[Tired Old Man]

A little more support for my gas price theory:

"(Reuters) - Chevron Corp Chief Executive John Watson sees demand for oil being destroyed in the United States as a result of higher gasoline prices and an underperforming U.S. economy.

"We're seeing that right now," he said. "If you look at the peak in U.S. oil consumption it was about 21 million barrels a day as little as about three years ago. It's now down to about 19 barrels a day ... and high prices are partially contributing to that."

"The other component in the United States is a relatively weak economy," Watson added in an interview aired on CNBC on Wednesday"

Three years ago aligns with the election of who? You guessed it, Obama. One has to have the ability to see beyond the obvious that is intended to obfuscate truth and reality. A great many data sources are designed to promote specific agendas, and skew or cherry pick data points to present the intended picture. Obama has had an openly stated agenda from the beginning but it has had little exposure since it was first announced.

[awesome]

Doesn't Obama BOW in the presence of Arabs? I mean , they've got a LOT of oil.

[BENCHASON]

TOM what did you do to the Obama kool-aid drinkers.

[calypso]

Interesting article in Bloomberg: ( Source )


Stocks Return More With Democrat in White House

While Republicans promote themselves as the friendliest party for Wall Street, stock investors do better when Democrats occupy the White House. From a dollars- and-cents standpoint, it’s not even close.

The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.

That’s more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

“The market does tend to do better under Democrats than under Republicans,” Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at S&P Equity Research in New York, said in a telephone interview. “Is it because Republicans mishandled the economy, or inherited a weak economy? I’ll leave that to others.”

Some of the difference may stem from the fact that every Republican president since at least the end of World War II has faced a recession during his first term in office, Stovall said. Nine of 11 recessions that began since 1945 -- and seven of eight since Kennedy ran for president in 1960 --started with Republicans in the Oval Office.

Wall Street Republicans

Democratic administrations also may be more likely to spend money on government programs that stimulate the economy, Stovall said.

“I dare say that most people on Wall Street are Republicans,” Stovall said. “But it appears the bread is buttered on the Democratic side.”

The S&P 500 yesterday hit its highest intra-day level since June 2008 and closed at 1,362.21, the highest since last April 29. The benchmark index is up 8.3 percent so far in 2012, the biggest year-to-date gain at this point since 1991.

Since Kennedy took office, the Democratic S&P fund logged a 992 percent gain, versus 109 percent growth for the opposition party, even though Democrats occupied the White House for 23 years over the period, compared with 28 years of Republican presidential leadership.

The annualized return for 23 years of Democratic administrations is 11 percent, or four times the 2.7 percent annualized return during 28 years of Republican presidencies.

Democratic Edge

Investing $1,000 in funds that mirror the Dow Jones Industrial Average under the same conditions, Democratic investors would have had $7,550, versus $2,716 under Republicans.

The Democratic edge is so large that the party comes out ahead even without counting Bill Clinton (the Democrat with the biggest S&P 500 gain) and George W. Bush (the Republican with the worst market record). A hypothetical $1,000 investment under Democrats excluding Clinton was worth $3,539 versus $3,296 invested under Republicans except Bush.

Adding Dwight Eisenhower to the Republican column doesn’t overcome the Democratic advantage, either: $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 in January 1953 would have been worth $4,796 after 36 years under Republican chief executives -- still less than half the $10,920 nest egg accumulated in 23 years under Democrats.

[BENCHASON]

So by this chart the stock market is now in its biggest boom ever. That's some funny stuff.

[calypso]

Originally Posted by BENCHASON

So by this chart the stock market is now in its biggest boom ever. That's some funny stuff.

What's REALLY funny is that you have absolutely no idea what that chart is showing .

[BENCHASON]

O the chart on a Hypothetical Fund ! My bad

[Tired Old Man]

But the $10,920.00 developed over the period the Democrats were in control is now actually worth less than the ogiginal $1,000.00 invested due to inflation and devaluation of the dollar incurred through excessive social spending and government borrowing.

That article reads like some fool looking at an increase in his home equiy value and thinking he's made money without looking at the increased cost of the houses he was considering buying.

[Tired Old Man]

Originally Posted by BENCHASON

TOM what did you do to the Obama kool-aid drinkers.

I tricked them into thinking for themselves instead of digging up someone elses stuff to support the obvious, meaning what someone else wants them to believe.

[BENCHASON]