Chart of the Day: The S&P 500 TR Since Obama Took Office

I know the stock market has little to do with who happens to be the President but it’s still interesting to look at. I’m no fan of Obama but the S&P 500 has performed nicely since he has taken office (yes, it pains me to write that) as illustrated by this chart that I put together:

S&P 500 TR Since Obama Took Office

30 thoughts on “Chart of the Day: The S&P 500 TR Since Obama Took Office”

    1. Like I said, it really has nothing to do with who is president. Just like the 90s had nothing to do with Clinton. And, no matter who was president after the internet bubble burst, the market was going to go down.

  1. Very true. This is a Bernanke rally and part of the financial engineering we are engaging in because our economy has been wrecked beyond the ability to grow more than 1.5% per year. This is nothing a liberal Republican like Obama or Hillary or the Bircher candidate of the future can change regardless of what they do. The only way to produce any type of growth is through continued financial engineering. It will be interesting to see how things play out in the coming years.

    In the meantime, the idiots can argue to the cows come home about 3% tax increases, gay marriage, abortion and guns while the two parties play their parts and Wall Street pulls the strings.

    When the Fed can no longer keep the market up, the whole thing will go up in smoke.

  2. Despite my political leanings, I don’t choose not to post something if it doesn’t line up with how I think it should.

  3. I knew when Scott Pelley of the CBS Evening News proclaimed after the Boston bombings: “As we all know, the terrorists hate us because of our freedom” that the media was still biased. No doubt about it.

  4. I think they actually hate people who oppress Muslims and kill them as we do. They hate U.S. imposed dictatorships and what they perceive to be as a war on Muslims. They’ve never said anything about freedom.

  5. So you’re saying that if the US pulled out of all muslim countries, then they would quit their terrorist actions?

  6. Yeah, I think the terrorists keep mentioning something about the US bombings of women, children, etc. And economic sanctions that cause the deaths of children and elderly, etc.

    Except the terrorists need to learn that killing isn’t the answer to stop the US caused death and destruction over seas. They need to learn that the answer is doing drops of pictures of kids with their backs blown out and starving kids and then point to US foreign policies.

    If only we had listened to the “founders” of this nation and not meddled in foreign affairs.

  7. JLP,

    Read some Glenn Greenwald and you will see what we are talking about. Most people don’t know what the CIA has been doing in the name of the US for decades over in the middle east and other countries. It is amazing that we haven’t gotten blow back a long time ago.

  8. They aren’t stupid enough to go for that kind of stuff because it would never make a difference. The only way anybody ever gets freedom is to fight against their oppressors. That’s what they are doing. The people that get killed are what we refer to as “collateral damage” when we do it ourselves.

  9. How many of those deaths were at the hands of muslim men shielding themselves with little kids and women?

    I agree with you guys in that the US shouldn’t go where they don’t belong.

  10. Probably not very many. When the US identifies an enemy combantant, which is now defined as any male in Afghanistan, they dropped bombs on them and kill whoever is there. Is that a policy that would be accepted in the U.S.? They understand what is going on.

  11. That’s pretty good. The specific reason that bin Laden attacked the US was because it had a military base in Saudi Arabia. That was what really POd him.

    Chalmers Johnson predicted a lot of what is going on now in his book “Blowback” before 911 ever happened.

  12. OK, here’s some links
    Glenn’s current blog:
    Glenn’s previous blog:‎

    Cited reasons for terrorists and “Muslims” hating us:
    with polls cited:

    Osama bin Ladens stated reasons:

    By no means am I saying that it is OK for terrorists to hurt innocent people. All I am saying is that violence begets violence and we need to own what we have done and continue to do.

  13. JLP,

    I tried clicking on your link but none of my browser let me (Chrome, IE, Firefox) with Lubuntu and Windows 8.

  14. I’ve still got a comment awaiting moderation in the Morals and Business post, because of ONE link, and Jon gets FIVE?!

    I’m hurt, dude.

  15. Actually, I did a study of the entire Ibbotson database since 1925, and it makes a BIG difference which party is in the White House. Only half tongue-in-cheek, here is the logic of the system I developed:

    (1) Rhetorically, the Republican Party is the party of business and the Democratic Party the party of government.

    (2) In reality, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two.

    (3) As a result, Democrats never end up being as anti-business as expected and Republicans never end up being as anti-government as expected.

    (4) A strategy of holding buying small cap stocks (to be as volatile on the pro-market side as possible) whenever a Democrat is in office and holding long-term Treasuries (to be as volatile on the pro-government side as possible) whenever a Republican is in office blows away both the stock and bond indices and has an extraordinary risk-adjusted return over the 87 years of the Ibbotson database.

    Check it out. This is really just a variation on the greed/fear index: pro-market people always go into Democratic presidencies expecting socialism and into Republican presidencies expecting deregulation, and this is reflected in prices at the start of the administration being unduly low at the start of a Dem administration and unduly high at the start of a Rep administration, because the two parties are filled with liars who virtually never do what is expected on election day.

    Sure sounds plausible, doesn’t it? Of course, like all hypothetical backtested strategies, this one does a great job of predicting the past and is bound to fail in predicting the future. Personally, I’d rather keep my eye on the hemline indicator.

  16. JLP,

    Finally read it. Yeah, I think we are close to being on the same page. But, if Islam is so dangerous, then why haven’t we been attacked much more? We have hardly been touched. In reality we have done much more damage around the world then muslims have. So, in reality, without being ethnocentric, we are far more dangerous then the muslims. So, what should we do to ourselves? I suggest we love. This includes stop supporting (monetarily, physically, emotionally, etc) the US empire as much as possible.

  17. PS.

    I wish there was a way to follow comments on an individual post more easily. It is a pain keeping this window open. So if I eventually stop responding you know why, I closed the tab.

  18. Jon, there is hardly an armed conflict larger than the Hatfield’s vs. the McCoy’s that doesn’t involve muslims as the aggressors.

Comments are closed.