If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   So, how successful was stock market performance after 2000 days of Obama? Republicans forced to admit it's a lot of bull   (marketwatch.com) divider line 56
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1270 clicks; posted to Business » on 15 Jul 2014 at 6:59 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-15 05:46:03 PM
The stock market would be doing a lot better under Mitt Romney, and gas would be at $1.29.

So THANKS, OBAMA.
 
2014-07-15 06:32:37 PM

Lando Lincoln: The stock market would be doing a lot better under Mitt Romney, and gas would be at $1.29.

So THANKS, OBAMA.


Yeah, well under RON PAUL, the stock market would be at eleventy billion infinity, and gas would be free, and would come with a pumpside blowjob.  Prove me wrong.
 
2014-07-15 06:37:40 PM
That article is some tea leaf reading bullshiat right there.
 
2014-07-15 06:56:31 PM
That's nothing. If Palin were POTUS, she'd personally handle the hose and lube, then blow you. The DOW would be at infinity thanks to porn knockoffs of her stimulating the economy. And her invasion of Canada would have united our country like Obama never could.
 
2014-07-15 07:02:11 PM

dahmers love zombie: Lando Lincoln: The stock market would be doing a lot better under Mitt Romney, and gas would be at $1.29.

So THANKS, OBAMA.

Yeah, well under RON PAUL, the stock market would be at eleventy billion infinity, and gas would be free, and would come with a pumpside blowjob.  Prove me wrong.


Pffft. Under Dick Cheney we'd all be enslaved building the Cheneystar by now.

/Study it out
 
2014-07-15 07:02:41 PM
If John McCain had been elected, THERE WOULD BE NO MORE BROWN PEOPLE.

/All right, perhaps I expanded on his views a little.
 
2014-07-15 07:03:15 PM
Benghazi!
 
2014-07-15 07:09:21 PM

dahmers love zombie: Lando Lincoln: The stock market would be doing a lot better under Mitt Romney, and gas would be at $1.29.

So THANKS, OBAMA.

Yeah, well under RON PAUL, the stock market would be at eleventy billion infinity, and gas would be free, and would come with a pumpside blowjob.  Prove me wrong.


That sounds like socialism.
 
2014-07-15 07:09:25 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-15 07:23:08 PM
I love where they introduce data showing Democrats have a better track record for this stuff than Republicans do.  Then they immediately throw out a hypothetical where maybe something will happen and Republicans might look better.

How about you just say Democrats take office when the economy is in shatters, so it's easier for them to see huge gains.  Your audience is too stupid or partisan to recognize the implication in that.
 
2014-07-15 07:30:14 PM
Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.
 
2014-07-15 07:40:38 PM

untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-07-15 07:50:40 PM
Subby why don't you tell us about how Obama's loose credit has allowed the rich to get richer while unemployment is at record highs and the economy is STILL tettering on recession.

Or would fark up your contention that Obama's economy is doing great?
 
2014-07-15 07:51:24 PM
If Obama is claiming responsibility for the bull market, how will he blame the next crash on Bush?
 
2014-07-15 07:54:25 PM

anfrind: untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.


Seriously? You're blaming Reagan when he's been out office for THIRTY YEARS and we've had 14 years democrat Presidents?

That's just plain stupid.
 
2014-07-15 08:51:59 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: That article is some tea leaf reading bullshiat right there.


Of course you can provide compelling evidence to refute it right?

Right?
 
2014-07-15 08:52:28 PM
So he's sending more money to the wealthy?

How's that playing with his "folks"?
 
2014-07-15 08:55:12 PM
And let's just say that you're right and it's runaway inflation because of Fartbongo's Magic Money Press.  You still left money on the table by sitting on the sidelines proclaiming that certain doom was imminent.  With runaway inflation the value of the S&P is still going to rise because the assets and profits of the firms in the market are priced in dollars.

I know.  I'll be sorry soon.  Sorry when the ratio of my assets and income to debts improves.   I'll be sorry then.
 
2014-07-15 08:56:40 PM

The Muthaship: So he's sending more money to the wealthy?

How's that playing with his "folks"?


Unemployment is down, too.
 
2014-07-15 09:37:29 PM

Champion of the Sun: I love where they introduce data showing Democrats have a better track record for this stuff than Republicans do.  Then they immediately throw out a hypothetical where maybe something will happen and Republicans might look better.

How about you just say Democrats take office when the economy is in shatters, so it's easier for them to see huge gains.  Your audience is too stupid or partisan to recognize the implication in that.


So by implication, the economy shatters under Republicans, while it regains strength under Democrats?

/not a Democrat
//but that's what those words you said mean
 
2014-07-15 09:40:01 PM

douchebag/hater: anfrind: untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.

Seriously? You're blaming Reagan when he's been out office for THIRTY YEARS and we've had 14 years democrat Presidents?

That's just plain stupid.


Is English one of your languages?
 
2014-07-15 09:46:10 PM
It did fantastic under Bush as well till it crashed.
 
2014-07-15 09:58:56 PM
I like how my 401k keeps surging.

I blame Obama.
 
2014-07-15 10:17:25 PM
Crony capitalism works great for the well connected. Wealth inequality has gone up under Obama. All the populist talk about equality from those in power is just that- talk.
 
2014-07-15 10:23:13 PM

douchebag/hater: anfrind: untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.

Seriously? You're blaming Reagan when he's been out office for THIRTY YEARS and we've had 14 years democrat Presidents?

That's just plain stupid.


I don't get it.
 
2014-07-15 10:25:13 PM

AirForceVet: I like how my 401k keeps surging.

I blame Obama.


My 401k looks like it's been mainlining viagra. Also, comerade Obama has caused the energy industry to have it's most profitable years pretty much f*cking ever - you can't swing a cat in Houston without hitting a construction crane right now.

If Obama is a socialist, sign me up for more. I was having some great times under Clinton, too - telecom, energy, finance - every time democrats get in office, they go freaking gangbusters. The only industry that seems to boom under the GOP is payday loan sharks.
 
2014-07-15 10:26:20 PM

untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.


Actually, 52% of American households own stock in some form or another (individual stocks, mutual funds, etc.)  So it really does matter to most people, even if they don't want to admit it.  And despite actually owning stocks, try telling a Republican that St. Ronnie did less than half Clinton's returns; they'll call you a liar.  Also, try telling a Republican that Democrats win handily when returns are averaged over presidents.  They start saying all kinds of shiat to try and obscure the fact that Republican policy performs poorly blah blah blah.
 
2014-07-15 10:36:10 PM

douchebag/hater: while unemployment is at record highs


Are you talking about the unemployment rate that is back where it was before the recession, still falling, and expected to be below 6% soon, with payrolls also on the rise?
 
2014-07-15 10:40:53 PM
As long as that FED money train keeps a rollin'.
 
2014-07-15 10:49:32 PM

Elbarfo: As long as that FED money train keeps a rollin'.


This is a good point.
 
2014-07-15 10:49:39 PM
Considering the feds have interest rates really low, it's not shocking stocks are doing well. Banks/firms borrow money cheaply, then put that in stocks (which outperform the interest rates), then make profit from that. That, combined with Obama coming into office in 2009 (when the market was in the upswing from the '08 crash), it really isn't shocking at all.

I will put it this way: If the market tanks before 2017 (which is a real possibility), will it be Obama's fault? If not, you can't credit him for the stock market going up. The market is usually at all-time highs, so crediting or blaming the president (whether it be Obama or Bush) is just stupid


MisterTweak: I was having some great times under Clinton, too - telecom, energy, finance - every time democrats get in office, they go freaking gangbusters.


Did you forget about  the 2008 stock market crash?
 
2014-07-15 10:51:48 PM

machoprogrammer: Considering the feds have interest rates really low, it's not shocking stocks are doing well. Banks/firms borrow money cheaply, then put that in stocks (which outperform the interest rates), then make profit from that. That, combined with Obama coming into office in 2009 (when the market was in the upswing from the '08 crash), it really isn't shocking at all.

I will put it this way: If the market tanks before 2017 (which is a real possibility), will it be Obama's fault? If not, you can't credit him for the stock market going up. The market is usually at all-time highs, so crediting or blaming the president (whether it be Obama or Bush) is just stupid


MisterTweak: I was having some great times under Clinton, too - telecom, energy, finance - every time democrats get in office, they go freaking gangbusters.

Did you forget about  the 2008 2000 stock market crash?


FTFM. I am drunk
 
2014-07-15 10:54:53 PM

dahmers love zombie: Yeah, well under RON PAUL, the stock market would be at eleventy billion infinity, and gas would be free, and would come with a pumpside blowjob.  Prove me wrong.


U are clearly a RINO under the Ron Paul Free Market Superworld gas would be replaced by the magical Galt Motor that can only be invented on a secret island free of moochers, libz and other takers.
 
2014-07-15 11:24:01 PM

machoprogrammer: machoprogrammer: Considering the feds have interest rates really low, it's not shocking stocks are doing well. Banks/firms borrow money cheaply, then put that in stocks (which outperform the interest rates), then make profit from that. That, combined with Obama coming into office in 2009 (when the market was in the upswing from the '08 crash), it really isn't shocking at all.

I will put it this way: If the market tanks before 2017 (which is a real possibility), will it be Obama's fault? If not, you can't credit him for the stock market going up. The market is usually at all-time highs, so crediting or blaming the president (whether it be Obama or Bush) is just stupid


MisterTweak: I was having some great times under Clinton, too - telecom, energy, finance - every time democrats get in office, they go freaking gangbusters.

Did you forget about  the 2008 2000 stock market crash?

FTFM. I am drunk


2000 was a mess, but only the stupid money was still in the market in March of that year (I dumped every last share of anything tech-related by Jan 2000.)

No, it would be unfair to credit Obama with everything leading to DJIA 17000, but the point I was making when I headed into left field was that you can call Obama a lot of things, but socialist is not one of them, and if we use any measure of freedom or success as normally defined by the words, he makes Reagan look like a whimpering compromiser of half-measures, and Cheney look like a nuke-protesting pacifist.

/not drunk here but I am SEVERAL CUPS BEHIND IN MY COFFEE ALLOTMENT AND THERE SHALL BE LOUD WORDS UNTIL THE COFFEEMAKER IS REFILLED!
 
2014-07-16 12:22:04 AM
Obviously the stock market does better under democrats.
Not so obvious - because republicans make it easier to take profits and move the money out of the country.
 
2014-07-16 12:28:07 AM

douchebag/hater: Subby why don't you tell us about how Obama's loose credit has allowed the rich to get richer while unemployment is at record highs and the economy is STILL tettering on recession.

Or would fark up your contention that Obama's economy is doing great?


It sounds like you are saying that the rich getting richer is a bad thing.  Are you a socialist?
 
2014-07-16 02:52:31 AM
I live in Silicon Valley, I haven't seen this many people and high rent increases since the dot com days. Credit that to whomever you want, but the economy is most certainly better than it was 6 years ago.
 
2014-07-16 06:39:43 AM

Champion of the Sun: I love where they introduce data showing Democrats have a better track record for this stuff than Republicans do.  Then they immediately throw out a hypothetical where maybe something will happen and Republicans might look better.

How about you just say Democrats take office when the economy is in shatters, so it's easier for them to see huge gains.  Your audience is too stupid or partisan to recognize the implication in that.


It's true.  Democrats gains are artificially inflated by the tendency for there to be a massive market dump and a tax payer  bank bailout during the final 2 years of a two term GOP President, after 6 previous years of reckless deregulation.
 
2014-07-16 07:27:00 AM

bronyaur1: douchebag/hater: anfrind: untaken_name: Of course, it doesn't really matter to most people how the stock market is doing, because stock ownership is greatly concentrated among the wealthy, and getting only more concentrated as time passes.

Seriously? You're blaming Reagan when he's been out office for THIRTY YEARS and we've had 14 years democrat Presidents?

That's just plain stupid.

Is English one of your languages?


d/h only speaks derp.
 
2014-07-16 07:31:30 AM

dfenstrate: Crony capitalism works great for the well connected. Wealth inequality has gone up under Obama. All the populist talk about equality from those in power is just that- talk.


As has been pointed out many times, Obama is a moderate right-wing corporatist. His financial advisors are all Wall Street insiders.
 
2014-07-16 07:45:15 AM
Gee, did Obama make the stock markets in Canada, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc etc go up too? Wow, he's amazing!!
 
2014-07-16 07:50:43 AM
machoprogrammer: I will put it this way: If the market tanks before 2017 (which is a real possibility), will it be Obama's fault? If not, you can't credit him for the stock market going up. The market is usually at all-time highs, so crediting or blaming the president (whether it be Obama or Bush) is just stupid

Don't be silly - that will be the fault of congressional republicans.
 
2014-07-16 07:51:46 AM

Champion of the Sun: I love where they introduce data showing Democrats have a better track record for this stuff than Republicans do.  Then they immediately throw out a hypothetical where maybe something will happen and Republicans might look better.

How about you just say Democrats take office when the economy is in shatters, so it's easier for them to see huge gains.  Your audience is too stupid or partisan to recognize the implication in that.


I love when liberals prove their ignorance and trot out charts implying c orrellation equals causation. Charts that list such things as economy by who is president instead of economy based on who controlled the Senate. Ignorance to the fact that there is a lag between policy and economic affects, etc.

Werent liberals railing on the 1%? The 1% who have grown richer due to yhe stock market that is only growing due to QE? Mean household income is still down 2500 under Obama, but this one economic marker is up, therefore it is good even though the marker is why inequality is increasing..

Yeah, not only are you liberals ignorant, you are intellectually inconsistent.
 
2014-07-16 07:53:08 AM

Shaggy_C: The Muthaship: So he's sending more money to the wealthy?

How's that playing with his "folks"?

Unemployment is down, too.


Due to labor participation, not job growth.

Why do liberals cherry pick stats?
 
2014-07-16 07:56:40 AM

MisterTweak: AirForceVet: I like how my 401k keeps surging.

I blame Obama.

My 401k looks like it's been mainlining viagra. Also, comerade Obama has caused the energy industry to have it's most profitable years pretty much f*cking ever - you can't swing a cat in Houston without hitting a construction crane right now.

If Obama is a socialist, sign me up for more. I was having some great times under Clinton, too - telecom, energy, finance - every time democrats get in office, they go freaking gangbusters. The only industry that seems to boom under the GOP is payday loan sharks.


Yet more examples of utter ignorance from liberals. Energy production is DOWN on federal lands. The gains in the energy sector are on state and private lands. Yet you give Obama credit, proving your ignorance.

This is why liberals are so ignorant, they look for any positive note and attribute it to their party without any analysis. Just like Obama being deported in chief, by changing the metrics on how deportations are counted.

We see this time and time again from liberals. If the numbers are bad, change the way the number is calculated. HHS just did the same thing by changing the census and how the number of uninsured are calculated.
 
2014-07-16 07:59:38 AM

MyRandomName: I love when liberals prove their ignorance and trot out charts implying c orrellation equals causation. Charts that list such things as economy by who is president instead of economy based on who controlled the Senate. Ignorance to the fact that there is a lag between policy and economic affects, etc.

Werent liberals railing on the 1%? The 1% who have grown richer due to yhe stock market that is only growing due to QE? Mean household income is still down 2500 under Obama, but this one economic marker is up, therefore it is good even though the marker is why inequality is increasing..

Yeah, not only are you liberals ignorant, you are intellectually inconsistent


Hey now, the Atlanta Fed released a report saying if it was not for the trillions of dollars of QE, the unemployment rate would be like a whole percent higher right now.

So thank your lucky stars we shifted all of that wealth into the top .01% of the population.
 
2014-07-16 08:23:32 AM
And yet I still feel like this in no way affects me, what with having literally nothing in the stock market.
 
2014-07-16 08:36:32 AM
"People ought to reflect on the fact that the highest-performing stock market in the world in 2007 belonged to Zimbabwe"

~Ron Paul
 
2014-07-16 08:40:04 AM
By the way, where's that 1000 years of darkness we're supposed to be getting?
 
2014-07-16 08:40:08 AM
When they double the money supply, sure your Uncle Phil gets twice as many dollars, but they are dollars worth half as much. Then to top it off the people that made it possible also created a Capital Gains tax to tax you on the illusion of a gain.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report