S&P 500 up 61% since Obama took office

[teamosil]

The S&P 500 has risen 61% since Obama took office and it has doubled since it's low, which was just a few weeks after he took office.

By comparison, over the course of Bush's two terms it fell 38%.

Obama is outperforming Bush by a much larger margin than Democrats normally outperform Republicans, but on average Democratic presidents have always radically outperformed Republicans economically. Between 1927 and 1998 the stock market has performed 6.3 times better under Democratic presidents on average.

Income growth is similarly skewed with Democrats again totally destroying Republicans. If you are at the 20th percentile for income, between 1948 and 2005, your income increased an average of 2.64% a year under Democrats, but only 0.43% under Republicans. At the 60th percentile, it was 2.47% under Democrats, but only 1.13% under Republicans. Even if you're at the 95th percentile, the Democrats still beat the Republicans 2.12% to 1.9%. In fact, the GDP grew 2.78% under Democrats, but only 1.64% under Republicans.

 

[cpwill]

:roll:

Allright. That only works if you give Obama credit for the economy starting the day he was sworn in. Would you like to make that the standard?


If it is liberals intention to sell the President this election with a standard that says "we've lost millions of jobs but the stock market is up!"...

well, Teamosil, I can only encourage you to keep on doin whatcha doin

 

[AdamT]

:roll:

Allright. That only works if you give Obama credit for the economy starting the day he was sworn in. Would you like to make that the standard?

The number would actually be much better if you want to start three months into Obama's term as that's about when the markets bottomed.

 

[cpwill]

The number would actually be much better if you want to start three months into Obama's term as that's about when the markets bottomed.

:shrug: alright. Obama is responsible for stock market increases and job losses since March 2009.



I really don't think that focusing on this is going to be a good argument for you guys. I can already see this playing out in debate.

President Obama: ...and Governor Romney has been running around telling everyone that I am some kind of horrible economic administrator - not only do we have 18 months of positive private sector job growth, the S&P 500 is up 61% in my tenure.

Governor Romney: See, this is how the President thinks the Private Sector Is Doing Fine. And he does think it's doing fine, because for the hedge fund managers and the hollywood folks he hangs out with, it is doing fine. But pretending like Wall Street making money is going to make up for the fact that we have millions of people out of work isn't going to cut it, and it's not where I'm going to focus when I am President of the United States....

But hey, if you want Obama to position himself as the benefactor of Wall Street.... :shrug: go for it.

 

[AdamT]

:shrug: alright. Obama is responsible for stock market increases and job losses since March 2009.

That would be job INCREASES and huge stock market gains. I'll accept that. :thumbs:

 

[cpwill]

That would be job INCREASES and huge stock market gains. I'll accept that.

So you agree that the recession effectively ended in the late spring early summer of 2009, and that Obama is not responsible for that, but rather for the anemic recovery that followed?

 

[AdamT]

So you agree that the recession effectively ended in the late spring early summer of 2009, and that Obama is not responsible for that, but rather for the anemic recovery that followed?

No, it was during those three months between March and June that Obama saved the world.

 

[cpwill]

not really. As you have already stated, he doesn't take responsibility for ending the recession (nor should he). He is responsible for our low-growth-rate-high-unemployment "recovery", or lack thereof.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Few things anger me more than comparing economic fluctuations to Presidents. As though there is some real different in Presidents.

It wouldn't have mattered if Ralph Nader was President from '00 to '08. Greenspan still would've traded in the dot-com bust for the housing bubble and we'd see the same volatility, and likely the same "rebound" since the crash.

In other words, US Presidents don't draw stock market graphs. Their main job is foreign policy and appeasing the masses with calming reassurance.

 

[AdamT]

not really. As you have already stated, he doesn't take responsibility for ending the recession (nor should he). He is responsible for our low-growth-rate-high-unemployment "recovery", or lack thereof.

He ended the recession sooner than it would have ended without the stimulus and auto bailouts. He probably averted a full-blown depression. The recovery would be stronger if the Republicans didn't oppose every measure to improve it.

 

[teamosil]

If it is liberals intention to sell the President this election with a standard that says "we've lost millions of jobs but the stock market is up!"...

You already know the flaw in your position:

 

[iguanaman]

Few things anger me more than comparing economic fluctuations to Presidents. As though there is some real different in Presidents.

It wouldn't have mattered if Ralph Nader was President from '00 to '08. Greenspan still would've traded in the dot-com bust for the housing bubble and we'd see the same volatility, and likely the same "rebound" since the crash.

In other words, US Presidents don't draw stock market graphs. Their main job is foreign policy and appeasing the masses with calming reassurance.

So you think Nader would have been able to get away with selling $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae like GW did? You naivete is amusing but get REAL. The housing bubble was only possible because of the GOP majorities in Congress and Bush in the WH. Without their support, the banks could never have run that scam.

 

[teamosil]

Few things anger me more than comparing economic fluctuations to Presidents. As though there is some real different in Presidents.

So your contention is that it is just one incredibly huge coincidence that the economy so consistently performs so much better under Democratic presidents? Income growth for the median American that is TWICE as high under Democrats over the course of 6 decades is just a coincidence?

That is, of course, absurd. That would be like if you had two dice that you had been rolling over and over for 80 years and the average number one of them was landing on was 5 and the other was 2. Would that be a coincidence? Or would something be different about the dice?

 

[mpg]

Sounds like a winning strategy for Obama. 'The economy is doing great!'

 

[teamosil]

Sounds like a winning strategy for Obama. 'The economy is doing great!'

No, the message is that the economy is improving rapidly.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

The S&P 500 has risen 61% since Obama took office and it has doubled since it's low, which was just a few weeks after he took office.

By comparison, over the course of Bush's two terms it fell 38%.

Obama is outperforming Bush by a much larger margin than Democrats normally outperform Republicans, but on average Democratic presidents have always radically outperformed Republicans economically. Between 1927 and 1998 the stock market has performed 6.3 times better under Democratic presidents on average.

Income growth is similarly skewed with Democrats again totally destroying Republicans. If you are at the 20th percentile for income, between 1948 and 2005, your income increased an average of 2.64% a year under Democrats, but only 0.43% under Republicans. At the 60th percentile, it was 2.47% under Democrats, but only 1.13% under Republicans. Even if you're at the 95th percentile, the Democrats still beat the Republicans 2.12% to 1.9%. In fact, the GDP grew 2.78% under Democrats, but only 1.64% under Republicans.

The S&P claim makes no sense unless you can actually prove that, due to Obama's economic policies, the S&P greatly benefitted.

Also, this doesn't change the fact that real unemployment is (according to the official testimony) around 15%.

 

[Fletch]

The S&P claim makes no sense unless you can actually prove that, due to Obama's economic policies, the S&P greatly benefitted.

Also, this doesn't change the fact that real unemployment is (according to the official testimony) around 15%.

Right. And if you really wish to attribute the gains in the stock market to a single individual, give credit where it is really due--to Ben Bernanke. Obama is a bystander, at best.

 

[Harshaw]

No, the message is that the economy is improving rapidly.

Yeah. If he runs on that, he's going to get laughed out of office.

So, I really hope he does.

 

[teamosil]

The S&P claim makes no sense unless you can actually prove that, due to Obama's economic policies, the S&P greatly benefitted.

So is your contention just that you think the success under Obama has been a coincidence? Or that the entire last 80 years where Democratic presidents outperformed Republican presidents six to one have all been a massive string of mindboggling coincidences?

As for what Obama has done that has stimulated the economy, obviously the stimulus was #1 by a mile, but restoring regulatory integrity and the payroll tax cut were obviously huge boosts too.

Fundamentally, what Republican economics misses is that consumer spending is crucial. We can't shift the tax burden to the middle class and expect the economy to grow. That's why Democrats always come out on top economically- more consumer spending from the middle class.

Also, this doesn't change the fact that real unemployment is (according to the official testimony) around 15%.

"Real" unemployment being some new standard for measuring unemployment that Republicans suddenly prefer because it is, and has always been, a higher number than the actual unemployment rate....

Again:

 

[teamosil]

Yeah. If he runs on that, he's going to get laughed out of office.

So, I really hope he does.

He can run on whatever he wants and still will win. I'm just giving you the actual data so you can make a more informed decision.

 

[Neomalthusian]

So you think Nader would have been able to get away with selling $440 Billion of the banks subprime garbage to Fannie Mae like GW did? You naivete is amusing but get REAL. The housing bubble was only possible because of the GOP majorities in Congress and Bush in the WH. Without their support, the banks could never have run that scam.

It was the support of many, many contributors. Reducing it to the President is the most naive and amusing analysis of the housing crash of all. So WADR, you get real.

So your contention is that it is just one incredibly huge coincidence that the economy so consistently performs so much better under Democratic presidents? Income growth for the median American that is TWICE as high under Democrats over the course of 6 decades is just a coincidence?

Not coincidence, false attribution. For people to attribute broad trends to the even broader set of factors that really play into them, it becomes too complex and involves too much data for their brains to process. So they look to comically simpler explanations like who the President is.

That is, of course, absurd.

:shrug: Well, whatever helps you feel confident voting (D) every time you head in to the booth.

 

[teamosil]

Not coincidence, false attribution. For people to attribute broad trends to the even broader set of factors that really play into them, it becomes too complex and involves too much data for their brains to process. So they look to comically simpler explanations like who the President is

:shrug: Well, whatever helps you feel confident voting (D) every time you head in to the booth.

So, you are saying you think it is just a coincidence then. Actually 80 years of coincidences...

 

[Harshaw]

He can run on whatever he wants and still will win. I'm just giving you the actual data so you can make a more informed decision.

Delusion.

Smarminess.

My very well-informed decision is that the disastrous Obama Administration needs to end as soon as possible.

 

[teamosil]

Delusion.

Smarminess.

My very well-informed decision is that the disastrous Obama Administration needs to end as soon as possible.

So you got nothin? Just a conclusion, nothing to back it up?

 

[Harshaw]

So you got nothin? Just a conclusion, nothing to back it up?

What could I possibly say to you if you sincerely believe the economy is "improving rapidly"? It would be like trying to convince you gravity exists when you insist it doesn't.