Dang that Donald Trump!

[Gun Smoke]

Same can be said since 2008. No bad.

ALL BAD. Enough items to make a make a Sears catalog look like a post card. And no, I'm not going to waste my time "proving" what you already know about the secret hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars given to the muslims, the no credentials, obamacare, other socialism, stagnant economy and on and on.

Like I said the other day about bill clinton. The Rosenbergs were executed for less.

[Roadkingtrax]

ALL BAD. Enough items to make a make a Sears catalog look like a post card. And no, I'm not going to waste my time "proving" what you already know about the secret hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars given to the muslims, the no credentials, obamacare, other socialism, stagnant economy and on and on.

Like I said the other day about bill clinton. The Rosenbergs were executed for less.

Thought this was about the economy? Stop ranting.

[Gun Smoke]

Thought this was about the economy? Stop ranting.

Crickets chirping

The absence of a president ALWAYS affects the economy.

Can't stand the truth and the fact that everyone else knows the truth.

But hey, as always, you got the last word in. It doesn't have to relate to the subject or make sense at all does it?

[Roadkingtrax]

Crickets chirping

The absence of a president ALWAYS affects the economy.

Can't stand the truth and the fact that everyone else knows the truth.

But hey, as always, you got the last word in. It doesn't have to relate to the subject or make sense at all does it?

The Truth, by your own admittance, is that we've enjoyed a recovering economy since 2008, and unfortunately...you have more credit to give those you dont like, than those that you do. Congratulations on your success...hopefully the next downturn is a small dip and not a pull back on the yoke with all your might kind of event.

As far as the last word, well...the last person that turns out the light can have that.

[RED]

S&P 500 in the first 701 trading days of presidencies from S&P Historical Data
Anecdotes are not data
Ronald Reagan +26%
George H W Bush +36%
Bill Clinton +33%
George W Bush -22%
Barack Obama +60%
Donald Trump +34%

Presidents by term - increase or decrease

1st term 2nd term
Ronald Reagan
+30% +67%

George H W Bush
+51%

Bill Clinton
+79% +73%

George W Bush
-12% -31%

Barack Obama
85% +53%

Donald Trump (current)
34%

Your math is about is as slanted as your opinion.

Reagan +26% overall

1st term 2nd term
+30% +67%
_______________

Overall 26%??????

The real results should be on a per year average. For example, according to your numbers Obama had a 60% increase in 8 years or 7.5% per year. He started with a economy was in recession and already showing signs of recovery.

Trump had a 34% increase in 3 years or 11.33% per year and he started with a economy that was already strong in spite of Obama's failures like "Shovel Ready Jobs," and Cash For Clunkers."

[oscars]

I paraphrased information provided by Standard and Poor. Now, here is my puny mathematical analysis. I analyzed and compared slopes of activities by year for both Obama and Trump, using regression analysis and solving slopes by the method of least squares (linear algebra) to solve the normal equations. The origin of the equations was in the latter portion of the Bush years and also supports the hypothesis of slope equality for both administrations, indicating a glide slope for the Trump data. In other words Trump did not screw up conditions noted in the Obama years.
I am counting on the possibility that you took some sort of statistical analysis as part of your “purported” accounting degree and this was not like your claim of being a naval aviator.

[RED]

I paraphrased information provided by Standard and Poor. Now, here is my puny mathematical analysis. I analyzed and compared slopes of activities by year for both Obama and Trump, using regression analysis and solving slopes by the method of least squares (linear algebra) to solve the normal equations. The origin of the equations was in the latter portion of the Bush years and also supports the hypothesis of slope equality for both administrations, indicating a glide slope for the Trump data. In other words Trump did not screw up conditions noted in the Obama years.
I am counting on the possibility that you took some sort of statistical analysis as part of your “purported” accounting degree and this was not like your claim of being a naval aviator.

I appreciate your meaningless double talk.. You would have been a great Carnival Barker.

The only analysis needed is your numbers:

1st term 2nd term
Ronald Reagan
+30% +67%

George H W Bush
+51%

Bill Clinton
+79% +73%

George W Bush
-12% -31%

Barack Obama
85% +53%

Donald Trump (current)
34%

All the comparisons to trump should be analyzed using prior proper procedures (PPPPPP). I cant prove it , but your numbers claim that Obama increased the GNP by 138%. The GNP in 2008 was $17.7 and by 2016 it had increased to $18.97 a mere 1.0663294% increase. The last published GNP was for 2017 and was $19.235 or a .98622303% increase in one year. Eight years to get a 1.6% increase vs. 1 year to get a .98622303 increase. If that trend continues for 7 more years under a Trump Presidency, that would be a $6.90356121 increase compared to BHO's 1.0663294.

Figures dont lie... but liars figure.

[lyman]

^^

so who is the liar,, if you cannot prove the numbers?

[dryheat]

Numbe3s. I can't watch that show. The recession was brought upon the Baby Boomers by their own manipulations. Some boomers got rich and as usual the johnny come lately's or the overly greedy got clobbered. Bush was in charge when the shenanigans were going on. Obama was the next president. That's about it. I think that going by 2019 statistics I am 987.09879% right.

[S.A. Boggs]

This mode of conversation has been interesting, about as much as who is the most gorgeous woman.
Sam

[togor]

This mode of conversation has been interesting, about as much as who is the most gorgeous woman.
Sam

In the WW2 era I have to give the nod for best pin-up to Rita Hayworth.