Using the Dow Jones industrial average as the benchmark, Stock Trader's Almanac shows a $10,000 investment compounded during Democratic presidencies since 1901 would be worth $279,705 after 48 years. The same $10,000 investment during 56 Republican years would have been worth just $78,699. If you adjust for inflation, the value of a $10,000 investment under Democratic presidents is $33,426.The inflation-adjusted value under Republican presidents is $26,145.

What's hilarious about these corporate CEOs who just want more and more tax cuts is that they don't even do selfishness right.

Reading some people's disapproval of the results is also kinda crazy. I don't remember people reacting this strongly to Bush's two elections? Or maybe the media has just evolved I guess.

But I am very happy that you got Obama reelected, as is most of the world I think. Because at the end of the day, I think most people know which party would tend to be considered the more ethically bad one. Even if you wanted your president to have a true capitalistic view of how your economy should be run, I don't see how people can justify some of the stances that the Republican Party take.

And also, I believe you're better off with a more regulated kind of capitalism which I think Obama brings.

Can I ask what people think about the prospects of the politicians trying to work together? Because it sure as hell seemed like a bashathon of eachother throughout the election.

MSG3 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:So pissed that the market is getting slammed since the re-election

The markets taking a hit has nothing to do with the election...It's has to do with news out of Greece and Germany...Greece has a huge budget vote later and Germany's economy is foretasted for slow growth...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/europe-back-spotlight-investors-run-cover-160911325.html

America's post-election glow didn't even make it to the opening bell. After meandering near the flat-line all night markets were slammed when ECB President Mario Draghi said he was anticipating weakness in the European economy for the foreseeable future. Draghi's remarks came ahead of efforts by Greek officials to pass yet another austerity package in order to avoid economic collapse. In the face of such uncertainty traders decided discretion was the better part of valor and sold off stocks by more than 2% in early trading.

I think to say the market going down has nothing to do with the outcome of the election is naive. I don't think it'sw a tell tale sign of things to come. Bonn's opinion I think is correct. A bunch of heavy investors are making a point. It'll be back above 13K by next week at the latest.

But people still have every right to be upset. President Obama said as much himself. There has to be compromise for the greater good this time around. We'll be crippled if Washington doesn't get its head out of its ass.

holfresh wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:So pissed that the market is getting slammed since the re-election

The markets taking a hit has nothing to do with the election...It's has to do with news out of Greece and Germany...Greece has a huge budget vote later and Germany's economy is foretasted for slow growth...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/europe-back-spotlight-investors-run-cover-160911325.html

America's post-election glow didn't even make it to the opening bell. After meandering near the flat-line all night markets were slammed when ECB President Mario Draghi said he was anticipating weakness in the European economy for the foreseeable future. Draghi's remarks came ahead of efforts by Greek officials to pass yet another austerity package in order to avoid economic collapse. In the face of such uncertainty traders decided discretion was the better part of valor and sold off stocks by more than 2% in early trading.

For those who persist in blaming President Obama's re-election for the bad day on Wall Street, you've got it wrong. Stock futures were rising Wednesday morning, even after POTUS's resounding victory. They only started falling when it became clear that Europe's perpetual economic crisis was starting to affect German economic growth. The European Central Bank also warned about the European economy. And investors started to get nervous again about the prospect of a Greek exit from the euro zone. All of those things helped conspire to send stocks down by a bunch in early trading.

Are there some effects of President Obama's re-election in the market? Probably, yes. Many investors are only just now waking up to the possibility that he will push fiscal-cliff negotiations to the limit, because he has the leverage to do so. The banking sector took a beating today, not only because of its exposure to the European economy, but also because President Obama's re-election, and Elizabeth Warren's election to the Senate, means the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and the hated Volcker Rule limiting proprietary trading, are likely a done deal.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

Our country had a choice of putting intelligent, seasoned, experienced, thoughtful, results-oriented candidates in office this election - passionate Americans who know how to bring down the debt and create jobs. Mitt Romney has never failed at anything he's ever tried to do and his goal was to help America. The U.S. has just re-elected a hard-core ideologue with a terrible record who is taking our country down the road to Greece.

This isn't "hatred" - these are the facts!

1) Neither party is doing this country any favors - the debt has increased under BOTH. The political gridlock is a product of BOTH parties. Sure its great to debate and point fingers, but this is what they want so they can continue getting re-elected and lining their pockets.

2) It's time for Obama to stop blaming inheriting a mess, he ran because he wanted the mess - he basically said bring it on and I will fix it and it's time to do that.

3) The house republicans need to get on the train and do whats best for the country - its time to cut a deal on the cliff and it looks like taxes need to be increased.

4) The republicans need to move away from the christian right. They are going to drag that party into the stone age and out of politics if they continue pandering to a group that is in the minority and basically clueless.

5) Socially moderate and fiscally conservative people (aka the silent majority) do not have any representation. If the republicans want to get back in the game they should find a new leader and try to grab this group.

6) It's time for certain wedge issues to disappear including: abortion (the supreme court ruled on this in the 1970's - can we all finally move on?), gay marriage (this is the freaking USA - "all men are created equal" - its amazing to me that after the civil rights movement we are still keeping rights from certain groups of people based on sexual preference), immigration (it is what this country was founded on, it keeps us strong, lets invite some people to join the party and start paying some taxes if they haven't paid already).

7) Religion has no place in politics, can we please abide by the separation of church and state? It really pisses me off when you see politicians declaring their faith, checking in with religious leaders etc - I don't care, and I certainly don't want you forcing your beliefs down my throat.

8) Jobs are created by companies, not presidents. Fix the tax code, create incentives for companies to hire - and if they don't tax the $***t out of their cash positions. It is crazy how companies are squeezing every last drop of productivity from the labor force.

9) Global warming is real.

Hopefully the second term goes more smoothly than the first. I think Obama had amazing potential when he was elected and fell dramatically short. I do believe he has achieved some great things including bringing down Bin Laden and keeping us from falling into a depression. Other than that I think his leadership style fell far short of the election hype, but when you run a campaign like he did its almost impossible to live up to it. I certainly hope both parties put aside their differences now and get to work but Washington has proven time and again that it doesn't want to change. For the future of the USA I hope that this is the turning point.

One last comment - please spare us from seeing Paul Ryan as the next republican candidate - that guy is just horrible, not as bad as Palin, but pretty bad.

martin wrote:Here is one thing that should scare conservatives in general, especially if they don't change the way their party embraces certain issues: California got a super-majority in both houses. CA has typically set the direction that the country as a whole is headed with respect to political issues, albeit they are about 20 years ahead of everyone else. I want to say that this may have been the influence of tons of minority voters but am not totally sure. Obviously CA goes much further to the left that most all states would venture, but it's a sign of things to come.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

I think if you watched the electoral college map (and I am sure you did) you can see the Republicans are already in serious trouble. Some traditionally red corridors have turned blue and I think the embracing of hard lines on immigration, abortion, and other social issues will be the death of the party.

Like everything politics is a cycle, the Republicans had 8 years while the Democrats were kind of in shambles (Kerry was the equivalent of the Romney nomination IMO). The major difference between the Democrats of 2004 and the Republicans of 2012 was the Democrats were not as radical on social issues and just needed to get their act together. The Republicans on the other hand are a total disaster, they need to change their stances on social issues and move away from the Christian right base. They have managed to alienate the Hispanic vote and women and have not been able to draw in young people or minorities. With the changing landscape of America I just don't understand their positions in 2012 - and a lot of faithful Republicans are considering leaving the party unless major changes are made.

A guy like Rubio may bring the Hispanic vote back (and a different position on immigration). Like you said, major changes are needed if they want to remain relevant.

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:Here is one thing that should scare conservatives in general, especially if they don't change the way their party embraces certain issues: California got a super-majority in both houses. CA has typically set the direction that the country as a whole is headed with respect to political issues, albeit they are about 20 years ahead of everyone else. I want to say that this may have been the influence of tons of minority voters but am not totally sure. Obviously CA goes much further to the left that most all states would venture, but it's a sign of things to come.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

I think if you watched the electoral college map (and I am sure you did) you can see the Republicans are already in serious trouble. Some traditionally red corridors have turned blue and I think the embracing of hard lines on immigration, abortion, and other social issues will be the death of the party.

Like everything politics is a cycle, the Republicans had 8 years while the Democrats were kind of in shambles (Kerry was the equivalent of the Romney nomination IMO). The major difference between the Democrats of 2004 and the Republicans of 2012 was the Democrats were not as radical on social issues and just needed to get their act together. The Republicans on the other hand are a total disaster, they need to change their stances on social issues and move away from the Christian right base. They have managed to alienate the Hispanic vote and women and have not been able to draw in young people or minorities. With the changing landscape of America I just don't understand their positions in 2012 - and a lot of faithful Republicans are considering leaving the party unless major changes are made.

A guy like Rubio may bring the Hispanic vote back (and a different position on immigration). Like you said, major changes are needed if they want to remain relevant.

Which social issues would they change their views on though? If they pick just one or two, it would be arbitrary. If they pick every social issue, then suddenly they're simply the Democratic party. There isn't a simple solution for them.

I think they differentiate themselves through fiscal policy. Its possible to approve of gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc and still be opposed to reliance on government handouts and increased taxes to protect legacy programs that need to be overhauled.

OasisBU wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

OasisBU wrote:

martin wrote:Here is one thing that should scare conservatives in general, especially if they don't change the way their party embraces certain issues: California got a super-majority in both houses. CA has typically set the direction that the country as a whole is headed with respect to political issues, albeit they are about 20 years ahead of everyone else. I want to say that this may have been the influence of tons of minority voters but am not totally sure. Obviously CA goes much further to the left that most all states would venture, but it's a sign of things to come.

Also, I think there is a wildly popular Hispanic political figure in Texas who has his sights on the governors seat, if that comes to fruition over the next 10 years and that state turns blue, every Republican presidential candidate can practically kiss their chances goodbye unless they embrace immigration is a very different way.

I think if you watched the electoral college map (and I am sure you did) you can see the Republicans are already in serious trouble. Some traditionally red corridors have turned blue and I think the embracing of hard lines on immigration, abortion, and other social issues will be the death of the party.

Like everything politics is a cycle, the Republicans had 8 years while the Democrats were kind of in shambles (Kerry was the equivalent of the Romney nomination IMO). The major difference between the Democrats of 2004 and the Republicans of 2012 was the Democrats were not as radical on social issues and just needed to get their act together. The Republicans on the other hand are a total disaster, they need to change their stances on social issues and move away from the Christian right base. They have managed to alienate the Hispanic vote and women and have not been able to draw in young people or minorities. With the changing landscape of America I just don't understand their positions in 2012 - and a lot of faithful Republicans are considering leaving the party unless major changes are made.

A guy like Rubio may bring the Hispanic vote back (and a different position on immigration). Like you said, major changes are needed if they want to remain relevant.

Which social issues would they change their views on though? If they pick just one or two, it would be arbitrary. If they pick every social issue, then suddenly they're simply the Democratic party. There isn't a simple solution for them.

I think they differentiate themselves through fiscal policy. Its possible to approve of gay marriage, immigration, abortion, etc and still be opposed to reliance on government handouts and increased taxes to protect legacy programs that need to be overhauled.