Yes, the Democratic Party's win in November is being factored in, and is bosting the stock market higher.

Economists know that better days are ahead without the Republican "lock" on Congress and the White House.

If Bush were a Democrat the media reaction would be "Great news. Such a strong economy just goes to show what a terrific president he is."

But since Bush is a Republican the media reaction will be "This is just the rich getting richer. Hey, by the way, did you hear that Mark Foley sent sexy emails to a boy?"

"Yes, the Democratic Party's win in November is being factored in"

Yeah. Wall street better make some money now, cause after the Democrats take over taxes will go through the roof and the economy will go into the toilet.

All the media talk about are Foleys gay e-mails..

I think they are infatuated with His perversion..

I blame Bush.

The democrats are on another witch hunt in Az, Accusing a congressman the took two 17 year old page's along on a camping trip 10 years ago of doing something wrong. They don't know if he done anything wrong but since he's gay he must have.

The Problem is there were several people on the trip and the Page's say the congressman was a perfect gentleman. He does have a problem though, he's gay and the democrats are on a gay bashing spree.

This is about as funny as it gets, the gays have kissed the deemocrats a** for so many years thinking they were accepted and now they turn on them like the mad dogs they are. Everyone should take a lesson away for this. Never, never associate with a democrat. Vote for them today and they'll stab you in the back tomorrow. LMAO

Anyone thinking of taking anyone, including a boy scout troop, church group or ball team on a trip had better cancel it. When the democrats start a witch hunt the truth means nothing to them, they want blood. Lie and the MSM lies with them.

All this crap about the economy tanking if the Democrats win is just more lies being foisted on the American people.

When will the Republican lies stop?

From the Wall Street Journal

Dem Control Might Help Economy, WSJ.com Survey Finds

Democrats' wins in November might boost the economy, economists in the latest WSJ.com survey found.

Most economists said the economy would perform best in the coming years if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress. Only 12 of the 35 who answered the question said the economy would perform best under continued Republican control of the House and Senate. The best scenario, the economists said, would be Democratic control of the House only. The economists were almost evenly split over whether the stock market would perform better with a continued Republican lock on Congress or some measure of Democratic control.

Ohh please LEE I just ate!

WSJ says Democratic wins in November MIGHT help the economy.

WSJ also says:

Democratic wins in November MIGHT cure cancer.
Democratic wins in November MIGHT cause the sun to revolve around the earth.
Democratic wins in November MIGHT make pigs fly.

So, Lee, why is it that 34% of those surveyed thought the economy would do best if the GOP retained control of both Houses, yet only 23% believed that the economy woudl do best if the Democrats took control of both Houses?

By this survey, then, nearly 50% more economists believe that GOP control of both houses is better than Dem control of both houses.

Since you're crowing about this, I can only assume you agree with this assessment---the economy does best when the Dems are not in control of both Houses.

Which in turn presumably means split-voting, right? Dem-Senate, GOP-House, or vice versa? That's what you're advocating, right? But certainly not voting Democrat for both chambers, eh?

Lee:

"What are you a retard?"

/southpark

Lee:

Just to follow up, the other graph shows that the overwhelming plurality of those surveyed concluded that the stock market would do better with the GOP in charge of both houses, 49% versus 16%.

So, if you are or will soon be a retiree, with a 401(k) or 403(b) retirement account, you want and should vote Republican, because that way, your retirement will be better.

You do agree with that assessment, right, Lee, since you're trumpeting this survey?

LO - Note that it also says that the economy will preform best of the Republicans are not in control of both houses -- you conveniently left that out of your "spin".

The words of the Wall Street Journal and the economists they surveyed speak for themselves - no spin needed.

"Most economists said the economy would perform best in the coming years if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress."

"Accusing a congressman the took two 17 year old page's along on a camping trip 10 years ago of doing something wrong."

A gay congresman took a couple of under-aged pages on a fishing trip? I hadn't heard that.

Was the Congresman a Republican or Democrat?

Lurching Observer - quit yer lying ways...

From the WSJ article:"Only 12 of the 35 who answered the question said the economy would perform best under continued Republican control of the House and Senate."

As for the stock market the proof is in the pudding. Ask the millions of people who lost their retirement accounts and life savings in the phony stock market of the 90's. Worldcom (hyped by Algore) and Enron (leader sleeping in the white house) took millions to the cleaners. You can bet your last dime that if the democrats win in Nov not one dime of my money will be invested in 'any public' fund by Jan. They (democrats) are criminals one and all, along with the now known closet gay bashing.

Hardly overlooked, Lee.

The point is that, among the economists surveyed, most felt that a situation where neither party controlled both houses was best. But, they just as clearly felt that Republicans on their own would do a better job than Democrats would on their own.

And there's no question that they overwhelmingly felt that the stock market would perform better under a purely Republican Congress.

But, as long as you're willing to cheer the GOP retaining at least one of the houses (which is what the survey also sez), I suppose that's progress.

So, are you planning on voting GOP for House or for Senate?

What? How can that be?? We were told by those "in the know" that this was the worst economy since Hitler or Stalin, or something like that.

Lee's head just exploded!!

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Now Lee is citing the Wall Street Journal.

I thought you got tossed out of your little lib club if you read anything other than Chairman Dean's little book.

Next thing you know, Lee will be citing National Review.

Lib. mental midgets never cease to amaze on this blog.

Lee, your spin is very poor. You are boasting because it's being shown balance in the congress would better impact the economy? How is that a boost for your party? The second highest was having Republicans retain control of both chambers, btw. Why don't I just show everyone just what your compelling article says:

The Economy Would Perform Best Under Which Election Scenario?

• Democrats win control of House only 37%
• Republicans retain control of both chambers 34%
• Democrats win control of both chambers 23%
• Democrats win control of Senate only 6%

*****************************
So, the first choice is Dems in control of one chamber (the House), followed VERY CLOSELY by Republicans retaining control of BOTH chambers. Lagging behind are the scenarios of Dems in control of both, and waay at the back, Dems in the Senate.
And this makes you proud and boastful??

Now, impact on the stock market....

The Stock Market Would Perform Best Under Which Election Scenario?

• Republicans retain control of both chambers 49%
• Democrats win control of House only 32%
• Democrats win control of both chambers 16%
• Democrats win control of Senate only 3%

**************************************
That's right folks, Republican control of both chambers is number one.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I really don't see why Lee is so proud of this in terms of his political party. But thanks for posting the link to the article, Lee. It certainly made ME smile.

Bwahahahaha!!!

Lee, did you actually follow the links that you cited?

The little blurb you link to has additional links, including to this chart:

javascript:OpenWin('http://wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-fore-1006_frameset.html','fore1006','750','623','off','true',20,30);void('')

(Not sure if the above URL will work, but follow Lee's link, and then hit "Full Data" at the bottom of the blurb.)

Said chart notes the following:

The Economy Would Perform Best Under Which Election Scenario?

Democrats win control of House only 37%

Republicans retain control of both chambers 34%

Democrats win control of both chambers 23%

Democrats win control of Senate only 6%

Which tells us 12/35 surveyed feel GOP control of both Houses would be best, while 13/35 felt that Dem control of the House would be best, 2/35 felt Dem control of the Senate would be best, and only 8/35 felt that Dem control of both Houses would be best. (Really, Lee, it's simple mathematics.)

As I said, 50% more surveyed economists feel GOP control of both Houses would be better than Dem control of both Houses (12 versus 8).

Or, if you'd prefer it spun, a whopping 77% of economists polled believe that some or complete GOP control of the Congress is better than Dem control of both Houses.

How's them apples, Lee?

Go back to shilling for Islamic terrorists, Lee.

You really are stupid. I was giving you credit by suggesting you're lying, but you're just an idiot.

When surveyed as to the election outcome that is best for the economy...

Democrats win control of House only 37%

Republicans retain control of both chambers 34%

Democrats win control of both chambers 23%

Democrats win control of Senate only 6%

What's the best scenario, Senor Stupid? Hint, it's the one with the highest percentage.

Economy looking good bsaed only on the Dow? Sure, so does Lipstick on a pig:

Record U.S. trade deficit bad omen for Republicans

-------------------------------

How does that economy grow(?)

Jury says Wal-Mart must pay $78 mln in damages

(employees for forced to work "off the clock" or during rest breaks.)

Forced/ You mean like with a gun to their head like the jihadis?

OK OK uncle...you neocons win George Bush is the President the stock market is doing good so that means the economy is good and it is because of his polcies.

So excepting your logic we can therefore make the generalization that the stock market consistently does better under Democratic presidents.......right????

From Forbes Magazine:

http://www.forbes.com/strategies/2004/07/21/cx_da_0721presidents.html

We found that the S&P 500 has averaged a total return of 14.1% per year under Democratic presidents since April 1945, and 11.8% under Republicans.

and

The best total returns--17.4% per year--were under Bill Clinton, whose presidency ranked first in economic results.

ehh....emmmm....BOOOYAA!!!!!! SLAM...SMACKDOW...in yo face neocon dopes.....

Noecon funny excuses, explainations, lies, fantasies, goofiness and name calling TO FOLLOW:

The stock market does not like uncertainty. It has likely anticipated that the status quo will be maintained after the election. Quiet hurricane season, adequate energy supplies, no significant change in Republican control of the government.

Lee said:
When surveyed as to the election outcome that is best for the economy...

Democrats win control of House only 37%
Republicans retain control of both chambers 34%
Democrats win control of both chambers 23%
Democrats win control of Senate only 6%

What's the best scenario, Senor Stupid? Hint, it's the one with the highest percentage.

This article is a great example of liberal media bias. Here are the first two lines of the article.

"Most economists said the economy would perform best in the coming years if Democrats take control of at least one chamber of Congress. Only 12 of the 35 who answered the question said the economy would perform best under continued Republican control of the House and Senate. "

Technically the article is correct. However, it is deceptive in the impression it gives the reader of the numbers. Notice the first line leaves out the number of economists who feel that the economy would be better if the Democrats take control of Congress and simply says "Most economists".

However, the next sentence uses the specific number 12 of 35 economists think it would be better if Republicans retain control.

That is a subtle little trick. It implies the inverse for the first sentence, meaning it leads the reader to think that if only 12 of 35 thought it better for the Republicans to win then that must mean 23 of 35 think that it would be better if the Democrats win.

However, that is not the case. If you look at their data 37% thought it would be better if the Democrats took the House, and 34% thought it would be better if the Republicans retained the whole Congress.

So if you take those percentages and apply them to the number of economists surveyed (35) what you get is:

13 of 35 Economists thought it would be better if the Democrats took the House

12 of 35 Economists thought it would be better if the Republicans retained the whole Congress

8 of 35 Economists thought it would be better if the Democrats took both houses

2 of 35 Economists thought it would be better if the Deocrats took the Senate.

The difference between the first two options is 1 economist. Wow that's a ringing endorsement. 1 whole economist.

It's going to be a good Q4.

Average yearly increase in stock market under Clinton
17.4%

For Bush to date
1.9%

And you guys are bragging about how big yours is....BAWAAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Well, Bush didn't get a stock bubble caused my massive corporate fraud that Clinton allowed to happen to boost his bottom line.
-=Mike

muirgeo at October 13, 2006 08:36 PM,

I think that your comparison may better reflect the resiliency of our economy rather than a political affiliation.

Mungo probably doesn't own a stock, unless it's in Air America or some such. So, you compare a stock bubble which caused havoc in our economy in the 2000's with steady, honest growth, during an enormous set of terrorist-related shocks, and war, plus a recession which was just emerging after the Clinton "party" of the '90's.

You libs just don't get it when it comes to the economy. Or history.

But I'll take current growth like this in the face of these headwinds, versus fixating on the past, like you guys.

And, Lee has been schooled on this WSJ article issue about 3 or 4 times now, and he still doesn't get it! So, the axiom is now confirmed: those who speak often prove their ignorance.

If I were Lee, I'd keep my mouth shut!

Didn't Nancy Pelosi recently promise that if the Democrats took control of the house that they would turn the economy around? Sounds like a campaign promise they would keep.

Oh look MikeSC, snowballs and Mitchell did the funny excuse posts I was talking about. They sooo funny...make me laugh....funny me take thems flyswatter argument...turn it into SLEDGEHAMMER and turn around and bash them with it...then watch them swat some more...they so funny.....silly neocons...make me laugh...

You libs just don't get it when it comes to the economy. Or history.

Posted by: Mitchel

Yeah we just don't get how 1.9% is better then 17.4%...................Bwahahahahahahahah!!!!!! Frickin IDIOT!!!

Muirgeo,

Yeah we just don't get how 1.9% is better then 17.4%

First, I'm not saying either is "better" - but I thought your comment ^ needed a response for some odd reason.

The first is a resurgent number in relation 2001-2002, the other is an artificially inflated number, and caused a lot of problems with growth that was too rapid. There is a happy medium, but I think that a lot of investors have learned an expensive lesson from the trends of the 90s, in particular the late 90s. It was reeeal tempting to get on the tech stock bandwagon when the going was good and the media was pumping it like there was no tomorrow, but if you'll remember, bad asses like Warren Buffet and a handful of other smart investors and fund managers weren't tempted - and this was because of the net worth of these companies' stock prices had a tendency to be either several hundred or either thousands of percent higher than their actual net worth. Say it with me now...

art-i-fi-cial

A mutual fund wave or any other type of high growth wave is fun to ride when things are steady, but when that wave jacks up to astronomical numbers, you'd better look out because sometimes they come down harder than anticipated and in this case, they did.

As long as current inflation can be kept in check, and GDP can remain steady, we're in good shape in the coming 24 months at least (no matter what party is in control of various parts of government).

Snowball,

More hand-waving and excuses huh? That tech bubble was just an artificial thing um?

No how about the current housing bubble? Have seen the recent rise in foreclosures? Do you understand about the new bankruptcy laws? Do you realize last year was the first year since the Great Depression that we saw Americans net savings be negative? Do you understand that many of those home owners have re-financed their homes with balloon and interest only loans? Do you realize tons of those homeowners have taken out second loans on the equity in their houses? And they have nothing else to back it with. Do you realize that this current stock market and economy was spurred by huge record increases in government spending that those people above and their children will get to pay back with interest? Do you realize real wages are stagnant and the middle class is going to be paying more for gas and college?

Do you realize that while you make all kinds of excuses and rejoice in the stock market numbers that many economist are concerned we could be on the brink of collapse?

You keep explaining away and come back and talk to me in a year or two.

I literally almost hope the Republicans keep control because this country apparently needs to learn the hard way the lessons our grandparents leaned during the last Great Depression and the current crop of neocon dunderheads is unwilling to learn from.