E-mail I just sent to a co-worker on the Stock Market and Dems vs. Repubs

[underpants]

Okay now consider the sources here. I know I know they seem to be from those RADICAL organizations but seriously can you argue with the fact.....okay apparently you can we just saw that happen..........but look for yourself anyway.



First-from those wild eyed loonies at………………………… Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/strategies/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents.html



The UCLA professors looked at data going back to 1927. Our own study of the post-World War II presidencies confirms their results. We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans. The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results. (see: "Presidents And Prosperity") Gerald R. Ford ranks second, followed by Harry S. Truman.



Second-those crazed hedonists at……………………………… CNN



http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/



According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule.

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

Thirdly-from those socialist baby killers at………………………………………. the Houston Chronicle (and those cheese humping pacifists at Credit Suisse First Boston)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2874241

The Standard & Poor's 500 index gained an average 6.8 percent in the 12-month periods following Democratic presidential victories since the end of World War II, according to Credit Suisse First Boston. When Republicans won, it dropped 3.3 percent.

Those America haters at Reuters News don’t want to be left out

http://reuters.com/financeNewsArticle.jhtml?type=bondsNews&storyID=6632157§ion=investing

A Wayne Hummer Asset Management study of the last 60 years also shows that the stock market has performed better under Democrats than it has under Republicans.

"Despite the pro-business philosophy embraced by Republican presidents, the return was about 20 percent higher under Democratic presidents," Ratkai said in a statement.

And FINALLY the most rapid tree hugging hippie lovefesters of them all……………………………. USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2004-10-26-prezmart_x.htm

In the past 100 years, stocks have posted bigger gains under Democrats. The Dow Jones industrial average has enjoyed an average annual return of 13.3% in the 48 years of Democratic rule, vs. average gains of 6.9% in the 56 years under Republicans, according to the 2005 Stock Trader's Almanac. The Almanac says a $10,000 investment has grown to almost $280,000 under Democrats but only $79,000 under Republicans.

[gratuitous]

1. Wasn't it Truman who said . . . ?

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."

[Tempest]

2. Here's another article

The Democratic Dividend
The stock market prefers Democratic presidents to Republicans. Why?

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

[SoCalDem]

3. "cheese humping pacifists"...my first chuckle of the day...

they are close only to the "tree-hugging, brie-eating, champagne-sipping oil-haters"...

[underpants]

6. Thank you I was really proud of that one

Socialist babykillers at............the Houston Chronicle

[dirtyduck]

4. You must send him this one too....

Washington Post article correlating economic indicators with presidential party. It's great.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html

[underpants]

5. Smack smack smack smack

Not even a close contest.

[MadHound]

7. This has been a known(though not widely)fact for years

Despite what the markets are doing now, Bush's reelection is not good for the economy. With talk already on the table about raising the debt limit, the bond market is going to tank. Capital is going to become scarcer, and the economy is going to sag under the weight of all that debt. With oil prices going up, a housing bubble poised to burst, and inflation starting to ramp up, Greenspan and his magic elves at the Fed can't keep the lid on forever, inflation will go up. With jobs going overseas, unemployment rising, productivity at it's max, American workers are stressed out and streched thin. With no capital available for expansion of the work force, companies can't grow. Nothing on the horizon looks good, and in fact it all looks even worse than it did last week. Despite the American markets going up in an orgy of unwarranted joy, the rest of the worlds' economic tickers showed the true storm coming. Euro went up, dollar went down, oil went up, and the price of gold, that currency of tough times, is climbing again.

I suggest that people get rid of all of the debt that they can, credit cards, pay off as much of that mortage as possible, student loans etc etc. Find a place where you can grow food if possible, it is better to be poor and self sufficient than just simply poor. For pretty soon this voodoo economics we're practicing is going to turn around and bite us, hard.

[underpants]

8. Good advice

Thanks