Top Ten Cities With High Poverty Rates

[Tyrone Bigguns]

[http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/mark...ion_demsvreps/

Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office.

The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school.

The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same.

On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats.

Game, Set, Match.

You are the biggest loser.

I don't really disagree with your arguement, but this blurb doesn't really support it. First off dems were in control during "most" of that 72 year period which also happened to coincide with the growth and developement of the country. They tended to get booted from office for short time frames when we went into recession ergo the market wasn't doing well during republican reign.

Also I pointed out that recently clinton's market benefited from lax oversight and accounting abuse that fudged numbers offering BS returns while bush's admin actually cracked down on it and suffered the "correction" of said accounting practices.

I won't say that either side has a good faith claim to the market doing better under their policies, its more a function of other issues that happen to go on at the same time. It is also unfair to compare any market numbers from pre-1970 to any of them post 1970 due to many factors. Is it ever fair to compare the industrial revolution to the tech revolution. Can you compare the tech revolution to the upcoming biological revolution? Can you compare a company that marketed to a US population base of 100 million to a company that is marketing to a world population base of 6 billion? Can you compare a company today that is leveraging and borrowing in the new age capital market to a company years ago that had to convince people to please invest in me? I could go on for days on this little piece and the errors of the journalist who is trying to make a point in a very poor way.

I'll finish with this. I can tell you almost every time which policy will affect the market which way. I can tell you that both sides do good and bad things for the market. What I can't really say for sure is which party overall is better for the market. It just depends on what whim a bunch of politicians who really don't know jack about economics and free market capitalism decide to float that day. Sometimes an overall destructive policy will actually boost the market....not because its good for us, but because it cuts down competition in a sector thus maximizing said companies returns.

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

[SkinBasket]

If you disagree present something that shows why they are bad/wrong..or stats that contradict. I notice that you haven't..that speaks volumes.

I don't have to post any numbers to demonstrate yours are fundamentally irrelevant to this argument. I know it's your gig though to divert any kind of intellectual honesty around you like a rock in a stream, though, so I found a graph that's just as relevant as your numbers, but it's better because it's a picture, which is easier for Partial to understand:



There you go Partial. Post that whenever you need to be "right."

Ad hominem attack. Par for the course.

[bobblehead]

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say dems were better. My clinton attack wasn't subtle or wrong, his administration let this crap go on right under his nose. His SEC guy ignored it, that is god honest truth. I'm not a clinton hater at all, I'm simply pointing out the truth as I see it. You never complain when I point out bush's faults (and I'm never subtle about that either).

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You are arguing my point. I have never claimed any one party is better. What i posted was a just as valid as the poverty stats. That is the point. Both have a huge number of factors...and to place the success or failure at the feet of a political party..is ludicrous.

But, stop with the subtle clinton stuff. The accounting practices are for the most part done by conservatives. And, they were no different than the stuff pulled by successful corps (not the same, but equally bs) under reagan.

Ok, I thought you were trying to say dems were better. My clinton attack wasn't subtle or wrong, his administration let this crap go on right under his nose. His SEC guy ignored it, that is god honest truth. I'm not a clinton hater at all, I'm simply pointing out the truth as I see it. You never complain when I point out bush's faults (and I'm never subtle about that either).

No. I was just saying that taking something like poverty...or economic success....is way to complex to simply assign to one factor.

Clinton: What did his guys do that was done differently than Reagan/Bush. IMHO..they all do this kinda stuff...not the exact thing, but they all play fast and loose.

And, imho, Reagan and dereg had a lot to do with things. I know, more gov...but, someone has to watch the foxes and the henhouse...because you and i both know that when it comes to massive amounts of cash...nobody is immune..not repub, not dem, not jew, not cath, nobody.