11/9 Is Bush better for stock market? Republicans give tax cuts and
better business incentives, while Gore will tax us to death.
But then the gridlock will allow the markets to run more freely.
So which is best for the stock market?
\_ Well, I can tell you this much: when Gore's people announced that
they were going to demand a hand recount of some/all of Florida,
the market tanked 60 seconds later.... The market just wants a
stable government. The rest is BS.
\_ Republican's traditionally increase federal outlays - receipt
difference. Just look at the numbers on the annual budget
reports published by the government (you can figure out the
presidents that go along with them). As a result, Republicans
increase the incentives to invest in government bonds rather
than the stock market. If history repeats itself, Gore would
be healthier to the stock market than Bush.
\_ quick errata: In the past the the (outlays -
receipts) difference tends to increase under Republican
administrations and decrease under Democratic ones.
\_ Bush is better, neither is ideal.
\_ BUSH == inflation, unemployment
\_ That statement evaluates to FALSE
\_ True if he presidess like the sr bush.
\_ Not true. 1992 was a small correction. There is
always a correction when we switch from a wartime
economy to a peacetime economy. The people just
couldn't see that.
\_ that applies to clinton as well. he only looked
good as a president b/c of the sudden explosion in the
internet economy, he just happened to around when it
really took off, as predicted before '94.
\_ I'd like to hear exactly what policies Clinton enacted
that brought about prosperity, other than keeping
Greenspan, a Republican appointee, in office.
\_ The president is the gatekeeper to what spending
bills get passed or not. During Clinton's term,
the annual deficit reduced each year to help
drive down interest rates on federally issued bonds
and increase market capitalization of the stock
market. It was the complete opposite during the
Bush and Reagan years. There were also several
telecommunications bills but those were bipartisan.
\_ This is nice. What bills? Please name them.
\_ BS. Clinton only vetoed bills that he felt
went too far in preserving the freedoms that
the founding fathers gave us. The republicans
in congress and the Alan Greenspan kept
Clinton and the Democrats in check. Besides
Clinton was too busy getting it on.
\_ Nice try. But if you want to sound more
intelligent than a little child, you're
going to have to do much better than shoot
off the hips generalizations like that.
Numbers: In 1994 corporate income tax to
the federal government totalled $140
billion compared to $184 billion today.
Given inflation and a dramatic increase
in economic activity in the last decade,
that's not much of an increase (in fact
I would hazard to say it may have gone
down). I'd have to do more research but
at least I went to the trouble of getting
REAL information unlike you. Just because
you're too damn lazy, I'll post the damn
URL for you.
http://www.fms.treas.gov/cfs/index.html
\_ And Clinton gets credit for this
because...?
\_ You cannot approve federal outlays
without the president's signature
or an overriding majority. Much of
it's probably a mutual comprimise
between Democrats and Republicans
but you can't blaim Clinton for
being a "tax and spend commie".
Federal outlays decreased during
his time.
Federal outlays increased while _/
congress was friendly to Clinton.
Federal outlays decreased because
of congressional restraint, not
Clinton.
In the years 1994 to 1995 (before the Republican congress was
elected) spending rose from $1.51 T to $1.79 T, while revenues
increased from $1.38 T to $1.48 T. As you can see the spending
deltas rose significantly under Clinton's watchful eye. The
spending delta was much worse in Clintons' first two terms (see
the chart in [1]). (Chart [1] is quite interesting, as things
were *much* worse under Clinton's watch than under any one else).
Part of the problem was Clintons' tax increase which reduced
tax revenues between $60 B and $79 B in his first two years in
office. This coupled with increased spending (on the order of
1000 spending bills a year) lead to the deep deficit shown in
[1]. (See [2] for more information).
The statement above about stock capitalization is completely
wrong. Stock capitalization increased because of increased
individual investment in the stock market. Increased individual
investement was caused primarily by the tax cut enacted by
congress in 1997. The increased individual investment lead to
increased individual income which resulted in the largest
increase in federal revenues, from $543 B (1994) to $1.45 T (1999).
As pointed out above corporate tax revenuse did not increase
nearly as much. It sill resulted in a inflation adujsted (based
on the chart in [3]) increase of about $35 B.
These increased revenues combined with steady federal spending
($ 1.75 T in 1999 which is less than $ 1.79 T in 1995 even before
inflation adj) resulted in the reduction in the deficit. Steady
spending was due in no small part to the reduction in spending
bills passed by congress (around 300 per year under Republicans).
Clinto did nothing to reduce the number or content of the spending
bills; occaisionally he did not sign a given bill, but that just
saved more money.
The statement that the lower deficit lead to lower interest rates
is also wrong. Lower interest rates were enacted by the Fed to
keep inflation/deflation in check (which might have been
caused by the extra capital generated by the tax cuts). The lower
deficit was caused by rather than causing lower interest rates.
[1] http://policy.house.gov/documents/leadership/socsecraid.htm
[2] <DEAD>www.ncpa.org/pd/monthly/pd496f.html<DEAD>
[3] http://fintrend.com/ftf/html/1990sI.html
\_ You've used the "F" word! Don't bring _F_acts into this! It's
unfair to the Clinton/Gore crowd!
\_ I was asked. My analysis could be wrong, and I gladly invite
someone to point it out.
\_ My work is never done. -someone |
http://csua.com/feed/