More proof: Republicans are fiscal disasters

[Lucky... 0]

http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/10/16/stock-market-returns-by-presidential-party/

...had you started with $10,000 in 1929 and invested it in the stock market, but only during the administrations of either Democratic or Republican presidents. His calculations showed that if you had invested only during Republican administrations you would now have $11,733 while if you had invested only during Democratic administrations you would now have $300,671. Twenty-five times as much!

Of course it isn't that cut and dried and the amount is skewd a bit, but the premise is that you would be many, many times with a better return by following that protocol of R president = bonds, D president = stocks.


EDITED TO ADD: This was written in Oct 2008, so the numbers would actually be even more in favor of Democratic president stockmarket investment.

[Lucky... 0]

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/05/are-republican-presidents-better-for-the-stock-market/

This one is more realistic, it has the Dems a 6:1 advantage, which is very generous, it's probably 10:1.

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is known for supporting big business. So it pays to elect Republicans to the White House, right? If you analyze the stock market performance under Republican and Democratic presidents, the answer is a resounding NO. Democratic presidents generate average stock market returns in excess of the risk-free rate of 10.69% -- roughly six times the 1.69% earned under Republican administrations.

Investopedia describes the research of Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov who analyzed the value-weighted returns on stocks between 1927 and 1998 under Democratic and Republican presidents. And they found that the excess returns of stocks over the risk-free rate of return -- as measured by the Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) indexes versus three-month Treasury bill rates -- were far higher for Democratic presidents (10.69%) than for Republican ones (1.69%).

Of course, these are just long-term statistics. Under the last Democratic president, stocks rose an annual average of 17.4%. The current Republican White House occupant has presided over an average annual decline of 1.1% -- the S&P 500 was 1,342 when he took over and stands at 1,233 today -- the only president of either party of the last 11 to oversee a decline in stocks.


This, again, was written 2 years ago, so the GWB disaster hadn't been enjoyed yet and the Obama recovery track not realized either. This is why I say 10:1 is fair over the 25:1 claimed in the first article.

Here come the excuses and strawmen.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/05/are-republican-presidents-better-for-the-stock-market/

This one is more realistic, it has the Dems a 6:1 advantage, which is very generous, it's probably 10:1.

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is known for supporting big business. So it pays to elect Republicans to the White House, right? If you analyze the stock market performance under Republican and Democratic presidents, the answer is a resounding NO. Democratic presidents generate average stock market returns in excess of the risk-free rate of 10.69% -- roughly six times the 1.69% earned under Republican administrations.

Investopedia describes the research of Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov who analyzed the value-weighted returns on stocks between 1927 and 1998 under Democratic and Republican presidents. And they found that the excess returns of stocks over the risk-free rate of return -- as measured by the Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) indexes versus three-month Treasury bill rates -- were far higher for Democratic presidents (10.69%) than for Republican ones (1.69%).

Of course, these are just long-term statistics. Under the last Democratic president, stocks rose an annual average of 17.4%. The current Republican White House occupant has presided over an average annual decline of 1.1% -- the S&P 500 was 1,342 when he took over and stands at 1,233 today -- the only president of either party of the last 11 to oversee a decline in stocks.


This, again, was written 2 years ago, so the GWB disaster hadn't been enjoyed yet and the Obama recovery track not realized either. This is why I say 10:1 is fair over the 25:1 claimed in the first article.

Here come the excuses and strawmen.

and the personal attacks.

(though I'll give credit: I haven't you whine about PAs for a while)

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/09/05/are-republican-presidents-better-for-the-stock-market/

This one is more realistic, it has the Dems a 6:1 advantage, which is very generous, it's probably 10:1.

The Grand Old Party (GOP) is known for supporting big business. So it pays to elect Republicans to the White House, right? If you analyze the stock market performance under Republican and Democratic presidents, the answer is a resounding NO. Democratic presidents generate average stock market returns in excess of the risk-free rate of 10.69% -- roughly six times the 1.69% earned under Republican administrations.

Investopedia describes the research of Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov who analyzed the value-weighted returns on stocks between 1927 and 1998 under Democratic and Republican presidents. And they found that the excess returns of stocks over the risk-free rate of return -- as measured by the Center for Research into Securities Prices (CRSP) indexes versus three-month Treasury bill rates -- were far higher for Democratic presidents (10.69%) than for Republican ones (1.69%).

Of course, these are just long-term statistics. Under the last Democratic president, stocks rose an annual average of 17.4%. The current Republican White House occupant has presided over an average annual decline of 1.1% -- the S&P 500 was 1,342 when he took over and stands at 1,233 today -- the only president of either party of the last 11 to oversee a decline in stocks.


This, again, was written 2 years ago, so the GWB disaster hadn't been enjoyed yet and the Obama recovery track not realized either. This is why I say 10:1 is fair over the 25:1 claimed in the first article.

Here come the excuses and strawmen.

and the personal attacks.

(though I'll give credit: I haven't you whine about PAs for a while)

I don't whine about PA's, I whine about diffs in enforcement, which have been fair as of late. I prefer to exchange FU's, but if I can't, I don't want others.

So no comment on your lovely disaster of a party? Or are you a denialist / Libertarian too; seems like there are a lot of those these days?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

So no comment on your lovely disaster of a party? Or are you a denialist / Libertarian too; seems like there are a lot of those these days?

All I'd say is I was always taught in my economics classes that the economy is a slow boat, and lags it's inputs by about 4 years.

I'm not an economist. I took one econ class in HS 25 years ago, and one in college about 20 years ago. They both indicated that the economy lags it's inputs.

--
Rob

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

So no comment on your lovely disaster of a party? Or are you a denialist / Libertarian too; seems like there are a lot of those these days?

All I'd say is I was always taught in my economics classes that the economy is a slow boat, and lags it's inputs by about 4 years.

I'm not an economist. I took one econ class in HS 25 years ago, and one in college about 20 years ago. They both indicated that the economy lags it's inputs.

I think he seems to believe that the economy is instantaneously changed when the administration changes.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So no comment on your lovely disaster of a party? Or are you a denialist / Libertarian too; seems like there are a lot of those these days?

All I'd say is I was always taught in my economics classes that the economy is a slow boat, and lags it's inputs by about 4 years.

I'm not an economist. I took one econ class in HS 25 years ago, and one in college about 20 years ago. They both indicated that the economy lags it's inputs.

I think they can do different things at diff times at diff rates. Let's be real, we can manually move all the bad to one party and the good to another in perfect revisionist fashion, but repetitive history shows that cutting taxes allocates money to tehrich, the rich are just that due to hanging on to money which stagnates the economy. Aside from all lame-ass "fair" arguments, redistributing money keeps things rolling and progressing FAR better than chopping taxes and letting the money pool in a few coffers. Again, FUCK FAIR, let's talk success, or we can talk fair compared to other countries and talk about HC and vacation laws. FUCK FAIR; LET'S WIN.

Again, hard to argue with 80 years of history that has such a dominant outcome. Not only has the debt skyrocketed under Republicans who often inherit a good economy, but now we see the market tanks too. I'd like to hear an explanation or perhaps a long-overdue admission.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

Of course it isn't that cut and dried and the amount is skewd a bit, but the premise is that you would be many, many times with a better return by following that protocol of R president = bonds, D president = stocks.

Did you even read the article? Perhaps you should go back and read it again. Try to get to the end this time.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So no comment on your lovely disaster of a party? Or are you a denialist / Libertarian too; seems like there are a lot of those these days?

All I'd say is I was always taught in my economics classes that the economy is a slow boat, and lags it's inputs by about 4 years.

I'm not an economist. I took one econ class in HS 25 years ago, and one in college about 20 years ago. They both indicated that the economy lags it's inputs.

I think he seems to believe that the economy is instantaneously changed when the administration changes.

Well, that is true in this changeover, and with the GHWB - Clinton changeover. Let's see, the Hoover - FDR changeover too. Uh, the trend is obvious, you can stay in denial tho, I'm good with it. Or perhaps the transference method where all bad is shifted fwd and back to the closest,mpst convenient Dem admin. Whatever works for ya bro

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course it isn't that cut and dried and the amount is skewd a bit, but the premise is that you would be many, many times with a better return by following that protocol of R president = bonds, D president = stocks.

Did you even read the article? Perhaps you should go back and read it again. Try to get to the end this time.

I did, in fact I even state they say there is a sort of skewing that has to be done and that the 25:1 number is high, for which I agree. The 2nd article I posted says the same and assigns 6:1 disaster ratio. Of course that was 2 years ago, so the # willbe skewed higher. Truth is the number is impossible to discern but the trend (mode) is quite obviously that R's have fucked the market. Of course they are good for businessmen, they help them manipulate teh market under the guise of free-trade.

Perhaps if you read my entire assertions you would see that I address this.

[brettski74 0]

Quote

I did, in fact I even state they say there is a sort of skewing that has to be done and that the 25:1 number is high, for which I agree.

You apparently skipped over the conclusions at the end where he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless, or the comments about how there are lots of variables which are not considered, like who held the majority in congress. Clinton's presidency corresponded with large increases, but most of Clinton's presidency had a Republican congress, so who should have the credit there? Bush senior and Reagan also correspond to large increases but they had to work with a Democratic congress, so who gets the credit there?

This kind of bullshit is one of the biggest problems in American politics. People are too busy having pissing contests to get on with running the country. There's nothing to see here. The education and health care debates, while silly at times, at least had a point.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, that is true in this changeover, and with the GHWB - Clinton changeover.

Once again you overreach and hurt your own argument.

The dot bomb would have come if Gore had won. So would 9/11. What happens after that is a different tale.

And after the market was oversold, it was going to bounce in 2009, even with McCain. How far (would he have also spent 1.42T in red ink), or how this year and next would play out would be the variation. You keep wanting to call success for now, and we're just not there yet, not with a trillion dollar deficit along with 10% unemployment.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I did, in fact I even state they say there is a sort of skewing that has to be done and that the 25:1 number is high, for which I agree.

Quote

You apparently skipped over the conclusions at the end where he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless,...

I read it again and did a word search and the word, "meaningless" didn't appear. So in good revisionist and blatant misrepresentation fashion, you transpose your words into the authors; typical. Remember, you wrote, "he stated..." not, 'I paraphrase....' Nice gross lying an misrepresentation. See, here's what he wrote: But the fact that they are correct doesn’t mean the figures are even remotely meaningful. Your (lie) paraphrasation is that that means meaningless, for which it does not. Honesty requires that when you say, "he stated" you must actually write what they state.

Now, the reasons for him stating what he did are this (my abreviated paraphrasation):

- It takes time for policies to take effect

- It ignores dividends

- It ignores inflation

ME: (of course the most gain was realized under Clinton where inflation was very minimal / great loss under GWB where inflation was huge - so that doesn't support any claim of inflation skewing anythng too much)

- If you ignore the GD, a mess preceeded by 8 years of R's, your 10k would = 51k (still 1/6th of the 300k with D's.)

He does make reference to the fact that if you move the slider along to shift the policies effect, you can get any result you want. But if we look at taxation and other relevant policies and their usual change within a year after implementation, sometime sooner, we can see that disaster occurs under the R's.

Quote

...or the comments about how there are lots of variables which are not considered, like who held the majority in congress.

OK, that could be easily factored as well as budgetary vetoes / overrides. Would it change things anything worth mentioning?

Quote

Clinton's presidency corresponded with large increases, but most of Clinton's presidency had a Republican congress, so who should have the credit there?

OK and most of the fiscal policy was established in 93 with a D-controlled congress, esp the top brkt bump from 31% to 40%. Very little relevant occurred under Clinton in the way of fiscal policy other than Clinton shutting down the gov due to the R's refusing to send him a viable budget, so Clinton won that one too; the R congress was made impotent. There were small tax cuts made in 97-98, but then the tax receipts shaded off then too. As well, the recovery was well under way by 95 due to the tax policies rendered under Clinton and the D congress in 93.

Quote

Bush senior and Reagan also correspond to large increases but they had to work with a Democratic congress, so who gets the credit there?

More ignorance; the senate was R from Jan 81 to Jan 87. Also, large increases in debt; is that what you were afraid to write? Yea they did, altho GHWB raised taxes and cut the military to try to fix fascist pig Ronny's mess. Look at a graph, as GHWB raised taxes in 90-91 gov receipts rose and Clinton received a weak but recovering economy, something Obama didn't even get close to; he received a spiralling mess.

Quote

This kind of bullshit is one of the biggest problems in American politics. People are too busy having pissing contests to get on with running the country.

Then show me a major federal tax cut that has led to bliss. Try not to transpose 8 or 12 years in teh future; you've already shown us that you're a revisionist and are unaware of congressional history. In fact, I can point to taxation policy changes and see immediate results; would you like to see an illustration?

Quote

There's nothing to see here. The education and health care debates, while silly at times, at least had a point.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, an 80-year trend is pure conjecture. I realize you probably consult Jebus, but the rest oif us idiots use science to determine probability and a sample size 80 years long is reliable and statistically significant.

But let's be real, Eisenhower kept the top brkt at 91% his entire 8 years and the debt fell a couple-3 years, so there's an example of an R who was fiscally responsible. So this isn't totally partisan, as GHWB did what he could but couldn't escape the fascist pig's mess. So, yes, this isn't as easy as R's bad / D's good, it has mre to do with tax policy and generally, esp recently the R's have chaopped taxes thinking it was helping when history shows that was the problem and it permeated to teh market as well. See if you can grasp this:

WHEN RICH PEOPLE GET FREE MONEY VIA TAX CUTS, THEY SAVE IT, HENCE THEY ARE RICH. WHEN POOR PEOPLE GET MONEY THEY SPEND IT, STIMULATING THE ECONOMY.

I can't dumb this down any more, but the facts / data are there to support that R's kill the market, hammer the debt and take a robust economy and ice it. I don't care to spend a lot of time apportioning it and assigning a ratio, but the 80-year trend is there for you to rationalize. I've taken spots in time and made illustrations, I don't see you doing this, it would be too constructive.

• Quote

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, that is true in this changeover, and with the GHWB - Clinton changeover.

Quote

Once again you overreach and hurt your own argument.

How did I overrreach? The data is there to support tax increases and that the R's, to some ratio, have fucked us all at the interest of corporate profit.

Quote

The dot bomb would have come if Gore had won.

Yes, brilliant assertion considering that it occured / started 8 months before the election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

It had basically falen in half by Jan 2001, so your point is silly and chronologically baseless.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EIXIC+Interactive#chart1:symbol=^ixic;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

Quote

So would 9/11.

Yep. 911 was minimimally damaging to the economy in a chronoligal sense. It may have been deep, but it was short.

Quote

What happens after that is a different tale.

Right and that is the issue. Dont forget these 2 articles go back to 1929, I think teh 2nd one goes to 1927 if I recall. This is not about GWB, this is about the R Party and their effect on the market.

Quote

And after the market was oversold, it was going to bounce in 2009, even with McCain.

It was the mess in Europe that caused it to fall. But a fall of what, 1200 points is mimimal. Hell, the resident shithouse stockmarket expert called it to tank last October. Since then it jumped 1000 points, then fell 1200 in reaction to Europe. So it is still doing well; showing life.

Quote

How far (would he have also spent 1.42T in red ink), or how this year and next would play out would be the variation.

Variation to what? BTW, GWB's last year yielded over a 1T deficit, so are you one of those, 'fix it in 2 weeks or it's your fault' guys?

Quote

You keep wanting to call success for now, and we're just not there yet, not with a trillion dollar deficit along with 10% unemployment.

On one hand it is success that we're not in a massive, full-on depression as we would be if crusty, 'tax cuts my friends; had won. But I guess if we minimize the mess your guys left then we can blame Obama and say things are fucked. Listen, kid: WE HAVE ACHIEVED MAJOR SUCCESS IN THAT WE ARE NOT AT 15%, 18%+ UNEMPLOYMENT. Now are we good to go? Fuck no, but we have achieved a ton of success.

• Quote

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

ME: (of course the most gain was realized under Clinton where inflation was very minimal / great loss under GWB where inflation was huge - so that doesn't support any claim of inflation skewing anythng too much)

there you go making shit up again. 2008 was the only year with notable inflation, and even that was < 4%. 2002 was 1.59%, just a hair over 1998 (1.58), the only two years below 2% for those two Presidents.

$1000 in 1993 would cost 1207.56 in 2001
$1000 in 2001 would cost 1214.14 in 2009
(based on CPI)
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

ME: (of course the most gain was realized under Clinton where inflation was very minimal / great loss under GWB where inflation was huge - so that doesn't support any claim of inflation skewing anythng too much)

there you go making shit up again. 2008 was the only year with notable inflation, and even that was < 4%. 2002 was 1.59%, just a hair over 1998 (1.58), the only two years below 2% for those two Presidents.

$1000 in 1993 would cost 1207.56 in 2001
$1000 in 2001 would cost 1214.14 in 2009
(based on CPI)
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Nice try oh protector of the Bush; denyer of the Bush as well.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx

Love your term, "notable." Here are the years of GWB inflation:

2001 +4.9%
2002 +2.78%
2003 +4.08%
2004 +5%
2005 +6.4%
2006 +6.3%
2007 +5.7%
2008 +8%

OBAMA

2009 -.766


Nice job, you fucked that one up too. It fell Obama's first year as pres. And for your guy, he was > 4% 7 of 8 years and > 6% 3 of 8 years with a peak of 8%. THAT IS ALL NOTABLE. Gas prices doubled-to-tripled, house prices doubled and food prices jumped.

[airdvr 200]

Lucky, when 9 of the 16 posts to a thread you create are your own perhaps you need to re-think your station in life.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, when 9 of the 16 posts to a thread you create are your own perhaps you need to re-think your station in life.

When 100% of your posts ar ad hominems or other meaningless drivel, you have now arrived.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Lucky, when 9 of the 16 posts to a thread you create are your own perhaps you need to re-think your station in life.

Just let him go. It make him feel good that he thinks he is changing the world by posting on some obscure website as opposed to actually working to make a change.

[brettski74 0]

You're making a lot of assumptions about my politics and beliefs. People don't need to be a right-wing extremist to disagree with you. I have no interest in making either Republicans or Democrats look good. GWB was a disaster. Obama is in many ways a vast improvement. The Republicans in congress are mostly acting like spoilt children these days. The Democrats are at least trying to do something, although they really need to grow some balls.

As for "meaningless", I never quoted anything, so yes, I paraphrased and you should have expected that since I never quoted anything. If I'd said: He stated, "These kinds of comparisons are meaningless." - you might a point, albeit a tiny one. Academic articles paraphrase their sources all the time, but since you believe it wrong to paraphrase in any way...

Quote

one thing that becomes clear if you do is that you can get just about any result you like by playing with the start date and the assumed lag time before presidential policies start taking effect...

Quote

While this is an entertaining Demonstration to play with, ultimately what it shows is that the Times‘ Op-Chart, while amusing, is really just one not-very-representative snapshot of a very complicated situation.

Quote

It doesn’t matter who is in charge, the market is saying, in the long run it’s going to be OK.

In addition to ignoring his conclusions about how meaningful or otherwise these graphs are, you've also conveniently ignored that his most detailed model (ie. the one that includes inflation effects as well as dividends) showed better performance by investing in Republican years. You're really playing the same game as Fox News. You can do better than that. Fox News is about as fair and balanced as a black bear on a surfboard and as a result have absolutely no credibility in my view. When you similarly ignore data that conflicts with your agenda, you also have little credibility.

I often agree with your general position if not your exact points, but it's posts like this that weaken your whole position. This is why academic magazines have peer review before publishing articles. You'll note that your usual supporters aren't here. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because your position here would not stand up to peer review. If you want to criticize and demonize the Republicans, go right ahead, but try to pick a convincing and supportable argument, otherwise you're just playing the same game as Fox News

Quote

WHEN RICH PEOPLE GET FREE MONEY VIA TAX CUTS, THEY SAVE IT, HENCE THEY ARE RICH. WHEN POOR PEOPLE GET MONEY THEY SPEND IT, STIMULATING THE ECONOMY.

Shouting something doesn't make it more true, but regardless, if you're trying to show that democrats do more to help elevate the poor, why are we looking at the Dow Jones Index? As for the rich, well a large portion of their money is in the stock market and due to the way that they think, they'll pretty much do well regardless of who's in the whitehouse. I'm not a big fan of the stock market. It's become an almost purely speculative vehicle. Many of those rises in the Dow on those graphs ended up being the slow transfer of wealth from novice to sophisticated investors, so in the end, the performance of the Dow doesn't really show much about elevation of the lower or middle classes. If you really want to look at that, I'd suggest finding median and 85th percentile data for incomes - preferably after tax and adjusted for inflation. Unemployment rates would be another potentially good measure as may be inflation and/ affordability ratios. I've no idea how that would look, but it would be a much better indication of government influence on elevating the poor than stock market performance.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

ME: (of course the most gain was realized under Clinton where inflation was very minimal / great loss under GWB where inflation was huge - so that doesn't support any claim of inflation skewing anythng too much)

there you go making shit up again. 2008 was the only year with notable inflation, and even that was < 4%. 2002 was 1.59%, just a hair over 1998 (1.58), the only two years below 2% for those two Presidents.

$1000 in 1993 would cost 1207.56 in 2001
$1000 in 2001 would cost 1214.14 in 2009
(based on CPI)
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Nice try oh protector of the Bush; denyer of the Bush as well.

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx

Love your term, "notable." Here are the years of GWB inflation:

2001 +4.9%
2002 +2.78%
2003 +4.08%
2004 +5%
2005 +6.4%
2006 +6.3%
2007 +5.7%
2008 +8%

OBAMA

2009 -.766


Nice job, you fucked that one up too. It fell Obama's first year as pres. And for your guy, he was > 4% 7 of 8 years and > 6% 3 of 8 years with a peak of 8%. THAT IS ALL NOTABLE. Gas prices doubled-to-tripled, house prices doubled and food prices jumped.

From your own damn source:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx

YEAR	  JAN	  FEB	  MAR	  APR	  MAY	  JUN	  JUL	  	  AUG	  SEP	  OCT	  NOV	  DEC	  AVE

2010	  2.63%	  2.14%	  2.31%	  2.24%	  2.02%	 	  	 	 	 	 	 	 

2009	  0.03%	  0.24%	 -0.38%	 -0.74%	 -1.28%	 -1.43%	  -2.10%	 -1.48%	 -1.29%	 -0.18%	  1.84%	  2.72%	 -0.34%

2008	  4.28%	  4.03%	  3.98%	  3.94%	  4.18%	  5.02%	   5.60%	  5.37%	  4.94%	  3.66%	  1.07%	  0.09%	  3.85%

2007	  2.08%	  2.42%	  2.78%	  2.57%	  2.69%	  2.69%	   2.36%	  1.97%	  2.76%	  3.54%	  4.31%	  4.08%	  2.85%

2006	  3.99%	  3.60%	  3.36%	  3.55%	  4.17%	  4.32%	   4.15%	  3.82%	  2.06%	  1.31%	  1.97%	  2.54%	  3.24%

2005	  2.97%	  3.01%	  3.15%	  3.51%	  2.80%	  2.53%	   3.17%	  3.64%	  4.69%	  4.35%	  3.46%	  3.42%	  3.39%

2004	  1.93%	  1.69%	  1.74%	  2.29%	  3.05%	  3.27%	   2.99%	  2.65%	  2.54%	  3.19%	  3.52%	  3.26%	  2.68%

2003	  2.60%	  2.98%	  3.02%	  2.22%	  2.06%	  2.11%	   2.11%	  2.16%	  2.32%	  2.04%	  1.77%	  1.88%	  2.27%

2002	  1.14%	  1.14%	  1.48%	  1.64%	  1.18%	  1.07%	   1.46%	  1.80%	  1.51%	  2.03%	  2.20%	  2.38%	  1.59%

2001	  3.73%	  3.53%	  2.92%	  3.27%	  3.62%	  3.25%	   2.72%	  2.72%	  2.65%	  2.13%	  1.90%	  1.55%	  2.83%

2000	  2.74%	  3.22%	  3.76%	  3.07%	  3.19%	  3.73%	   3.66%	  3.41%	  3.45%	  3.45%	  3.45%	  3.39%	  3.38%

1999	  1.67%	  1.61%	  1.73%	  2.28%	  2.09%	  1.96%	   2.14%	  2.26%	  2.63%	  2.56%	  2.62%	  2.68%	  2.19%

Where's that 8% again??

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[DaVinci 0]

Yeah, the National Debt is now 13T and is up 50% in just the last two years.

Who is in charge the last two years again?

And the U.S. House of Representatives does not intend to pass a budget resolution..... Who is in charge of the House again?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Yeah, the National Debt is now 13T and is up 50% in just the last two years.

Who is in charge the last two years again?

And the U.S. House of Representatives does not intend to pass a budget resolution..... Who is in charge of the House again?

You dont do math well do you... when your hero George the Second left office it was at 11 + trillion... MOST of that 11 TRILLION was run up by your hero's Ronnie RayGun, George the First and the billiance of George the Second ( the debt was at 800 BILLION when Carter left office. If it is indeed up 2 TRILLION its because ot the policies foisted on this administration 2 trillion is not even close to any kind of 50%

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

You dont do math well do you...

Better than you it seems.

Jan 1 2009 Total:
$10,699,804,864,612.13

June 1 2010
13T

That's almost 3T, not 2.

[kallend 1,647]

Quote

Quote

You dont do math well do you...

Better than you it seems.

Jan 1 2009 Total:
$10,699,804,864,612.13

June 1 2010
13T

That's almost 3T, not 2.

I guess you missed the math class on rounding.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.