Comments on: The end of the Bush stock market http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/ Insights behind the investment headlines Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:43:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Duke Snider http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2105 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:55:19 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-2105 As much as it pains me to say this, I have to admit it – my Democrat friends were right.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the nation’s hope
would deteriorate, and sure enough there has been a
20 point drop in the Consumer Confidence Index and greater since the election to a historical all time low – much lower point than any time during the Bush administration.

They told me if I voted for McCain, the US would become more deeply embroiled in the Middle East, and now,
tens of thousands of additional troops are scheduled to be deployed into Afghanistan.

My Democrat Party friends told me if I voted for
McCain, that the economy would get worse and sure
enough unemployment is at 9.4% and the new stimulus
packages implemented recently have sent the stock market
lower than at any time since the Islamic Terrorists
attacks of 9-11.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more
“crooks” in high ranking positions in the Federal government and sure enough, several recent cabinet nominees and senate appointments revealed resumes of scandal, bribery and tax fraud.

They told me if I voted for McCain, we would see more
Pork at the trough” in Federal government spending and sure> enough, 17,500 “Pork Bills” showed up in Congress
since January 2009.

I was also told by my Democrat friends that if I voted for McCain, we would see more deficit spending in Washington D..C. , and sure enough, Obama has spent more
in just 30 days than all other Presidents together – in the entire history of the good old USA!!

Well, I voted for McCain in November and my Democrat
friends were right… all of their predictions have come
true!

]]>
By: duke snider http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-2104 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:40:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-2104 Yeah, and you cut the charts off just like a love sick pup for Clinton lies, that showed a sharp down turn beginning the last year of Clinton that continued his recession into 2003 of where it was worsened by 9-11 … Despite the inherited recession and 9-11 you liberal love sick dimwits fail to mention Bush’s stock market soared to twice that of Clinton’s and was a massive success until the Democrats took control of Congress in the last two years and refused to control soaring oil prices, refused to drill, refused to reform Fannie and Freddie and did everything they could to kill the economy for the upcoming elections.

They succeeded and now they are still killing the economy clapping their hands at a measly 9,000 points and soaring unemployment. Yeah, Bush was terrible and it was his fault gasoline was up to records levels but no one thanked him when they dropped back from 5 bucks to 1.30 after he lifted the ban on drilling and forced the democrats to act — something they retracted under Obama and now gasoline has doubled from its previous low.

Is that Bush’s fault too? Liberal lies and liberals idiots trying to paint a false lie. Some of us escaped your dumb-down public education system and can read.

]]>
By: kd http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1418 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:52:37 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1418 I guess we can safely assume that Obama has inherited Bush’s policies.

]]>
By: TC http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1277 Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:32:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1277 Actually, what you are doing is not offering an objective conclusion that you are correct. It is like a court case where you find the accused “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It doesn’t mean that person isn’t guilty, but if there is reasonable doubt, then he must be set free. Kind of like your insistence by implying the democrats are better at the economy than the republicans.

Fine, you have shown that there is no answer beyond a reasonable doubt. But just because you have done so, doesn’t mean the democratic administrations did not indeed benefit from the hard work of the republican administrations.

As for your “plenty of economic PhDs”, well we all know the economists get it wrong all the time. There are economic Phds getting it wrong right now about the stimulus plan/debate taking place right now. At the same time there are other economic Phds who are getting it right. Which ones are right and which ones are wrong? I guess we will see.

I don’t see how going deeper into debt in order to get out of debt will give you anything other than debt. You can’t do it in your own life, so why would you ever think it can be done now?

Any answer by you will only be an opinion like the one I just gave, you can’t prove anything either “beyond a reasonable doubt”. But time will tell whether the road Obama is going to take will be right or wrong. When we find out, then this discussion can reach a reasonable conclusion.

Have a nice day. On to other discussions.

]]>
By: G http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1276 Sun, 25 Jan 2009 19:10:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1276 TC,

Try responding to the point that I’m actually making.

Again, my point is that the evidence does not decisively support the GOP argument about how awesome they are for the economy and how horrible Dems are. As a matter of simple logic, I don’t need to tell what you misleadingly call “the whole story.” I merely need to offer credible evidence in rebuttal, which is exactly what I did:

Major premise: If the GOP is vastly superior to Dems on the economy, there would not be any credible evidence to show that Dems are better.

Minor premise: There is credible evidence to show that Dems are better.

Conclusion: The GOP is not vastly superior to Dems on the economy.

On the other hand, you offer a theory that may or may not be true. I’m guessing that you aren’t an economist and/or that you really have not done the careful, objective, highly detailed analysis that would be required to support your theory. And even if you have such intellectual heft on your side, there are plenty of Economics PhDs who have done such research/analysis and who conclude that Milton Friedman and Ronald Regan got it completely wrong. Again, this plays right in to my point; the GOP offers vast superiority on the economy as its main selling point and the evidence for even a slight advantage is mixed.

And if you can’t substantiate your main selling point . . .

G

]]>
By: TC http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1274 Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:30:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1274 And neither can you prove your position either.

I offered up the whole truth, while you gave only half of it.

]]>
By: G http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1272 Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:03:22 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1272 TC,

Thanks, but you completely ignored my main point.

The GOP’s main argument on behalf of R candidates is how great they are for the economy and how dangerous Dems will be. The fact that there is substantial evidence pointing in the opposite direction would leave any objective observer wondering about the GOP case. Note that this is supposed to be the leading issue for Rs and that the evidence for that side is mixed, at best.

There may be some truth in what you say, but there’s no way that you can spin these kernels of truth into decisive proof that Rs are better for the economy. And if Rs can’t offer such proof on their main issue . . .

Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks on both sides who work backwards from ideology and selectively look for “evidence” for their predispositions. And, sadly, there is a huge industry that fills this “need” by serving up exactly what these folks are looking for (Air America, Rush L., Ann C., etc, etc, etc).

G

]]>
By: TC http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1270 Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:52:29 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1270 G. That’s because republican administrations had to undo all the damage democratic administrations did to the economy. All the good work republican did, didn’t show up until the democrat took over.

I have had several democrat friends who have always enjoyed the fact republicans fix the economy, but it doesn’t show up until a democrat takes over.

Since it takes time to make the changes work, it always seems to benefit the democrat. Clinton came into office and within a few months the economy was starting grow, becuase the Bush economic changes finally took effect. It always takes time for something good to happen, not immediately when the democrat takes over.

Yes, facts are facts. Thanks for telling half the story.

]]>
By: G http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1266 Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:38:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1266 Presidents are like quarterbacks, both get too much fault/blame.

But for all of the folks who reflexively blame Clinton for everything, here’s a more challenging fact: look all the way back to 1900 and you’ll see that the market performs significantly BETTER under Dem Presidents.

This is a terribly inconvenient fact for a party (the GOP) whose main selling point is their vast superiority to Dems when it comes to the economy. In other words, if there was any truth to this selling point, there’s no way that over such a long period of time the results would come out in favor of Dem Presidents.

Spin, spin, spin, facts are still facts.

]]>
By: J http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2009/01/16/the-end-of-the-bush-stock-market/comment-page-1/#comment-1237 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:50:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=1025#comment-1237 Well no wonder Bush had 911 and Clinto didnt. Clinton also had Regan economics and Bush 43 had Clinto resession.

here is a classic example of the left media trying to show Bush was all bad!

]]>