Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican =not

Discuss local or national politics here.
User avatar
bucky starburst
Your Personal Indestructible Mosquito
Posts: 1091
Joined: December 19th, 2000, 8:00pm

Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican =not

Postby bucky starburst » March 8th, 2013, 2:34pm

Discuss...

I'll start the ball. Republican presidents always ramp up the war talk and also the actual number of wars. Which destabilizes the market on the whole, except the for weapons manufacturers who make out real well. Democratic presidents are more likely to be diplomatic which leads to stability and commerce.

actually, i guess this conversation is over now. solved.

User avatar
Sue
Welcoming Committee - Chairman
Posts: 5715
Joined: September 7th, 2004, 11:53am
Location: The Place You Want To Be

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby Sue » March 8th, 2013, 3:28pm

I guess you haven't heard that when a Republican president leaves office and a Democrat takes control, that's when all the benefits of the Republican president's policies kick in.

It's logic.

User avatar
bucky starburst
Your Personal Indestructible Mosquito
Posts: 1091
Joined: December 19th, 2000, 8:00pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby bucky starburst » March 8th, 2013, 4:51pm

Except that I'm not.

My dear old Pa made a killing in the stock market when Clinton was President. He's a die-hard Republican but Clinton is his favorite guy in the world. Unfortunately I wasn't yet vested until the bubble burst in the late 90s once the baby boomers had fully raided the jar.

Like Frank, my father's conservatism is conditional: it ends where his wallet begins. So he's fine with Obama.

User avatar
212frank
"oh qualified one"
Posts: 3506
Joined: December 2nd, 2000, 8:00pm
Location: back and forth
Contact:

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby 212frank » March 8th, 2013, 5:39pm

there is so much awfulness in this thread I dont know where to start. so I wont.
Walt, is that you?

Weezer
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 10th, 2012, 5:28pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby Weezer » March 25th, 2013, 10:48am

I don't know what you're smoking, but I can't ever remember the economy being this bad for this long. I think Dick Cheney is the worst foreign policy president we've ever had, but Obama has got to be the worst economic president. Times are tough right now and I'd sure trade what we have right now for the economy of 2003-2004 when jobs were aplenty. The last six years have been recession and each yeah it gets worse it seems. I want a good job dammit!

User avatar
All Change is Good
fancy book learnin talk
Posts: 2130
Joined: April 17th, 2008, 8:34am
Contact:

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby All Change is Good » March 25th, 2013, 2:09pm

212frank wrote:there is so much awfulness in this thread I dont know where to start. so I wont.


That's twice in a row we agree. People are going to start talking.
superbe bibit cervisiam in imbrem
http://www.TheresaQuinn.com

User avatar
BuffaloBass
Senior Member
Posts: 1326
Joined: September 6th, 2005, 5:20pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby BuffaloBass » June 17th, 2013, 8:37am

There is no causal ( not casual) relationship between the President and the economy . NONE. Before anyone spouts anymore fancy theories, you might wnat to think about that causality line. The only reason it exists is that they ALL have lied to us about its exsistence. The Executive is completely epiphenomenal to the economic output. Leaders In Name Only.

For the record the only reason Bill CLinton is known as "the last President who CAUSED a good economy" is actually caused by a simple demographic fact, the U.S. was minting more 50 year old males during the Clinton Adminsitration that at any time in its history. 50 year old males are peak earners, spenders and savers.

Boomers peak earning years set the economic stage. No more. No less.

If you focus on demographics, you'll find more truth.

Here's something that my finance students at BuffState get in their face: NUMBERS DONT LIE, PEOPLE DO!

Someone lambasting Cheney on FP?> now that has merit. He was a virutal killer during 'Nam, and then he got a second chance to be a war pig. Republicans couldnt find true leaders if you put guns to their heads. Dems aint so far behind.

In fact, here is some causality you may think about. The institutional structure of the Presidential primaries, being utterly controlled by the two main incorporated political parties, PRECLUDES us ever having a true leader as President. I.E., neither major party really gives a flyin' f about you and me UNTIL e(R)ection day.

That may be worthy of your discussion. In fact, I may ask if anyone has thought about that before.

User avatar
bucky starburst
Your Personal Indestructible Mosquito
Posts: 1091
Joined: December 19th, 2000, 8:00pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby bucky starburst » August 28th, 2013, 12:15pm

Hey Knobs, here's the report card:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/pres ... ?a=viewall

PERCENTAGE OF EQUITIES RAISED DURING TENURE:

Clinton: +150%
Obama: +78%
Reagan: +54%
Bush I: +30%
W: -46% (nice work)

Bucky Starburst: 1, Wnymusic: 0

User avatar
212frank
"oh qualified one"
Posts: 3506
Joined: December 2nd, 2000, 8:00pm
Location: back and forth
Contact:

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby 212frank » August 29th, 2013, 9:41am

Dear Flaming Pink Sphincter:

Its the congress directs where the washington money machine goes. Go back and look who controlled congress during each of those administrations and get back to us. thanks!

Best,
Frank

bucky starburst wrote:Hey Knobs, here's the report card:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/pres ... ?a=viewall

PERCENTAGE OF EQUITIES RAISED DURING TENURE:

Clinton: +150%
Obama: +78%
Reagan: +54%
Bush I: +30%
W: -46% (nice work)

Bucky Starburst: 1, Wnymusic: 0
Walt, is that you?

User avatar
bucky starburst
Your Personal Indestructible Mosquito
Posts: 1091
Joined: December 19th, 2000, 8:00pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby bucky starburst » August 29th, 2013, 11:09am

212frank wrote:Dear Flaming Pink Sphincter:

Its the congress directs where the washington money machine goes. Go back and look who controlled congress during each of those administrations and get back to us. thanks!

Best,
Frank

bucky starburst wrote:Hey Knobs, here's the report card:

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/pres ... ?a=viewall

PERCENTAGE OF EQUITIES RAISED DURING TENURE:

Clinton: +150%
Obama: +78%
Reagan: +54%
Bush I: +30%
W: -46% (nice work)

Bucky Starburst: 1, Wnymusic: 0


My original point was that Democratic presidents are more diplomatic and less hungry to feed the war machine. The war machine under Republicans destabilizes the stock market. So my point still stands. Statistomatics don't lie neither.

User avatar
212frank
"oh qualified one"
Posts: 3506
Joined: December 2nd, 2000, 8:00pm
Location: back and forth
Contact:

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby 212frank » August 29th, 2013, 2:34pm

your wrongedness is spectacular on many levels. it is why I admire you so. you are to stoopid what the perpetual motion machine is to science.

also check back in a few days and let's see if Barry has entered us into another war without congressional approval. And least W axed for permission.
Walt, is that you?

User avatar
bucky starburst
Your Personal Indestructible Mosquito
Posts: 1091
Joined: December 19th, 2000, 8:00pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby bucky starburst » August 29th, 2013, 3:13pm

212frank wrote:your wrongedness is spectacular on many levels. it is why I admire you so. you are to stoopid what the perpetual motion machine is to science.

also check back in a few days and let's see if Barry has entered us into another war without congressional approval. And least W axed for permission.


Obama ended American involvement in Iraq & Afghanistan wars, playing clean up for W. Btw, Iraq war was a spectacular piece of work now that the country is essentially broken and engaged in civil war, allies itself with Iran, while the US Fifth Fleet and air forces protect the supply of Iraqi oil headed for China (since they're the main buyer now). So what exactly was accomplished?

The market dipped this week on Syria war fears, proving my point that the stock market doesn't like destabilization, which is generally caused by Republican presidential war posturing. Obama won't invade Syria. An air strike is possible, though.

User avatar
212frank
"oh qualified one"
Posts: 3506
Joined: December 2nd, 2000, 8:00pm
Location: back and forth
Contact:

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby 212frank » August 31st, 2013, 7:55am

August 30, 2013 5:00 PM
An Accidental War
Perfunctory and ineffectual war-making in Syria is worse than nothing.
By Mark Steyn

I see the Obama “reset” is going so swimmingly that the president is now threatening to go to war against a dictator who gassed his own people. Don’t worry, this isn’t anything like the dictator who gassed his own people that the discredited warmonger Bush spent 2002 and early 2003 staggering ever more punchily around the country inveighing against. The 2003 dictator who gassed his own people was the leader of the Baath Party of Iraq. The 2013 dictator who gassed his own people is the leader of the Baath Party of Syria. Whole other ball of wax. The administration’s ingenious plan is to lose this war in far less time than we usually take. In the unimprovable formulation of an unnamed official speaking to the Los Angeles Times, the White House is carefully calibrating a military action “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”

That would make a great caption for a Vanity Fair photo shoot of Obama gamboling in the surf at Martha’s Vineyard, but as a military strategy it’s not exactly Alexander the Great or the Duke of Wellington. And it’s trickier than it sounds: I’m sure Miley’s choreographer assured her she was “just muscular enough not to get mocked,” and one wouldn’t want to see the United States reduced to twerking arrhythmically to no avail in front of an unimpressed Bashar Assad’s Robin Thicke. Okay, okay, that metaphor’s as thinly stretched as Miley’s talent, so what does unmockable musculature boil down to? From the New York Times: “A wide range of officials characterize the action under consideration as ‘limited,’ perhaps lasting no more than a day or two.”

Yeah, I know, that’s what Edward III said about the Hundred Years’ War. But Obama seems to mean it:

An American official said that the initial target lists included fewer than 50 sites, including air bases where Syria’s Russian-made attack helicopters are. The list includes command and control centers as well as a variety of conventional military targets. Perhaps two to three missiles would be aimed at each site.

Got that? So, if you’re a Syrian air-base commander, you might want to think about moving those Russian helicopters, or at least yourself — perhaps to that black-eyed cutie’s apartment, above the restaurant where the kibbeh with the pomegranate sauce is to die for, just for the night, until the Great Satan has twerked his ordnance at you twice or thrice and gone away to threaten the Yemenis or Somalis or whoever’s next.

In the world’s most legalistic culture, it was perhaps inevitable that battle plans would eventually be treated under courtroom discovery rules and have to be disclosed to the other side in your pre-war statement. But in this case it doesn’t seem to be impressing anyone. Like his patrons in Tehran and Moscow, Assad’s reaction to American threats is to double up with laughter and say, “Bring it, twerkypants.” Headline from Friday’s Guardian in London: “Syria: ‘Napalm’ Bomb Dropped on School Playground, BBC Claims” — which, if true, suggests that even a blood-soaked mass murderer is not without a sense of humor. Napalm, eh? There’s a word I haven’t heard since, oh, 40 years ago or thereabouts, somewhere in the general vicinity of southeast Asia.

The BBC footage is grisly; the British media have been far more invested in the Syrian civil war than their U.S. colleagues. But what’s the net effect of all the harrowing human-interest stories? This week, David Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer recess to permit the people’s representatives to express their support for the impending attack. Instead, for the first time since the British defeat at Yorktown in 1782, the House of Commons voted to deny Her Majesty’s Government the use of force. Under the Obama “reset,” even the Coalition of the Willing is unwilling. “It’s clear to me that the British Parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” said the prime minister. So the Brits are out, and, if he goes at all, Obama will be waging war without even Austin Powers’s Union Jack fig leaf.

“This House will not fight for king and country”? Not exactly. What the British people are sick of, quite reasonably enough, is ineffectual warmongering, whether in the cause of Blairite liberal interventionism or of Bush’s big-power assertiveness. The problem with the American way of war is that, technologically, it can’t lose, but, in every other sense, it can’t win. No one in his right mind wants to get into a tank battle or a naval bombardment with the guys responsible for over 40 percent of the planet’s military expenditures. Which is why these days there aren’t a lot of tank battles. The consummate interventionist Robert Kagan wrote in his recent book that the American military “remains unmatched.” It’s unmatched in the sense that the only guy in town with a tennis racket isn’t going to be playing a lot of tennis matches. But the object of war, in Liddell Hart’s famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy’s tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The “unmatched” superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America’s inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it’s not even being asked.

Let us stipulate that many of those war-weary masses are ignorant and myopic. But at a certain level they grasp something that their leaders don’t: For a quarter-century, from Kuwait to Kosovo to Kandahar, the civilized world has gone to war only in order to save or liberate Muslims. The Pentagon is little more than central dispatch for the U.S. military’s Muslim Fast Squad. And what do we have to show for it? Liberating Syria isn’t like liberating the Netherlands: In the Middle East, the enemy of our enemy is also our enemy. Yes, those BBC images of schoolchildren with burning flesh are heart-rending. So we’ll get rid of Assad and install the local branch of al-Qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood or whatever plucky neophyte democrat makes it to the presidential palace first — and then, instead of napalmed schoolyards, there will be, as in Egypt, burning Christian churches and women raped for going uncovered.

So what do we want in Syria? Obama can’t say, other than for him to look muscular without being mocked, like a camp bodybuilder admiring himself in the gym mirror.

Oh, well. If the British won’t be along for the ride, the French are apparently still in. What was the old gag from a decade ago during those interminable U.N. resolutions with Chirac saying “Non!” every time? Ah, yes: “Going to war without the French is like going hunting without an accordion.” Oddly enough, the worst setback for the Islamic imperialists in recent years has been President Hollande’s intervention in Mali, where, unlike the money-no-object Pentagon, the French troops had such undernourished supply lines that they had to hitch a ride to the war on C-17 transports from the Royal Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force. And yet they won — insofar as anyone ever really wins on that benighted sod.

Meanwhile, the hyperpower is going to war because Obama wandered off prompter and accidentally made a threat. So he has to make good on it, or America will lose its credibility. But he only wants to make good on it in a perfunctory and ineffectual way. So America will lose its credibility anyway.

Maybe it’s time to learn the accordion . . .
Walt, is that you?

Weezer
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 10th, 2012, 5:28pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby Weezer » September 3rd, 2013, 6:33pm

Where are code pink and the rest of the war protesters when the current President is trying to start another war???

Weezer
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: November 10th, 2012, 5:28pm

Re: Democratic president = rising stock market. Republican

Postby Weezer » September 3rd, 2013, 10:48pm

All signs now point to President Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, launching a military strike against a Mideast dictator over the alleged usage of weapons of mass destruction.

Obama is about to commit an act of war against Syria, possibly without congressional or international approval, for the same reason President Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq. President Obama was one of Bush’s most vocal critics about the Iraq war.

Bush, however, got both international approval and congressional approval before launching military action, and a large majority of American people supported the wars Iraq and Afghanistan. The same United Nations Security Council that approved military action against both Iraq and Afghanistan has voted against military action in Syria three times.

International law requires a U.N. resolution to commence military action, and more importantly, federal law requires congressional approval. The War Powers Act of 1974 and the War Powers Clause of the Constitution, provide for only one exception that could possibly apply to Obama’s Syrian war: a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or its armed forces, or the imminence of such an attack.

Obama’s prospective Syrian war does not fall under this exception. Federal law therefore requires Obama to get pre-approval from Congress to conduct this act of war.

President Obama has indicated that he will not seek congressional approval before taking action. He is aware that the Democrat-controlled Senate would not support him, and he will therefore just ignore the law. The anti-war Democrats who were so vocal about President Bush going to war under almost identical circumstances are all silent today, even though Bush followed both international and federal law. This is just more evidence that their extreme opposition under Bush was about naked politics, not principle.

President Obama wasn’t always a war-monger. In October, 2002, Obama, then an Illinois state senator, gave a rousing speech in opposition to the Iraq war at the Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago. He began by differentiating between a “dumb, rash war based not on reason, but on passion and politics,” and a war concerning a direct American security interest.

Obama went on to dismiss any sort of humanitarian motive as justification to enter into war. He started by admitting that Saddam Hussein is “a man who butchers his own people to secure his own power,” and that “the world would be better off without him.” He made a very strong point that “Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, and that in concert with the international community, he can be contained.”

Even as recently as 2007, while campaigning for president, Obama told The Boston Globe that “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”

Obama’s most loyal followers, the main stream media, can’t do enough spinning to make Obama’s Syrian war match with the litany of his past statements and actions which directly contradict this decision.

The American people are sick of America being the world’s policemen. This is reflected in a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that only 9 percent of Americans agree with the decision to intervene militarily in Syria. Not one of our allies, after the U.K. parliament voted against it on Thursday, is going to join us.

Additionally, Russia, China and Iran have all threatened repercussions if military action is commenced. Russia has defied Obama numerous times and have sent ships to the Mediterranean Sea. China owns more than enough American debt to crash the economy tomorrow if they wanted to cash in. Iran has the capability of causing great harm to one of our very best allies, Israel.

With every reason not to move forward with this attack, it is apparent Obama is adamant about conducting this act of war for one reason: to save face. On August 20, 2012 he infamously told the world that a “red-line” for America’s military involvement in Syria was if the Syrians used weapons of mass destruction, which includes chemical weapons, against their own people.

According to Secretary of State John Kerry, there is now undeniable evidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on its people. Obama, with one eye on his bloated ego and the other distracted with concern about his legacy of being a feckless, weak leader, will go to war just to save face.

Since the more than 12 years and innumerable American lives that have been lost in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans have grown very wary of new wars in the Middle East based on unsubstantiated claims of weapons of mass destruction. However, as Obama’s power and ego have grown, his impunity to act against all domestic, and even international, legal protocols has also also grown.

President Obam, should take his own advice and not enter into another “dumb, rash war based not on reason, but on passion and politics.”


Return to “Political Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();