While all of you Cons and Neo Cons whine and cry, here the the truth. Market returns are better under a Democrat than a Republican http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-371 Of course this current occupant of the White House has presided over the largest job loss in the last 50 years. So much for his bogus economic policies. What else could we expect for a man who has driven at least 2 companies into bankruptcy despite his money and personal ties. Anyone but Bush. A trained chimp would be a better option.
What is it about you neo-reactionaries that you simply cannot understand one million jobs were lost immediately following 9/11?
Ballot status of third party candidates This may be of interest to some on this forum: http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm
Ok message board troll, try this link http://polls.yahoo.com/public/archives/57019568/p-quote-371 Or if the link does not work, here is the text Even though the Republicans are typically the party associated with big business, it turns out that the market ADVERTISEMENT returns generated under Democratic administrations have outperformed those of Republican administrations. UCLA Anderson School of Management finance professors, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov, looked at market returns from 1927 to 1988 spanning 18 presidential elections, 10 Democratic administrations and 8 Republican administrations.1 When the researchers looked at the average excess return of the value-weighted CRSP index over the 3 month Treasury bill rate they found that Republican administrations had an excess return of approximately 2% while Democratic administrations had an excess return of approximately 11%. Santa-Clara and Valkanov determined that the wide variation in excess market returns was due to higher real market returns under Democrats as well as to real interest rates being almost 4% lower when Democrats were in the White House. The exact reasons as to why Democratic administrations seem to enjoy better market returns than Republicans are not directly addressed by the paper although the authors do caution that, "given the limitations of the data, we can never be absolutely sure that the impact of political cycles on the stock market is not just a statistical fluke." Ultimately, these findings should not necessarily change the way you manage your investment portfolio, as this presidential partisan effect might never be proven real. However, keep in mind that elections can drive changes in tax rates and public policy, which directly affect your investments and personal finances.
Hi Mr. Engineer, I really hate to break this to you but there has been voter fraud since elections began and all major political parties have been involved in illegal tactics, intimidation of voters, etc. For every story or allegation you present where the GOP engaged in unethical behaviors I can point to an equal amount alleging Democratic unethical behaviors. The WORST case of such, that can actually be documented, are the beatings of blacks and other acts of intimidation to prevent the casting of ballots, in the South under Democratic leaders (George Wallace, Bull Conner, Ross Barnett, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, etc.)
Uh - gee Jimmy, forget to take a class in critical thinking? What I posted has nothing to do with your response. Perhaps it is those GW colored glasses that you are wearing that has skewed your thinking - lol Anyone but Bush - for Christ sakes, Buchanan would be a better choice.
Re: Re: Re: Well, here is the proof No, from The Ghengis Monthly. Actually, according to Progressive Living, a liberal think tank, BUSTED!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, here is the proof I wasn't trying to bust you, just trying to find out where your info came from. Anyway, the sentence right before the one you quoted: "The year and a half prior to 9/11 saw the loss of 1.6 million American jobs. "
Oh really? Your link is about preventing people from voting, is it not? So was my reply. I thought you are a Libertarian. Why aren't you supporing Michael Badnarik?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, here is the proof Bush was in office EIGHT months when 9/11 hit. So, the year and a half you refer to includes 10 month's of theClinton Administration!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, here is the proof Yeah, no kidding. Your assertion was that the job losses were caused by 9/11, period. I am making the case that we were tanking anyway.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well, here is the proof Looks like we actually agree here more than we disagree.
I'd like to weigh in here, but I have no idea what the heck you guys are arguing about at this point!!! Oh well, I'll try anyway.... Democrats create more jobs and better market returns - I believe this to be generally true, as odd as it may sound. Republicans create more wealth for their corporate backers, and bleed the economy dry in order to feather their own nests - I also believe this to be generally true. Which is better for the economy? Well, if you are filthy stinking rich, Republican economic policy is where you are at.... If you are like the other 98% of us, then stick with Democrats - your own return on investment will be higher, and isn't that just "good business"?
