http://finance.yahoo.com/...
A column written by Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D. So you think that since he has a Ph.D., this guy would have some sort of respect for facts? Wrong.
This article focuses on comparing how the economy performs under different parties controlling the legislative and executive branch. I thought this was a fair article, for awhile. We see that:
Over the past 60 years, this trend has been more pronounced. The Democrats have held the presidency only 41% of that time, but under their rule the average annual return has been 15.26%, more than six percentage points higher than the 9.01% return under Republicans.
Later, he points out stats which proclaim that returns on the stock market under a...
Republican congress/Republican presidency: 9.77%
Republican congress/Democratic presidency: 22.40%
Democratic congress/Republican presidency: 10.76%
Democratic congress/Democratic presidency: 13.89%
Ok, fine. So with these statistics it's easy to see that a Democratic congress and a Republican presidency is the best combination, and if Dr. Siegel had reached that conclusion in this column it's perfectly reasonable. However, he writes that it's certain that there is going to be a Democratic congress, so of course we'd be better off....WITH A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT to put a leash on out of control spending.
Since Congress is certain to stay Democratic after this November's election, it might be good for the stock market to have a Republican president. Keeping a check on a free-spending Congress is in investors' interests.
It seems to me as if the stock market preforms better with a Democratic president and a Democratic congress. I don't know, that's just what the facts say. But who expects Republicans to listen to facts?