From Reagan to Trump: Here's how stocks performed under each president

Hilarious

Also from the same article:
"Hoping to juice the economy, the Fed kept pumping easy money into the system. The unprecedented experiment helped send stocks soaring — the S&P 500 nearly tripled during the Obama era — but also contributed to wealth inequality and populism."

For every action there are ripples and tsunamis of effect.

SPC Erich Guenther - How so?

MSG Stan Hutchison - There is a lot more to the stock market then who is in the Oval Office, really is more of a function of economic policies at the time, productivity growth, technological innovation, etc. Stock values are based on expectations BY INVESTORS of future earnings as well as the present value of future dividends. Expectations are far higher under Trump in just two years then they were under Obama all eight years. Additionally Trump is actively involved in fixing our triple deficit problem whereas Obama sat back and ignore it. Back to the Clintons. Bill Clinton was not the genius he portrays himself to be. However, he did understand UNLIKE OBAMA and like Trump that deregulation helps further Economic growth. So Clinton deregulated quite a bit and got the government to back off. The biggest benefit that Clinton rode but did not produce was the impact of Microsoft Windows and other desktop and server software that greatly increased productivity leading to economic growth. So Clinton helped a little but primarily rode a tech revolution he had nothing to do with.

Sorry, it's not from Fox (Faux News)! Happy? :)

And yes, as a non-Republican I support Trump.

Don't ever go by a single source and don't get stuck in the rut of only looking at sources that support your way of thinking. Not a single source does a credible, deep dive on any subject anymore.

While a little out of date (5 years old now), it does demonstrate that a smaller percentage of "news" comes from the right. And too much is too far to the right. Since there are no centrist news outlets you are forced to look at both sides then figure out where in the middle the truth actually lays.

SSgt (Join to see) - Fox News is an entertainment channel.

And so is CNN. They used to be the go to station for news - in the 90s. Even the early 2000s. From about 2005 forward, not so much. They started looking for ratings over facts as too many of the news stations did. I lost respect/trust for Fox, CBS, NBC and CNN at about the same time.

SSgt (Join to see) - The problem with your analysis is I am very Liberal with the right candidate in office. I am NOT for no questions asked liberalism where we fork over trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to programs with no accountability. Though I will vote Democrat for a candidate with something between the ears. Haven't seen a Democrat running for President that had much intellect after President Carter. I have seen Democrats at the local level that were far smarter than Clinton and Obama but refused to run for higher office. Pointing to an issue of how the Democratic Party farms candidates where we always get the biggest bozos running for President and the really qualified Democrats are left at the local level. If you ask me, something very wrong in that Party and how it encourages what people to run.

Stock buy back money doesn't disappear off the face of the earth. The value is translated over to stock holders. If we had a Democratic Party that cared about the country and had programs in place for upward mobility and income growth more people could participate in the wealth effect and we could add another estimated $1.5 Trillion to Economic Growth as well has have far more people participating in our great Economy. We are stuck with what we have because the Democrats feel getting wealthy is evil and it is better to make everyone poorer and more dependent on government than it is to raise everyones incomes and return the politician back to public servant from ruler / power broker. Why not peg taxes to % of income growth per year? Because restrictive Federal Budgets are evil when we have so much money to spend or so many Democrats feel. Nobody would be complaining about taxes if they were pegged as a % of personal income BUT it would remove Democrats from being the problem solvers and the goto people in political office and put them on a budget they could not stand. They do not want to be public servants they want to rule over the people and be power brokers using taxpayer money to faciltate it all. Not what the Constitution intended for any political party. So they spend ridiculous amounts of money to be everyones problem solver (and look for and invent even more problems to spend money on with no prioritization) and hasten the day when they will point to Socialism as the only remaining answer to dig ourselves out of a welfare state hole. The fork in the road is comming via Financial Crisis. Do we keep our Democracy or move towards totalitarianism? I already know which side the Democrats will head towards and this most recent election makes it clearer to the electorate which side the Democrats prefer. So the question is, will another Bill Clinton appear in the Democratic Party to pull them back to rationality and the center or will they head towards the cliff. Next few election cycles will tell.

The corporate tax cuts has moved most of the extra earnings back to the corporations through stock buy backs. Trumps corporate tax cuts has decreased the national tax revenue. In 2016 he promised a zero budget deficit, but that is not working as planned. How did you determine that the lack of Democratic programs has an opportunity cost of 1.5T?

MAJ Ken Landgren - OK so now I know you don't understand stock buy backs that is pretty fundamental when you buy stock back you exchange money for it and the money is not returned to the company unless the stock is sold again. In many cases the stock buybacks have a financial reason such as transferring money from stocks to debt to keep the outstanding debt at a specific ratio to earnings or net worth. If debt falls too far a company can become a takeover target even though it doesn't want that. As far as budgeting I have yet to see a budget passed by the Congress that came from the Oval Office. To be honest the budget that Trump submitted to Congress lowered spending but the Democrats declared it dead on arrival. That last sentence is a misread. I said if the Democrats were focused on raising incomes across the board instead of taxes across the board.......the economy would be $1.5 Trillion larger......and tax revenues would increase. I didn't determine that it was an article via Google.