we now have a 100% gain under obama leadership.

[Free Thinker]

we now have a 100% gain under obama leadership from the bottom. my favorite index,iwm, is just a few points from all time highs.

i wonder how this chart will look if you add in the gains under obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html

As of Friday, a $10,000 investment in the S.& P. stock market index* would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only, although that would be $51,211 if we exclude Herbert Hoover’s presidency during the Great Depression. Invested under Democratic presidents only, $10,000 would have grown to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9 percent over nearly 40 years.

 

[Lucrum]

And you're giving Big Ears Barry Buffoon the credit for this?

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Lucrum:

And you're giving Big Ears Barry Buffoon the credit for this?

free thinker has got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet. this has been explained to him numerous times, but hes too lost in his trolling to get it. just ignore him. most do.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Lucrum:

And you're giving Big Ears Barry Buffoon the credit for this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



free thinker has got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet. this has been explained to him numerous times, but hes too lost in his trolling to get it. just ignore him. most do.


most of this sample size from the chart is from before obama was in power. he only added to the trend. is that too difficult for you two to understand. not sure how to make it simpler so you can understand.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Free Thinker:

Quote from Lucrum:

And you're giving Big Ears Barry Buffoon the credit for this?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



free thinker has got to be one of the biggest idiots on the planet. this has been explained to him numerous times, but hes too lost in his trolling to get it. just ignore him. most do.


most of this sample size from the chart is from before obama was in power. he only added to the trend. is that too difficult for you two to understand. not sure how to make it simpler so you can understand.

brainchild - first of all, the S+P is 100% up from the lows. not from when obama took president.

second of all, the march in the market has nothing to do with obama and everything to do with bernanke.

third, as i've said to you numerous times, we'll see where the market is towards the end of his presidency (and when, not if, it collapses, it will not be obama's fault either - but the fed's).

fourth, it was bush that put bernanke in - "change you can believe in" simply reconfirmed the same crook who is blowing the same bubbles all over again, even if they seem to be nice right now.

lastly, if you're going to give credit to obama for the 100% rise in the market from it's low, then you have to give him credit for all the other economical stats (and not the massaged ones, either) that have changed since he took office. are you sure you want to do that?

get a clue. really. you're just a cut-and-paste troll with no knowledge at all about most of the subjects you spam here.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

brainchild - first of all, the S+P is 100% up from the lows. not from when obama took president.

second of all, the march in the market has nothing to do with obama and everything to do with bernanke.

third, as i've said to you numerous times, we'll see where the market is towards the end of his presidency (and when, not if, it collapses, it will not be obama's fault either - but the fed's).

fourth, it was bush that put bernanke in - "change you can believe in" simply reconfirmed the same crook who is blowing the same bubbles all over again, even if they seem to be nice right now.

lastly, if you're going to give credit to obama for the 100% rise in the market from it's low, then you have to give him credit for all the other economical stats (and not the massaged ones, either) that have changed since he took office. are you sure you want to do that?

get a clue. really. you're just a cut-and-paste troll with no knowledge at all about most of the subjects you spam here.

talking about clueless. the trend of republicans bad democrats good for the market has been going on for almost 50 years. is there some point in time where a light turns on?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Free Thinker:

...most of this sample size from the chart is from before obama was in power. he only added to the trend...

Then it looks to me that your thread title is misleading.

"we now have a 100% gain under obama leadership."

Although I'll admit I'm not sure how to make that any simpler for you to understand.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from Free Thinker:

talking about clueless. the trend of republicans bad democrats good for the market has been going on for almost 50 years. is there some point in time where a light turns on?

No, silly. If that were the case Bush would never have been elected in the first place.
Oh, and tax cuts good. Even though Bush's did precisely nothing for the economy, remember: tax cuts good.

 

[trefoil]

Quote from trefoil:

No, silly. If that were the case Bush would never have been elected in the first place.
Oh, and tax cuts good. Even though Bush's did precisely nothing for the economy, remember: tax cuts good.

...and I almost forgot: these guys will come back with excuse after excuse after excuse for the lousy returns under Republicans, including that performance about how it's all Bernanke. Which of course is why that light never goes on.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from trefoil:

... remember: tax cuts good.

So that means tax increases = good? And what do tax increases typically do for the economy?