A few weeks ago, it was reported that some right-wing rich guys' club had pledged $100 million to defeat President Obama. The Koch Brothers led the way, pledging $60 million, which is pocket change, when your net worth is $50,000,000,000.00.
Leaving aside the obvious issue -- the estate tax -- I'm puzzled as to why all those right-wing rich folks feel that way. The foundation of their wealth -- the stock market -- has performed vastly better when Democrats have been in charge.
In 2008, the New York Times reported that since 1929, $10,000 invested in the stock market under Democratic Presidents (over 40 years) had become $300,671. Meanwhile, $10,000 invested in the stock market under Republican Presidents (over 35 years) had become only $11,733.
Well, at least the affluent caste didn't lose money during Republican regimes, right? Wrong. The value of the dollar dropped by 92 percent during that period. So in real value, $10,000 invested in the stock market under Republican presidents actually became just $955. And 46 cents. In economic terms, roughly the same effect as some foreign enemy blowing up 90 percent of our factories, warehouses, farms, malls, office buildings, apartment buildings, and every other productive asset.
Poor rich people. All the money gone. Those darned Republicans.
And under President Obama, the difference actually has increased, dramatically. On the day that President Obama was sworn into office, the S&P 500 index closed at 805. Today, it's at 1,321. Under President Obama, the stock market is up 64 percent, in less than four years.
That brings the Democratic average annual stock market performance up to 10 percent. The Republican figure is 0.4 percent. No wonder Republicans hate government -- they're so bad at it. Particularly when it comes to preserving national wealth.
And despite the incessant whining of the corporate rich, by no stretch of the imagination are they suffering under the Obama administration. Just today, it was reported that pay for CEOs has reached an all-time high, just short of $10 million a year. Or roughly $5,000 an hour. Good work, if you can get it.
So why are all these right-wing deep pockets going after Obama and the Democrats? Even if you're some selfish rich guy, that's just dumb. That's cutting your wallet to spite your pants. Maybe the rich need to develop a little class consciousness.
Honestly, when you look at the facts, these robber barons spending huge wads of cash to get rid of the Democrats are like lemmings. They're all jumping off the money cliff, and they're taking everyone else with them.
Most of us have heard the question, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" But a better question would be, "If you're so rich, why aren't you smart?"
Courage,
Alan Grayson
Follow Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson
They were born to it.
There is a bit of specious reasoning in the Democrat Growth v Republican growth theory. The economy is influenced by a lot more than who was president and in many cases, the Republican president following a Democrat Boom is cleaning up a bust caused by the credit boom and vice versa…since there are no share of Dem presidents that have inherited a tough economy that was not their fault. Throw in international events, congressional composition, etc and the party of the president has little to do with the stock market.
This is clearly a case where correlation is not causation.
In the case of Obama, he is clearly bad for business and his Public Equity model is horrific in comparison to the Private Equity model that has served this nation very well. Those with a vested interest in economic growth over economy-destroying redistribution should do what they can to get Obama out.
The Koch’s need our support in this. ‘
Kai
Barack Obama inherited a tough economy caused by the hawkish policies of George Bush, where Wall Street and banks were in crisis. When the Auto industry was about to fail, the conservatives said,"Let em eat cake." President Obama fought for it and saved many American families from ruin.
Greed and bigotry should never be supported.
You state, ‘Democrats understand and use statesmanship,and good will, thus usually keeping us out of war. This alone saves trillions of dollars.’
I get what you saying and generally agree that the Republicans waste a lot on foreign policy actions, both military and otherwise. But keep in mind that some of our biggest wars have been Democrat started.
Wilson WWI, Roosevelt WWII, Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam, not to mention….Carter Iran, and not to mention all the non-congressionally-sanctioned military actions by both Clinton and Obama. Obama is bombing people in Yemen without any legitimacy…
However the point of the article was not how much war costs us but rather economic growth and stock market growth…and war is good for both in general so…
You continue, ‘Barack Obama inherited a tough economy caused by the hawkish policies of George Bush, where Wall Street and banks were in crisis.’
True….and Bush inherited an IT bubble and a terrorist attack… I see where you are going, but all you are proving is that the person sitting in the office of the presidency reacts to economic conditions does not invent them. It supports my point of correlation rather than causation.
You continue, ‘When the Auto industry was about to fail, the conservatives said,"Let em eat cake."
As they should have….GM deserved to go bankrupt, get reorganized, and come out a better company.
I agree…which is why I am appalled at all the greed that is in the wake of President Obama’s Public Equity efforts as he hands out payola to his supporters with taxpayer money. And the obviously bigoted tone that he has taken in ever racial conflict that has happened in the States shows that his lack of color-blindness in the office of presidency must be stopped. That was your point right?
Kai
And this includes the record run/crashes during the Bush regime. Wow and I looked, except for Clinton and now Obama Dems controlled both houses under Dem presidents all the way back to 1929. I was never one to believe 1 party should have all 3 levels of power but this certainly makes me think twice, especially since I need my 401k to grow if I will ever get a chance to retire.
Is this the new campaign strategy?
If you want to oppose the corrupt, inept Dembots currently destroying your party, you need to be a real opposition, not someone who waves his little arms and then votes along party lines. Remember McCain and how he crashed and burned trying to sell himself as a 'maverick' after voting along party lines. Phony baloney.
But thanks to the elimination of the Bretton Woods agreement, authored by Keynes, in the 70's, we now have a world run by these people for these people. Keynes came up with a wonderful compromise between capitalism and socialism, in order to preserve social well being and prevent the kind of predatory global situation we have now. Thus the era of prosperity with high wages, relative economic stability, high GDP we had from the late 40's to the 70's. It worked well for everyone except the sociopaths to they got rid of it. Read "Dark Ages America", a wonderful, easy to understand explanation of the cause and scope of our current situation, Pages 51-53 explain it quite clearly.
Do they think we don't notice the wheelbarrows of cash?Poor people have reason to be angry with this nonsense!
...... no, we are not against success... we are against theft.