Obama has destroyed Illinois economy! (Ron Paul, employment, 9/11, Congress)

[kuvopolis]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

Show me this better performance during dem. presidencies?

Happy to oblige:

USATODAY.com - Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by kuvopolis

Happy to oblige:

USATODAY.com - Democrats or Republicans? Just the facts

You see where the huge gains were?

1933-1952 was directly after the stock market crash....of course using percentages coming from the depths up will show large percentage gains.

Then the Clinton years were "false".....You had companies like enron and the tech bubble feeding that tremendously.

I would also agree the housing bubble has effected the economy and if using % would not be accurate...



"http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash10.htm"

Starting DJIA: 11,792.98
Ending DJIA: 7,286.27
Total Loss: -37.8%

The 10th worst market crash barely edged out the 1932 stock market crash as the 10th worst crash in U.S. stock market history. Being the most recent crash, it is the easiest for us to remember.


Coincidence?

[BigJon3475]

Looking at the stock market when it's at it's lowest it would be easy to see huge % gains.

[paullySC]

People seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the stock market.

[BigJon3475]

I'm not very old but if I remember correctly the "street" was dreading a democrat (2000 and 2004) in office.

[UnderTheLiveOaks]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

I'm not very old but if I remember correctly the "street" was dreading a democrat (2000 and 2004) in office.

Dreading a Democrat in the Senate? Because that's what this thread is about.

To think that a Democratic Senator is responsible for economic woes in the state of Illinois is laughable.

[BigJon3475]

I've already said no one in charge of IL deserves anything in the white house.




Claiming he had no part is not facing the truth.

[kuvopolis]

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

You see where the huge gains were?

1933-1952 was directly after the stock market crash....of course using percentages coming from the depths up will show large percentage gains.

Then the Clinton years were "false".....You had companies like enron and the tech bubble feeding that tremendously.

I would also agree the housing bubble has effected the economy and if using % would not be accurate...

How convenient to selectively omit data. In this case, positive data from the Democrat years. Under that logic, why not remove the Reagan years as we were recovering from an oil embargo, or Eisenhower, when we were enjoying a post-war boom and invention of many products. 100 years is a rich data set and evens out the outliers.

Reagan and Bush Jr. caused the deficit to skyrocket. Clinton erased it.

[BigJon3475]

I didn't omit anything. I say looking at it % wise is not very accurate.

What do people do in times of hardships?.....when in voting years....

They vote the opposite because the grass is always greener on the other side.

Seriously looking at it unless you claim people are not of adequate intelligence to vote.....why would people continue to vote in republican after republican if things were getting worse and worse and people weren't feeling things were better.

Looking at it using your USA reference there should never have been a republican president again....but that's not the case.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by kuvopolis

Reagan and Bush Jr. caused the deficit to skyrocket. Clinton erased it.

Actually it's pretty much right on with history.

http://www.swivel.com/graphs/show/5543118