Lack of "Santa Clause rally" in stock market underscores Bush failures

[Lefty48197]

Since personal retirement accounts come in the form of 401K plans for most Americans, the terrible performance of the stock market during the Bush Presidency has prevented America's retirement savings accounts from growing as a result of investment returns, during the last five years. Only continuing contributions have caused the accounts to grow.
The lack of a "Santa Clause rally" has highlighted the problem this year.


Here's a graphic showing the Dow Jones performance during the Bush Presidency. The performance could only be described as flat-lining at best, and dangerously volatile for American retirement security, at the other end.



The Republican squawk box endlessly repeated their claim that the market took a beating after the attacks of 9/11/01. No doubt that was true, but the graph shows that the market had fully recovered by spring 2002. Then the excuses started: "It was the accounting scandals". "How were WE to know? What could WE have done?", the Republicans asked, as the stock market tumbled again. The graph shows that the DJ average had recovered again, by January 2004, nearly to the level it was at when Bush Jr. took office.

Here we are in January 2006 after celebrating a holiday season without a Dow Jones "Santa Clause Rally", and we see that the DJIA has barely gone up one penny in the last two years. Why not?
The terrorists haven't so much as blown up a firecracker in this country since 2001. The accounting scandals have generally subsided. Bush got his tax cuts. He has a Republican Congress. Yet the stock market continues to stagnate.

Here are the year end Dow Jones closing averages from December 31st of the following years:
The five year stagnation under GWB is a major change, even from the days of his father's Presidency.

Dec-88 2,168.57; Dec-89 2,753.20; Dec-90 2,633.66; Dec-91 3,168.83; Dec-92 3,301.11; Dec-93 3,754.09
Dec-94 3,834.44; Dec-95 5,117.12; Dec-96 6,448.27; Dec-97 7,908.25; Dec-98 9,181.43; Dec-99 11,497.12
Dec-00 10,787.99; Dec-01 10,021.57; Dec-02 8,341.63; Dec-03 10,453.92; Dec-04 10,783.01 ; Dec-05 10,717.50


Other economic indicators also show that Republicans are bad for the American economy. Among them are the federal deficits...



...and unemployment rates:



You don't have to be an economics professor to understand that the George W. Bush, and other Republican Presidencies have been a disaster for the American economy, and you don't have to be a political science professor to understand that the Republicans will continue to lie about the above facts. Sooner or later, they will again start telling us that they, and only they, can manage the federal budget.
They'll scratch and claw to find any economic news that they can use to argue that they aren't terrible stewards of the American economy. Some are still puffing their chests over the growth in Gross Domestic Product in the fourth quarter of 2004. Or was it 2003?
Look for more of the same in the future...

[Grillydad]

1. This is what i come to DU for, the TRUTH

Thanks, Lefty. I'm recommending this. This is important.

[Tommy_J]

2. Very compelling... nominated

[Benhurst]

3. Recommended. NT

:applause:

[HillDem]

4. Don't forget about the yield curve

A recent inversion is bad news for the economy.

[Lefty48197]

5. Good point. This may signify another looming recession.

And naturally, when we enter our next recession (if we're not in it already) the Republicans will start crying that tax cuts are the proper response to inverted yield curves, during a war, during even numbered years... blah blah blah...

[Czolgosz]

8. Of all the economic indicators' effect on the presidential popularity, gas

prices correlate the most closely (great graph as always courtesy of pollkatz):

[KoKo]

6. And didn't Chimp change the way unemployment is reported?

It could have been done sometime in Clinton Administration...but somewhere along the way recently I remember that the way Unemployment is calculated was changed making it seem that it's a lower figure than it really is. I believe Chimp's unemployment is much worse than the chart shows. I know that those who "stop looking for work" because they can't find it aren't included, and that the numbers are based on those receiving "unemployment compensation." Many of those laid off aren't even eligible for "unemployment compensation." Downsized white collar workers for example.

:shrug:

[elehhhhna]

9. unemp.insurance is normally extended in times of low-employment

but by not extending bene's congress dropped a couple MILLION unemployed people form the count.

My guess is real unemployment is 8% maybe a bit more.

[Czolgosz]

7. k & r

[Lefty48197]

10. Here's a graph showing the December stock market performance:

Actually, it's the forth quarter 2005. It appears we actually got our "Santa Clause" rally in November. Now the Republicans will tell us that Santa Clause stock market rallies are measured in November, while Christmas retail sales are measured up until January 31, because of all those gift cards we redeem and all the post holiday bargain shopping we do.

[Gronk Groks]

11. What I don't understand is why the Business Community...

...supports these criminals. Since reThugs are NOT helping the economy, it would seem to be counter to their interests. Are the tax breaks that good? Enough to offset the basically bad policies that shrub's cartel is endorsing?

Is the business community basically filled with criminals who are getting rich off of BFEE graft and corruption? If that is the case, is capitalism anti-democratic?

Another way to look at it; if Greed is good does democracy have to go bye-bye?

Edited for grammer.

[Demeter]

14. They ARE The Business Community

There is no room for honesty in business anymore. It doesn't generate profits like lying, fraud and cheating. Got to make that bottom line no matter what. Thank you, B-schools, for destroying capitalism, the world economy and the American way of life and politics.

[cyberpj]

15. And they did it all in our adult lifetime, too. nt.

[indepat]

12. The graph clearly shows the devastating impact of 'Puke fiscal, tax

and other policies and actions on the economy and all America, yet tens of millions of Americans who are extremely adversely impacted vote for the rascals like lemming rushing out to sea. Go figure. :shrug:

[AuntiBush]

13. This One Really Tells It All...

Thanks for the original post.



Chilling & very telling...

[Hypatia82]

16. The economy comes down to one thing...

at the end of the day it's all about spending. Either people spend or they don't. That's what it comes down to. Everything else, taxes, tariffs, etc are just syphons.

[Hope springs eternal]

19. Becasue they don't have anything to lose

The poor of the south and west are far worse off than those of the major NEern cities. So if you've never known anything better, than how could you know better to vote for better?

[ticktockman]

17. Claim that the 2003 tax cut increased revenues

You don't have to be an economics professor to understand that the George W. Bush, and other Republican Presidencies have been a disaster for the American economy, and you don't have to be a political science professor to understand that the Republicans will continue to lie about the above facts. Sooner or later, they will again start telling us that they, and only they, can manage the federal budget.


Another Republican lie that is making the rounds is the claim that tax revenues are now increasing due to the 2003 tax cut. Examples of this claim are National Review stories by Larry Kudlow at http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200505051554.asp and by Jerry Bowyer at http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200512150917.asp . The following graph shows federal revenues, outlays, and deficits, corrected for inflation, since 1981:



The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/mts.html . As can be seen, revenues declined sharply from 2000 through 2003 and have simply gone through a partial recovery. They are still well below their 2000 peak. This decline was likely initiated by the market crash in 2000. However, the decline became steeper in 2001, following the 2001 Bush tax cut. Strangely, the 2001 tax cut appears to have been totally forgotten by supply-siders who now seem to focus all of their attention on the 2003 tax cut.

Hence, if you want to "prove" that some policy increases revenues, all you have to do wait for a recession and then start implementing that policy, over and over again if necessary, until the inevitable recovery occurs. It doesn't matter whether that policy is to cut taxes three times as Bush did or simply to do a "revenue dance" each year. Eventually, the recovery will occur and, like a rooster taking credit for the dawn, you can trumpet the vindication of your policies.

In any case, it's interesting to note that revenues also declined for two years following the 1981 Reagan tax cut and increased sharply for seven years following the 1993 Clinton tax hike.

[Yavin4]

18. There's No Growth In the Markets Because There's No Growth Sector

in the economy. All positive economic stats that we've seen these past four years are directly tied to incredibly low interest rates. We've seen a tsunami of borrowing which has driven up asset prices, esp. housing.

[Democrats_win]

20. Remember how they argued: it´s your money. Is it their debt now?

How could they even argue that since our country has been in the red since 1969 except for $431 Billion surplus during Clinton´s presidency. bu$h relied on projections into the future to calculate the tax cuts, but that money didn´t even exist yet. Since it was just a prediction and the economy is failing, that money--that they said was your money--will never exist.

but the debt is real.

[Lefty48197]

21. This is the same stockmarket they want to put our Social Security money in

Bonds are a better investment than stocks during a Bush Presidency.