Elliott Spitzer caused a market loss of $80 billion in two days.
The Big Question: How can an anti-business party
be good for the economy, investors and jobs?
Posted on 10/20/2004 7:55:09 AM PDT by No Surrender Monkey
Exactly 16 years ago, Lawrence Summers and I argued on this page that modern Democratic presidents, in statistical terms, had been better for American business than their Republican counterparts. We further predicted that these superior Democratic results would continue. And we questioned why the U.S. business community, in light of this record and this outlook, remained overwhelmingly Republican.
Another presidential election is at hand, and this is the right moment to review those predictions. In the interim, we have conveniently experienced eight Republican presidential years and eight Democratic ones. Mr. Summers, as president of Harvard, cannot debate these issues now. Fortunately, the statistics speak for themselves. In fact, the long-term comparison, as well this latest 16-year one, is no contest.
According to Federal Reserve Board data, from January 1952 through June 2004 the average after-tax return on tangible capital was 4.3% under Democratic presidents and 3.2% under their Republican counterparts. As my table shows, the past 16 years provide an even more stark comparison, with after-tax return on capital at 3.9% under the Clinton presidency, and just 2.5% under the Bush presidencies. Moreover, on the most basic economic measures of all -- growth, jobs and household income -- the Democratic presidential advantage over the past 16 years is enormous. On the business indices -- investment, return on capital and stock prices -- the advantage also is strong. And, of course, the Federal budget comparison is dramatic. Yes, earnings per share rose slightly more during the Bush periods, but shareholders obviously benefited more under Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Altman is an idiot.
Whoever takes the oval office in January, 2005 will get credit for the ongoing economic recovery that was spurred by the tax relief and the increased (hopefully short term) deficit spending.
"shareholders obviously benefited more under Bill Clinton"
Hmmmm? Enron, et al. I believe the "shareholders" LOST EVERYTHING. That wouldn't appear to me to be any kind of benefit.
BTW, even with the bubble, the NASDAQ was up 330% under Reagan and Bush and up 177% under Clinton.
The last time I looked into it, only a DEMOCRAT had used the words CEO and BENEDICT ARNOLD in the same sentence.
Elliott Spitzer caused a market loss of $80 billion in two days.
The Big Question: How can an anti-business party
be good for the economy, investors and jobs?
Well, they are definitely declaring war on the major source of the supposed jobs they constantly fault Bush for not creating.
RTC was then investigating Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, an Arkansas S&L owned by the late James McDougal, who joined Bill and Hillary Clinton to invest in Whitewater, an Arkansas real estate development that ultimately failed.
Maybe the markets act as forecasting mechanisms that look forward to the next Republican administration and that creates investor optimism, causing stocks to rise.
Meanwhile, Reagan turned a recession into a recovery, as did both Presidents Bush. Clinton -- advised by Altman, on the other hand, it can be argued, let a bubble get out of control and turned it into a recession, with the markets eventually losing $7 trillion in capitalization. The result: a recession and lost jobs. Way to go Dems!
That's not fair! He explained that it was his speechwriter who made him say that...
...several times...
...until there was a backlash. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.