Better check your math.

 

Which part

Unnecessary land wars started in Asia: Bush-Cheney 1, Obama-Biden 0.

Financial meltdowns: Bush-Cheney 1, Obama-Biden 0.

Sometimes a candidate is attractive by what he or she doesn't do.

 

Then Obama should be a super model to you since he doesn't do A LOT.

Then Obama should be a super model to you since he doesn't do A LOT.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

 

When Bush took office: 10,587

When Bush left office: 7949

 

When Obama took office: 7949

As of 7-20-2014: 17,100

 

I guess the 115 percent increase is due to all the big businesses setting up postal boxes in the Cayman Islands.

Yep, that's all Obama since he's done so much to help business, name me three things please.

Those who know me know that "war" is the overarching issue for me. As a rule, a terrible, terrible waste of resources - human, fiscal and material. The candidate/elected official that shows me the most on that front (pun intended) is the candidate/elected official that I will support.

 

No other issue comes close.

In reading about quantitative easing it said that such a policy would have an effect on the stock market. How much of the increase in the stock market can be attributed to QE? Has it artificially inflated stocks out of line with what they should be in such an economy as we have today? Has QE kept interest rates low and so investors go buy stocks instead of bonds, is that correct? Hope someone can help on this.

In reading about quantitative easing it said that such a policy would have an effect on the stock market. How much of the increase in the stock market can be attributed to QE? Has it artificially inflated stocks out of line with what they should be in such an economy as we have today? Has QE kept interest rates low and so investors go buy stocks instead of bonds, is that correct? Hope someone can help on this.

 

Some professionals and non-professional say QE has definitely pressured non-stock financial instruments (bonds, etc.) returns down. And for those looking to avoid volatility - such as those near or in retirement - this has not been optimum. Can you risk a 20% or more loss of capital in your next egg? If you are 25 -yes, if your are 55 or 65 - no so much since your time horizon is far different. This is timeline horizon is why the simplistic 'stocks are best over time' has to, or should be, tempered with a move to less volatile investments as your time horizon to when you will need to withdraw closes down.

 

So to get decent returns everyone keeps pumping capital into the (stock) market and the cheers each quarter on based on profits - not growth revenue. Revenues of companies have mostly been flat or down the last couple of years. P/E ratios have been holding. But the less referenced P/R ratio is not so good.

 

I guess as long as companies can squeeze cost (and that usually means flat or reduced payrolls and employment) then the market will hold or go up. Squeezing cost is about the only way they can maintain or increase P/E this since the lack of growth in the economy and expanded markets keeps their pricing power in check due to to very intense competitive environment.

Some professionals and non-professional say QE has definitely pressured non-stock financial instruments (bonds, etc.) returns down. And for those looking to avoid volatility - such as those near or in retirement - this has not been optimum. Can you risk a 20% or more loss of capital in your next egg? If you are 25 -yes, if your are 55 or 65 - no so much since your time horizon is far different. This is timeline horizon is why the simplistic 'stocks are best over time' has to, or should be, tempered with a move to less volatile investments as your time horizon to when you will need to withdraw closes down.

 

So to get decent returns everyone keeps pumping capital into the (stock) market and the cheers each quarter on based on profits - not growth revenue. Revenues of companies have mostly been flat or down the last couple of years. P/E ratios have been holding. But the less referenced P/R ratio is not so good.

 

I guess as long as companies can squeeze cost (and that usually means flat or reduced payrolls and employment) then the market will hold or go up. Squeezing cost is about the only way they can maintain or increase P/E this since the lack of growth in the economy and expanded markets keeps their pricing power in check due to to very intense competitive environment.

 

Or moving their base of operations overseas? I honestly don't know.

Or moving their base of operations overseas? I honestly don't know.

 

Well, cutting taxes is another way to keep net earnings up so companies to look for tax savings as another way to keep profits (and P/E) up. Ireland is well known for its favorable tax

 

I used to deal with Shire and they were UK-based back then. To see they were Ireland-based was new news to me. So I looked up what what happened. Well it seems they moved from their UK HQ to Ireland in a few years ago - dodging the UK's heavy corporate tax.

 

The new kid on the Swiss pharma block - SWI swissinfo.ch

 

Since 2008 Shire has been registered in Jersey in the Channel Islands, with its tax domicile in Dublin, Ireland in order to optimise tax. This was reportedly in reaction to new taxation measures announced by the British Labour government over the treatment of royalties on patents.

 

As Thomas Friedman books says - The World is Flat. The premise that we live in a globalized world where competition is global but the impact is local is true at all levels and all forms. Labor, tax rates, etc. In the globalized world capital will seek out its optimum return point - and that includes corporate tax rates.

 

Some see this as anti-American or anti-UK as I am sure the UK did in 2008 when Shire moved then. But it is a reality - and a reality that those setting tax policy at state and federal levels better deal with.

We need to have fewer regulations so we can see a repeat of the '08 financial meltdown.

 

The seeds for that meltdown were sown in the mid-nineties during the Clinton administration BTW.

 

Effective in January 1993, the 1992 housing bill required Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their mortgage purchases affordable-housing loans. The quota was raised to 40% in 1996, 42% in 1997, and in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered the quota raised to 50%. The Bush administration continued to raise the affordable-housing goals. Freddie and Fannie dutifully met those goals each and every year until the subprime crisis erupted. By 2008, when both government-sponsored enterprises collapsed, the quota had reached 56%. An internal Fannie document made public after the financial crisis ("HUD Housing Goals," March 2003) clearly shows that by 2002 Fannie officials knew perfectly well that these quotas were promoting irresponsible policy: "The challenge freaked out the business side of the house [Fannie] . . . the tenseness around meeting the goals meant that we . . . did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done."

 

Phil Gramm and Michael Solon: The Clinton-Era Roots of the Financial Crisis - WSJ

 

 

Clinton had mainly a democrat controlled house and senate during his presidency. After 2007, Bush had a democrat majority.

 

Don't let the facts confuse a good storyline though.

The seeds for that meltdown were sown in the mid-nineties during the Clinton administration BTW.

 

Effective in January 1993, the 1992 housing bill required Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their mortgage purchases affordable-housing loans. The quota was raised to 40% in 1996, 42% in 1997, and in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered the quota raised to 50%. The Bush administration continued to raise the affordable-housing goals. Freddie and Fannie dutifully met those goals each and every year until the subprime crisis erupted. By 2008, when both government-sponsored enterprises collapsed, the quota had reached 56%. An internal Fannie document made public after the financial crisis ("HUD Housing Goals," March 2003) clearly shows that by 2002 Fannie officials knew perfectly well that these quotas were promoting irresponsible policy: "The challenge freaked out the business side of the house [Fannie] . . . the tenseness around meeting the goals meant that we . . . did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done."

 

Phil Gramm and Michael Solon: The Clinton-Era Roots of the Financial Crisis - WSJ

 

 

Clinton had mainly a democrat controlled house and senate during his presidency. After 2007, Bush had a democrat majority.

 

Don't let the facts confuse a good storyline though.

I'm glad you cited the Wall Street Journal. If you go back to the link in post 19, you'll see that Rupert Murdoch is another tax avoider extraordinaire.

 

"News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s media monolith that owns Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), avoids paying American taxes through its 152 subsidiaries in tax havens from the British Virgin Islands to Hong Kong."

I wonder if Hillary advises WalMart on how to avoid taxes... Her and Bill were always good at that..

We need to have fewer regulations so we can see a repeat of the '08 financial meltdown.

 

Because of President Clinton wanting everyone to own a house, regardless if they could pay for it or not.......

I'm glad you cited the Wall Street Journal. If you go back to the link in post 19, you'll see that Rupert Murdoch is another tax avoider extraordinaire.

 

"News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch’s media monolith that owns Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), avoids paying American taxes through its 152 subsidiaries in tax havens from the British Virgin Islands to Hong Kong."

 

So, got anything on the actual information cited?

The seeds for that meltdown were sown in the mid-nineties during the Clinton administration BTW.

 

Effective in January 1993, the 1992 housing bill required Fannie and Freddie to make 30% of their mortgage purchases affordable-housing loans. The quota was raised to 40% in 1996, 42% in 1997, and in 2000 the Department of Housing and Urban Development ordered the quota raised to 50%. The Bush administration continued to raise the affordable-housing goals. Freddie and Fannie dutifully met those goals each and every year until the subprime crisis erupted. By 2008, when both government-sponsored enterprises collapsed, the quota had reached 56%. An internal Fannie document made public after the financial crisis ("HUD Housing Goals," March 2003) clearly shows that by 2002 Fannie officials knew perfectly well that these quotas were promoting irresponsible policy: "The challenge freaked out the business side of the house [Fannie] . . . the tenseness around meeting the goals meant that we . . . did deals at risks and prices we would not have otherwise done."

 

Phil Gramm and Michael Solon: The Clinton-Era Roots of the Financial Crisis - WSJ

 

 

Clinton had mainly a democrat controlled house and senate during his presidency. After 2007, Bush had a democrat majority.

 

Don't let the facts confuse a good storyline though.

 

I agree.

 

I could have sworn that the Republican Revolution occurred in 1994 and sent the House to GOP control and it stayed that way the rest of the Clinton Presidency. Maybe I'm wrong. :idunno:

 

The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995. Republicans had not held the majority in the House for forty years, since the 83rd Congress (elected in 1952).

 

In the 1996, 1998, and 2000 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly, the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate.

 

The Senate shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after the November 2002 elections.

 

 

Republican Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia