And btw--your numbers are inaccurate. Bush was elected in 2000, taking office in Jan 2001, not Jan 2002. His term ended in Jan 2009 not Dec. 2009.Nice try to use false info. My numbers are from BLS, as noted. What you don't like is the fact you don't like to use the real the time period of his policies. That is your problem, not mine.Clinton's policies were in effect for most of 2001--as was his budget. So, to try to say 2001 was part of GWB's eocnomic year is nonsensical. Kind of like trying to test a 5th grader on 5th grade math on the first day of 5th grade. Guess what? The kid has not *yet* taken 5th grade math.... OOPS !! So we get another "fail"--on the first day.GWB's policies were not in effect in Jan 2001 (his first day, so to speak). Nor were they in force and having a major effect on the economy until much closer to Jan 2002. Thus, to see if his policies *worked* means starting in Jan 2002--and then running for eight years (through Dec 2009). Obama's economic policies started Jan 2010 and run through Dec 2013.Yeah, I know this throws off your entire silly set of claims. But, that is the way to evaluate the effectiveness of policies--not political years.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M