Which political party is best for investors?

Question

According to a recent article by Jeremy Siegel, PhD, over the last 120 years the stock market rose 8.25% under Republican rule, and rose 10.85% under Democratic rule. During the last 60 years the difference is even greater with 9.1% under republican rule and 15.26% under Democrat rule. Why do some think that Republicans will bring about a better economy when the facts say otherwise?

Answer 1

Exactly how does he define, "rule"?

It's a fairly rare thing that one party controls the white house and both houses of congress.

Answer 2

Obama has already said that he would tax dividends made from the stock market. This will crash the stock market if he is elected.

Answer 3

Well, I think many people look at the economy from a stand point of:

"I have to help the big companies out and big investment firms out if I want the economy to prosper.  If I help the companies out, they hire more people, the more people companies hire, the more people that have jobs and the more money people have."

The problem is, I think the economy works just the opposite of that.  Because when you do stuff for corporations and investors it puts money in their pockets temporarily and takes it away from the average Joe.  It's when you make the average Joe's pocket book bigger that the economy surges.  Because he has more money so he can spend more.  The more he spends the more jobs are created, creating higher paying jobs.

Republicans push trickle down economy where you give the top 1% all of the breaks and let the rest trickle down to the other 99%.  If you turn it upside down though and give the breaks to the 99% it's like having a much bigger faucet (the 99%) and letting it trickle down to the 1%.  Even though the 1% is at the bottom, because the faucet is 99 times bigger, the top 1% still gets more money than if it trickled down from them to the bottom 99%.  Even though you may have the same amount of water or cash, the flow is more restricted with a smaller opening by the 1% than with the 99%.

For example, you can't sell more product if people don't have the money to buy it.  They first have to have the money to buy it.  You give them more money though, and they can buy more product and the company profits more too because they sell more.

That's why lowering the value of the American dollar backfired.  Republicans thought it would help US companies be able to sell more overseas.  However, it caused the price of things in the US to go up, reducing the buying power of Americans and stagnating the US economy.  Then when the US economy goes down, so do many of the other economies around the globe because they rely on the US to buy.

The focus needs to be more on helping the average Joe than helping investors and corporations. When you help the average Joe, that's when the corporations profit because Average Joe has more to spend.  Republicans tend to think more in terms of let's help the companies out and they in turn will help Average Joe out.  The only problem is that the corporations typically pocket the profits while the Average Joe typically spends his either because he has to or because he feels he has extra money to spend.

Answer 4

Nice stats but how exactly does the president create a good or bad economy? Even if he could, Maybe his plans take 3 years and he is voted out after 2 leaving someone else to gain whatever he started. But still, the President has no financial powers on the stock market. The congress would be a closer argument but even then, it's sort of reaching.