that still doesn't explain the long term trends. Dems held congress for most of the last 70 years."
Exactly.... so tell me what any Rep President during that time could have done WITHOUT the Dems in Congress?
But, that still doesn't explain the long term trends. Dems held congress for most of the last 70 years."
Exactly.... so tell me what any Rep President during that time could have done WITHOUT the Dems in Congress?
You can either accept the premise that we have a century's-worth of data, and finance experts in the article provided say the correlation is statistically significant (meaning progressive policies are better on average, for the economy)
Or, you can conclude that, for 100 years, Democrats just got "lucky"...over, and over, and over, and over again.
You're choice.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"in laymans term's it's a rising tide lifts all boats"
For someone who professes to be so good with economics... you should realize what complete bullshit that argument is.
Or do you really think that the economic boom of the 90's was created by the Clinton white house?
For someone who professes to be so good with economics... you should realize what complete bullshit that argument is.
Or do you really think that the economic boom of the 90's was created by the Clinton white house?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"You can either accept the premise that we have a century's-worth of data, and finance experts in the article provided say the correlation is statistically significant (meaning progressive policies are better on average, for the economy)"
wrong. They have not shown ANYTHING to indicate that it is the policies that caused the market performance. They simply pulled the DOW performance while Dems and Reps controlled the White House. That DOES NOT SHOW that the President was able to control the market. You have not provided ANYTHING to show that the President is able to control the market on his own.
"Or, you can conclude that, for 100 years, Democrats just got "lucky"...over, and over, and over, and over again. "
Or I can conclude as I already have that it is a bunch of bullshit to assign market performance in such a simplistic manner. To many factors are ignored to make it have any worth. but again... follow along like the good little sheep.... perhaps it helps you sleep better at night.
wrong. They have not shown ANYTHING to indicate that it is the policies that caused the market performance. They simply pulled the DOW performance while Dems and Reps controlled the White House. That DOES NOT SHOW that the President was able to control the market. You have not provided ANYTHING to show that the President is able to control the market on his own.
"Or, you can conclude that, for 100 years, Democrats just got "lucky"...over, and over, and over, and over again. "
Or I can conclude as I already have that it is a bunch of bullshit to assign market performance in such a simplistic manner. To many factors are ignored to make it have any worth. but again... follow along like the good little sheep.... perhaps it helps you sleep better at night.
No, Cypress is right Sf. Because to discount this, you have to believe that is all one big coincidence, and one that lasted for a century? That doesn't pass the smell test here.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
"I'll just be happy with 15% for 8 more years of Clintonomics. Bush has certainly hurt the pubs case of breaking above 10%
though us rich people have done nice on the tax cuts and special partnerships."
You really are a tool sometimes. There are no new innovations that are likely to occur over the next decade that will match the impact of the internet, telecom and tech boom of the late 80's and 90's. None that will be even close.
Also, as we have already discussed... Hillary is NOT Bill.
though us rich people have done nice on the tax cuts and special partnerships."
You really are a tool sometimes. There are no new innovations that are likely to occur over the next decade that will match the impact of the internet, telecom and tech boom of the late 80's and 90's. None that will be even close.
Also, as we have already discussed... Hillary is NOT Bill.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Such anger! Why does 100 years of data make you so angry?
Of course you can conclude it's all bullshit, and that presumably, Democrats got "lucky"....time after time after time, over and over and over again.
And that Republicans just were "unlucky"...over and over and over again, time after time after time.
I understand that you've been trained with slogans, that the GOP is better for markets and business.
As for me? I make judgements and conclusions based on data, facts, and evidence....not on slogans.
Such anger! Why does 100 years of data make you so angry?
Of course you can conclude it's all bullshit, and that presumably, Democrats got "lucky"....time after time after time, over and over and over again.
And that Republicans just were "unlucky"...over and over and over again, time after time after time.
I understand that you've been trained with slogans, that the GOP is better for markets and business.
As for me? I make judgements and conclusions based on data, facts, and evidence....not on slogans.
uscitizen
Villified User
Or perhaps your point is that BIG BUSINESS does better under Dems?
Obviously, contrary to all the con spinmeisters.
There are very many people who voted for Bush after Reagan thinking they would get the exact same policies and found that it didn't happen. I think this may be much the same. Just because she married the man doesn't mean she will be exactly like him as President.
As for the stock market. I think that the nation tends to vote more R during times of trial. It was an anomoly that they voted the R Congress in during an economic rise.
Now, while Congress was consistently D, it doesn't change that when there was a mix in the government, R Senate for example, and political change had less chance to effect the market is when the markets have done their best. Political upheaval is not what creates good market results regardless of whose policies are the ones in effect. It is a static political landscape that is most likely to produce the best market effect.