It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dem v. GOP: Better for the Stock Market?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 03:55 PM
History shows the stock market does better under Democrats.

A recent study from the University of California at Los Angeles, published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance shows that between 1927 and 1998, the stock market returned approximately 11 percent more a year under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the stock market only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills under Republicans.

But that isn't really the important observation, is it? Pose the question "Who does the investment industry think will enable further deregulation and a return to the Robber Baron days?"

THEN follow the money for the answer:

To that end, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms have contributed $3.9 million to Bush’s reelection campaign. John Kerry, Wall Street's favorite Democratic candidate in terms of campaign contributions, has received slightly more than a quarter of that.

Another reason to vote Dem in ''ll be good for the markets.

posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 04:31 PM
"Another reason to vote Dem in ''ll be good for the markets."

Most people I know that were successful, middle class, ADULTS in the 90's agree. If you aren't an active investor, however, DON'T just believe what the news channel pundits tell you. They aren't talking to you, about you, or even hail from the same planet as you and I. The overly sold American Dream they promote is one where your money makes an insider rich, not where every American has access to invest in America.

If these words mean nothing to you, then you're either overly invested in Reagenomics or haven't been shafted by Wall Street yet.

To avoid both, see what positions (if any) Democratic candidates take on Wall Street. Look for a candidate proposing an Investors Bill of Rights empowering little guy investors to hold insiders accountable for their accounting. Also, one acknowledging our corrupt IPO infrastructure that not only favors insiders (which is illegal) but exists to SCREW the little guy. If your candidate doesn't have a plan to put the "public" back in IPO... I suggest you lobby your candidate to copy the platform of this one:

posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 07:24 PM
The economy will be more stable if President Bush stays in office. I believe that one of the first things a Dem. would do in office is raise the minimum wage ammount, from $5.25 to "x." This will cause instability. Also, the GDP should be considerably higher - few percentages higher - with a conservative Republican in office. Just a quick thought.

posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 08:24 PM
This is such a hard topic to nail down, it is N O T black and white here. For example WW2 got us out of a nasty depression and whoever is in the presidency will get the ticket for bringing the economy back to life.

Also, presidents can't do crap if they are stiffled in congress. Democrats stalled an all out attack on vietnam till the last days which was really the best progress they made in 10 years.

The whole nation could be republican while the president is the democrat. In addition, are the terms as president split right down the middle in accumulated time?

And another thing, that does not factor in long term changes some changes take a lot of time to takeplace throughout the system. Buf for a shorter term example BUSH had to live with ednding the year of the Clinton budget. At that time he got totally trounced for destroying the economy by the liberal media, when he really didn't do S!

Lastly, what about the other factors like 911, or technological revolutions!? Clinton rode the internet and computing pony even while passing the largest tax increase in history and regulating the hell out of everyting.

There are more reasons, but that's the best i could think of.

[Edited on 19-1-2004 by ANMAN]

posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 08:55 PM
Also there is a HUGE difference between the Clinton and the Kennedy. JFK wanted tax cuts, limiting spending, business deregulation, as well as many other issues that today are interpreted as reckleses conservatism. Some democrats can't cope with that but he said it.
Democrats back in the day were pretty much moderate republicans of today in some cases.

posted on Jan, 20 2004 @ 08:34 AM
1. Not about Clinton. Bush inherited a palteau, something that happens after record growth, and turned it into a full blown Recession by failing to enact fail safes and readically increase the deficit while also radically increasing spending. It's like your mom buying you too many Christmas presents in Dec. & then remodling the entire of the same credit card.

2. There is no Liberal Mainstream Media - crying wolf to that canard has been thouroughly illustrated through numerous legitimate studies....all with threads on ATS.

3. Raising the minimum wage increases the consumer spending index; a critical health factor for our retail based economy. GDP higher with Bush? Nearly 4 years of his term contradicts that soundly - particularly if you remove the artificial fed spending bump to the DoD contractors & home building.

4. "JFK wanted tax cuts, limiting spending, business deregulation, as well as many other issues that today are interpreted as reckleses conservatism." - Actually, Clinton did that. Why "conservatives", or hard Right Wingers, fail to acknowledge it is because it was done hand in hand with legilsation for corporate accountablility and not disproportinate to the top 1% or corporations.
See this as an addendum to #4 if you don't believe it:
"If these words mean nothing to you, then you're either overly invested in Reagenomics or haven't been shafted by Wall Street yet. "

[Edited on 20-1-2004 by Bout Time]

top topics

log in