Apparently, Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump -- OPEN DISCUSSION

[gfm7175]

Bringing this sucker out of the kiddie pool... All are welcome to discuss.

[gfm7175]

Here is the OP in its entirety...

Obama was better for your 401(k) than Trump has been
Stock markets generally perform better under Democrats

President Trump knows a lot of voters don’t like him. But detractors should vote for him anyway, Trump says, for one crucial reason: To protect their savings.

“If for some reason I wouldn’t have won the [2016] election, these markets would have crashed. That’ll happen even more so in 2020,” Trump told the crowd recently at a rally in New Hampshire. “You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes. So whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

The allegation is clear: Democrats are bad for the stock market, so if a Democrat beats Trump in 2020, stocks will tank and every American with a portfolio will lose money. Like many Trumpisms, however, the claim does not survive a comparison with the facts.

Democrats, in reality, are good for the stock market. The S&P 500 has risen by about 28% since Trump’s inauguration in 2017. That’s okay. But it rose 34% during the same period of time in Barack Obama’s first term, and 41% during the same period of time in Obama’s second term. Here are the numbers going back to Richard Nixon’s first term >>>


It’s well known among stock-market geeks that stocks do better under Democratic presidents than under Republicans. That’s probably just random, however. Many factors influence stocks—most importantly, the overall state of the economy and the business cycle. These days, the Federal Reserve has more power over the direction of stocks than any president does. Presidents, in fact, rarely change policies in ways that send stocks moving one direction or the other.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...122241424.html

[Earl]

Here is the OP in its entirety...

The loon didn’t even read his own link.

[gfm7175]

I particularly like how Cypress, towards the end of his post, argues against himself.

He begins by arguing that Presidents can have a major effect on the stock market, but then he later argues that Presidents rarely have a major effect on the stock market.

Which one is it, dude?


Edit: I overlooked the fact that Cypress was arguing via holy link instead of using his own words, so it is technically the author of the link who is arguing against himself. Cypress is simply regurgitating the link without even reading through it for himself.

[Jarod]

Obama did better in his first 2.5 years than Rump has done.

[Trumpet]

Look at what Obama inherited from Bush JR, and then, look at what Trump inherited form Obama.

[Jade Dragon]

Cypess list is mostly trolls that were permanently banned anyway. Most of the others are either trolls or worthless to a conversation. Only a few that aren't necessary in my personal opinion. I'm not sure but I don't think you were on the list.

[gfm7175]

If this is all about politics and not all the factors that move markets then this is an interesting paragraph from the article:

""If a reformist Democrat such as Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders got elected president, it could depress stocks, since each favors a variety of policies that would essentially transfer wealth from corporate interests to lower- and middle-income Americans. But such a scenario is somewhat self-preventing, since Americans are unlikely to elect a candidate who might harm financial markets and by extension the broader economy, even if those candidates are popular in a liberal subset of the Democratic party.""

I agree that their winning the election would be bad for the economy.

Your post shows that you actually read through the article, while the OP somehow "missed" this part...

[gfm7175]

Obama did better in his first 2.5 years than Rump has done.

How so?

[gfm7175]

Look at what Obama inherited from Bush JR, and then, look at what Trump inherited form Obama.

Obama inherited a pile of shit from Bush Jr.

Trump inherited a pile of shit from Obama.

[Trumpet]

Obama inherited a pile of shit from Bush Jr.

Trump inherited a pile of shit from Obama.

How's that???????????????

[gfm7175]

Cypess list is mostly trolls that were permanently banned anyway. Most of the others are either trolls or worthless to a conversation. Only a few that aren't necessary in my personal opinion. I'm not sure but I don't think you were on the list.

I don't care if people are "trolls" or not. I want every voice to be heard. I support the right to have and express an opinion.

I was on the list.

[Phantasmal]

[/SIZE][/B]

How's that???????????????

Alternative facts

[gfm7175]

[/SIZE][/B]

How's that???????????????

For starters, unemployment was high. Food stamp recipients were high.

[gfm7175]

The article is a mixture of facts, and opinion.

The article is from Yahoo Finance, so not exactly a publication dedicated to Kenyan Marxism, and can generally be expected to two a moderate, pro-business line.

The opinion in the article is that Elizabeth Warren will crash the market.
There were also lots of opinions that Obamacare would crash the economy, or that Jerry Brown's tax hikes would tank California into the gutter. ]

Opinions can be taken with a grain of salt, depending on someone's track record of prognostication.

More importantly to me, is the factual information in the article.

There is basic math that cannot be disputed.

Stock markets generally do better under Democrats, and it did better under Obama than Trump.

Those are the facts, and they are backed up by hard math and statistical analysis.


Suggesting that Republican are just prone to back luck, or that Elizabeth Warren will crash the markets are merely opinions and guesses at best.

Why use the S&P 500??

Why start with Nixon, rather than before or after him?

Why leave out Ford?

Why does the linked content contradict itself?