Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Sunday, September 25, 2016

Rising financial markets – which mirror the improving economy – have long symbolized prosperity even for Americans who own no shares. Bumping up against 13,000 this past week, the Dow average was seen as still another portent of recovery, for President Obama’s electoral prospects as well as for the nation.

What the president might consider explaining is that the latest market surge (and its rise over recent months) are unsurprising to anyone familiar with America’s financial history. The rule that stretches back over the past century is clear: Stocks rise under Democrats and decline under Republicans. And that simple statistic is matched by a broad set of economic data that follow the same partisan vector. Republicans have often succeeded in persuading voters that their party is “good for the economy” – a persistent myth that the president ought to debunk.

  • PatrickHenry

    First of all it might help to look at other factors than just who was President! We need to look at who was controlling Congress and Wars, that stimulate the economy. Hardly a good way to improve the economy. Anyway, if spending Trillions of dollars and being deep in dept with many programs like Medicare & S.S. bankrupt, and loss of our credit rating & high unemployment, is a sign of a healthy economy, you’re a good salesman!

  • concernedusa7

    Historicaly and Practicaly, the economy and the financial markets have been stronger and better under the Democratic Administrations.
    What the Republicans can claim undeniable credit for is increasing the national debt and lowering employment opportunities under Republican Administrations.
    The Republicans have mastered the art of the LIE, they boast exactly the opposite of what they truly do, over, and over, and over until their unwitting minions beleive that their bold faced lies are true.
    How the average registered Republican, working for middle class wages, can not recognize they are being cheated and lied to, by their registered Republican Party, remains a profound, absurd mystery!

  • concernedusa7

    JUST ANOTHER THEORY, above, is further proof of deaf and blind minions ignorant of the facts and truth!

  • jjd

    Oh PatrickHenry, you are buying it hook, line and sinker aren’t you!! The same comparison has been done on who piles up debt and it too points to the GOP. And your “S.S. is bankrupt” line is more GOP propaganda and fear mongering.

  • 1olderbutwiser1

    The republican interests tend to expand the economy by private and corporate efficiency This was true until Bush2,when the military industrial junkies took over. The democrats simply expand the daylights out of the money supply and until Obama, this usually resulted in some temporary job growth in the service sector, especially the government service sector who writes and enforces regulations and of course fines for violators who fail to meet the new regulations, and the fines are used to hire more regulator rule writers to write more regulations to result in more industrial crippling and more fines and more lawyers and then the new fines are used to write even more regulations resulting in more lawyers to ultimately bankrupt every business. The republicans have been chased out of the country to more congenial regulatory atmospheres. Even favored military equipment providers have been chased to China, of all places. The democrats champion unions, which result in higher production costs, and result in very clear-cut production cost reductions by moving industry overseas. I understand that even GM, of all corporations, is currently building a plant in China as well. Clinton balanced the budget?In a phony manner, he sure did. Clinton fostered the dot.com bubble, which offered very little in the way of tangible physical assets but plenty in the way of high stock prices based on sheer speculation as to what “no tangible assets” could ever be worth. I believe 911 occured because Clinton offered such poor response to terrorists activities. Let a bully push you, and it just keeps getting worse. I remember Khadafy holding his young child’s corpse in his arms advising Reagan had killed his son after our quick and decisive response after Lockembie..a response to the Cole by Clinton would have resulted in a different world today. The “Great Society” has only resulted in a most colossal failure in the history of man to lift anybody out of poverty on an averaging basis. And on a cost basis, it sure has made a lot of Democrats rich with subsidized everything..and caused inflation to no end, possibly even the ruination of our currency. What is almost as bad in the American work ethic. Why do you think people hire Mexicans? Because they can really work, not lay on their backs demanding their “rights”. Trace investment money flowing out of america toward Asia, you see the future of the Democratic Party principles. A blanced budget amendment is the only thing that will save this country, the bubbles have ended. After a period of deflation and the ultimate realization one must work to live, we may again prosper. Anybody who thinks we will ever pay our debt off, though, is living in la-la-land. I could extrapolate for hours, but I have WORK to do to eek out enough money to pay my taxes

  • Independent1

    It’s a bit hard to understand how so many can be such blind followers..but then I guess if a party teaches you to use tunnel vision, you don’t know much different. For Just Another Theory to suggest that it’s Democractic presidents and congresses who start wars and are big spenders is really hard to understand after the debacle that George Bush and his decidedly Republican congresses foisted on the country between 2000 and 2006. They started two wars (one totally unnecessary) and ran up the national debt by an arguable 8-10 trillion dollars (yes George is really responsible for the vast majority of what Obama has had to add to the debt in order to fix the disaster he created). Despite what some may want to make you think, presidents shouldn’t get off the hook with just the debt showing when they run out of office. He had negotiated and put in place much of what Obama had to follow through with when he came into office. So this Big Spender tag the GOP loves to have its minnions foist on Obama is nothing more than their attempt to cover up what they know full well is a result of their incompetence. So between, Reagen and the two Bushs, the repubs have managed to put about 13-14 trillion of debt on the country which they would like us to believe was Obama’s doing. Nice try guys but no cigar!!!!

  • data_trump_idealogy

    Glad to see that others have noticed this strong correlation. It caught my attention while the Supreme Court was deciding the 2000 election. My username reflects how I see the issue as a trained scientist. You could call it data trumps theory but theory needs more basis in data to be called theory. The Reagan administration did introduce a theory – the Laffer curve. It applies to many biological phenomena and describes output versus an input variable as a U shaped (or upside down a hill shaped) curve. It is actually an exercise in optimization. For this article output would be the economy and input would be tax rates. The Republican (Reagan) viewpoint was that taxes were too high and the economy would move higher on the hill if they reduced taxes. The actual result for both the economy and the deficit was that higher taxes led to an improvement. This doesn’t mean that taxes should go up indefinitely just that the argument that taxes (particularly on the wealthy) are too low is incorrect and that the economy (deficit) improves when taxes are higher. There are reasons that the Laffer curve predictions work but there is so much heat and so little light on the issue of tax rates that the reasons must wait for another time.

  • Howz 1

    The basic plan that the Republican party has used since Nixon is to scare the middle class into beliveing in some boogyman. For Nixon it was a return to law and order Reagan wanted to get tough with the evil empire, and build a 600 ship Navy. W had the axis of evil. During all these scare periods the Republicans presided over a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy. Reagan’s shift was huge with the trickle down theory of Dr Laffer, that lavished tax breaks on the wealthy, and created a 9% unempolyment rate, but none topped Bush 2 with his tax cut that made the upper 1% wealth rise 256% above the middle class. During that period of Bush II 2.9 million jobs left America and middle class income was flat. The economy eventually collasped forcing millions out of work. You can see it in Romney’s tax return that showed he hid money in Swiss banks, the Caymen Islands and other offshore accounts. None of that was working capital that went to hire people, or stimulate the economy. So Republicans create wealth for the very few, and Democrates for the many. Why they, Republicans, can do this is to convince the middle class to vote against it’s own interest and that of their childrens. Loosenging enviornmental laws that create pollution will give a rise in childhood asthma, and cancer causing chemicals in greenhouse gases raise mercury levels in the food they eat. Republicans say if we have pollution controls it will mean a reduction in jobs. Why not a reduction in profits? Sometimes it’s the scare tactic, or the charge that other countries are pushing us around, or social wedge issues, like abortion, gay marriage, anything to distract the middle class from the theft of their money through a transfer to the wealthy. When is the middle class going to stop falling for this nonsense?
    Wake up middle class!!!

  • TWFlash

    I always get a kick out of PatrickHenry’s posts. Talk about a guy who typifies the whole Republican party! You can hit him over the head with the absolute, indisputable truth, and he’ll just continue to spout the inane rhetoric he gets from Fox Noise. Come back to the real world, PH! You’ll be much happier come November.

  • stsintl

    If we look at the last forty years, Republicans occupied the Oval Office twenty eight years [Nixon/Ford, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush] and the Democrats were in the White House just twelve years [Carter, Clinton]. During the twenty eight years of Republican administrations, national debt went up by 7.7 trillion dollars [with all those tax cuts for their benefactors] and created 34 million new jobs. On the other hand, during the twelve years of Democratic administrations, national debt went up by only 1.7 trillion dollars and created same 34 million new jobs. So, the facts are that Republicans are “Borrow & Spend” party while Democrats are “Tax & Spend” party. In other words, pay up or shut up.

  • sleeprn01

    “If you say the same message loud enough and long enough the people will believe it”…Joseph Goebbels (propaganda minister for Adolf Hitler).

  • jimmyags

    As interesting as this story was, it is only one of a growing list offering proof that the country is climbing out of the disaster that President Obama was left by the previous administration. What is truly amazing is that after months of continuous growth in the dow, employment hirings,housing sales, business start ups and every other indicator you can name the people, not politicians, but the people who follow the GOP opinion refuse to even admit that these are rising.

  • tjsman

    The Republicans are always all myths, and no facts, just listen to Rash Dumbaugh, 28 years of Republicans have brought us nothing but debt, wars, and no hope. Obama is mediocre, but he’s a B+ compare to GEO Bush.

  • CS

    Great & truthful article that should be sent to every major newspaper in the U.S.A. especially prior to Novemer 2012.

    Thanks.

  • Clark_Kent

    Dubya inherited a $200 billion surplus and left office with a trillion dollar deficit and the economy in ruins. In fact, the whole world financial system was tottering on the brink. Dick Cheney smugly stated that, “Reagan proved the deficits don’t matter.” Deregulation and trickle-down simply do not work. Carter deregulated the airlines, and we all love how that worked out. I simply will not fly anymore if there is any alternative. Reagan deregulated the savings and loans. Two years later they had to be bailed out for $150 billion. We never regulated hedge funds because they were run by “professionals” who knew what they were doing. Those “professionals” soon brought us Long Term Capital Management and another meltdown and bailout. Then the greatest disaster of all—allowing investment banks like Goldman Sacks and Lehman Brothers to gamble with depositors money. All of these wonderful Republican ideas, plus the worst president in history ever appointed by the supreme court, have brought us to our present situation.

    Unregulated markets are not “free.” They are anarchistic. Markets must be competitive or they are monopolistic tyranny. All competition must have clearly understood rules enforced with meaningful penalties by officials. In a democracy, only government can provide those officials. Sorry, Republicans, but those are facts. As they say in Brooklyn, “You can look it up.”

  • pabrown

    That trillions of dollars and dept were given to Obama when he became President. George Dubya spent those trillions on an illegal war, succeeded in making even more enemies in the Middle East and made it possible for Wall Street and the banks to rake in billions in profts while they did their best to destroy the middle class. The GOP refuses to acknowledge simple facts. Blaming the Dems for the debt? That’s ludicrous. If you wake up and read non partisan reports you’ll see this simple truth laid out for the simplest mind to understand. The GOP lies about everything.

  • poetrythief7

    I have a strong feeling that if Obama’s name was Oakes, Ogden, or Orwell, and he was Caucasian, the Republicans would have a hard time getting the kind of traction they’ve gotten regarding the money. Even Clinton got credit for balancing the budget and getting us a surplus. Had he kept it in his pants, the entire future would’ve been different, and who knows if that wouldn’t been good or bad, but still, I do believe that race is chasing Obama’s image and middle-class americans have a harder time hearing the truth because his race blinds them to the facts. It is a sad but true observation, I fear.