Lucky...

So you use Haiti, Cuba and Mexico as comparisons......nuff said.

Appears you are right. Since they were both fiscally conservative I figured the rumour made sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992 The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes equally among Clinton, Bush, and those staying home if Perot had not been a candidate, but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.[24] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[25] Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues. Look at that map I posted, he lost a few close ones too. I don't really care, I'm not out to trounce, 1 EV is a winner. Of course with an even number of EV's you have to win by 2 I guess.

Yea, what a bunch of losers and these are the guys selling advice as stockbrokers. Channel Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter Why not channel Clinton, he had the biggest boom of all of them; 3500-9800. Channel Reagan? Yea, hell, channel GWB, he did a better job of upping the debt, unless we look at % of increase, fascist Ronnie owns that at 300%. WHat is it with this Reagan love, he was a war coward, senile elitist who trippled the debt whiling ripping benefits from workers. All that populist anti-Wall Street rhetoric in Washington scares the heck out of investors. Good call Get the bipartisanship thing going Yea, their maggots are in and it's all about fuck teh other side, now that they have been outed, let's play nice.

Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Holy shit, and you didn't want President George Bush to fail? Speaking of failure, the "anything but Bush" mental condition, has persisted so long, the Nobel Prize Committee has bought into it. They think they can now influence US foreign policy. No, I was doing well in that era. During Bush I lost my job, had my house foreclose and that was the worst 8 years of my life; I needed him to succeed and teh country to succeed or at least not go down the shitter. Of course when my life went down the shitter I wished worse than failure on him and his policies, but at the start I wanted him to just not fuck anything up. Sorry for you loss, and thanks for being candid about it. Hope you are back on track. Thx very much, I appreciate that. I'm struggling to get back, I really need some kind of HC to pass to fix a few things. To be realistic, more than 1/2 of the blame goes to me, but I think Bush killing the Ergonomics Bill, trashing the Dept of Labor and the very Overtime Bill itself are really a huge part of my demise as well. You see Obama trying to get us HC, Bush spent his entire first term pushing the OT Bill thru which he finally did at the end of his 1st term. So after he did all that shit I really wanted him to fail, he was cuastic from all angles except from the rich.

Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success. Holy shit, and you didn't want President George Bush to fail? Speaking of failure, the "anything but Bush" mental condition, has persisted so long, the Nobel Prize Committee has bought into it. They think they can now influence US foreign policy. No, I was doing well in that era. During Bush I lost my job, had my house foreclose and that was the worst 8 years of my life; I needed him to succeed and teh country to succeed or at least not go down the shitter. Of course when my life went down the shitter I wished worse than failure on him and his policies, but at the start I wanted him to just not fuck anything up.

So you voted Obama for which reason or how much of each? Term limits and/or age limit? I clearly stated he wouldn't do what FDR did, but he would get close. http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08 McCain got 173, I said 179; I was close from memory. So I'm saying it will swing further away from the R's meaning they will get < 173. Of course we will have to see the performance and R candidate, but it's looking bad for the R's. ***To compare Clinton to Obama in that respect is incorrect IMO. Clinton only won due to Perot splitting the R vote. I think people were pissed Clinton was elected, I was, so that was their way of showing disapproval. Obama is loved and he s/b rewarded in 2010 and 2012, it's early, but could be another FDR blowout.

Actually it should have been given to all voters of Obama, they're the real heroes.

I think that people are too anxious about this. The committee always lists the accomplishments of the recipient. People need to calm down a little. A feeling of calm and a general consensus of direction are part of the list. Let's not undermine an accomplishment. Feelings are important. He took office on Jan 20th. He was nominated before the Feb 1st deadline. As well I would think an American would be proud of another American's victory. I guess some Americans have a different idea of patriotism. I don't do breast-beating patriotism. I'd prefer someone actually accomplished something tangible in order to be rewarded - regardless of their nationality, position, political party, etc. I guess for the Nobel decision makers, getting elected to the office and not being George Bush is good enough. And I imagine you sit there with popcorn, chewing your fingernails and hoping your guy wins the Nobel. Most people on here couldn't name a person other than Carter or Gore who won the Nobel, yet all this interest about Obama winning it. It smells real bad, we all know, if you are conservative yoiu hate Obama and hate the thought of him doing anything good. We get it.

Conservatives want Obama to fail, the country to fail and everyone to marvel in the glory of failure so they can reinstall their version of success.

Precisely. So why are you declaring victory for Obama already? He'll get reelected (or not) based on what things are looking like 2+ years from now. The midterm election will depend largely on next summer. Based upon the early signs, GDP and the market it looks real good. I would rather have things look good early so if they tail off they have room to do so, as opposed to having it take a shit or continue the shit from Bush for an extended period. Let me ask you, aren't you excited about the early numbers going way + in mere months? Or would that make Obama an early success and you would rather tank the entire thing to take Obama down? How patriotic. The R's are going to have to look like a different variation of the D's to have a chance. FDR saved the country after 12 mill died under Hoover, in his 4 election wins he never gave up even 100 electoral votes, I think I see 2012 looking something like that, maybe not

wait... so in the same post that lucky agrees that making things like this partisan is stupid, he makes them partisan. I don't see how that goes to Lucky. What I said was that this mess is largely partisan, the R's own most of the debt. However, there are a few bright spots as with GHWB, Eisenhower and Teddy, but that's 3 in > 100 years, I ask you to show me other R's who were a + influence in the economy. It must be that you cannot understand degrees, just black/white.

FDR deficit spent, every war president deficit spent. When in an emergency, you have to ignore that and spend what you have to. If a loved one needed a surgery and you havd to sell your house, would you say, 'I dunno, that's not fiscally intelligent?' BTW, this mess was inherited, he's spending for Bush's fuck up. No GHWb didn't, he cut military spending immediatley and then raised taxes after 2 years. Altho the debt / deficit kept rising, he laid the platform for recovery. GHWB and Clinton were very similar presidents, Reagan and GWB were much the same. We're all over the place now, there is nothing stable you can discern from this. We'll have to look back on this to make sense of it.

Tell that to the shareholders of Microsoft. Right, when you cash out, if you gain then money moves to your account, it is taxed under capital gains. How is that contrary to what I'm saying? Bizzare.

Hi Mr. Pot, care to contribute instead of resorting to personal attacks. I can't wait to hear how you also figured all the variables to this current economic cycle in such a short period of time.

We've actually just left that. Under Bush: - Gas prices trippled - House prices doubled - Food prices increasd incredibly - Etc

2 points for Lucky. 0 points for DougH. DougH is a typical forum writer; if all else fails and you don't know what you're talking about, resort to personal attacks against the other person. Or better yet, quote 2 words out of a comprehensive sentence and leave the rest out.

And you shouldn't sit on a school board or teach, etc. Posting parts of people assertions is dishonest w/o having some kind of context. I wrote: I agree, what makes the issue bipatisan are guys like Eisenhower and GHWB, othr than that it's about TAX CUTS MY FRIENDS vs THE GOVERNMENT SERVING THE PEOPLE. Show me the Dems who arelargely evil here. It's generally the side that fucks everything up that wants to include everyone. I see it in criminal cases, politics, etc. Share the blame; what have the Dems done vs the R's?

Poor, poor ins co. The same ones that charge all they can on teh front-end and deny all they can on the back. You're a dying breed, Americans are realizing they don't want their very lives to be a business decision.

Apparently you don't read. I wrote in post 14: I went into this research thinking it was wholly tax increases on the rich, New Deals and the sort, but after reading a bunch I think it was both. Unemp was 10% in 41 and 5% in 42, so at the very end of 41 we could infer the rate was 7-8%. These numbers don't work to the 5th digit right of the decimal, they are very round and also don't count people off the unemp roles, so we look for general trends. Also, we don't know when the numbers were tabulated, end of year, beginning, in-between? Statistically you look for modes, groupings and that's what we have; a trend from what was it, 19% in 1938 or whatever the data showed. Again, you obviously haven't read my writings here as you would see I attribute the early recovery to Tax increases, New Deals and social programs, and I attribute the 2nd recovery to all the previous and military spending. War spending was just another social program anyway, deficit spending for phat projects, the only difference is we can justify it. Why don't you address the recovery from 33-37? And thinking anything with the economy is blocked off in time limits like a college class schedule, bus schedule, etc requires strict bias. The economy is dynamic and brings with it a transitory model. Unemp rates flow, not drop off like a finely machine plate. And here I thought the WTC's were attacked in 93 and 2001, not to mention the Cole and other crap. That's my point, these things flow, unemp data. Yes I get your point, but if you had read my posts you would see I partially attribute the 2nd recovery from 38 to 42 to the end of the war in 45 to military spending. Even tho the war officially started on Dec 8, 41, the fighting didn't start until a date still argued about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II It's still up in the air, but as I wrote in post 14 of this thread, I do think WWII clearly had an impact in the 2nd part of the GD. You're not looking to discuss, you're looking for an 'Aha' in my argument. You missed, dude, I had already stated that WWII played a significant role in the recovery of the 2nd part of the GD. If you wanted to discuss, you would look at 33-37. Not when coming from 25%....oh wait, here comes your next semantic argument, it was 24.7%. Saved ya the keystrokes. Again, it was 10% in 41, 5% in 42, so it is reasonable to think that it was in-between in Dec 41. You're king of the microcosm. W/o looking, it was 19% in 1938, right? So to halve that to 10% in 41 is a big deal, it's not as if it hung at 10% for years until the war came along. In reality the drop from 19% to 10% to 5% and lower was certainly in part to government war programs for sure. I stated this is post 14 that you did not read. W/o a doubt, and if you read post 14 you would see I gave that credit, not the Lend-Lease Act specifically, but all government war programs too. It was still a socialist gov system that pulled us out by deficit spending, it was just obviously necessary so it wasn't ridiculed. If you read my posts you would understand, but you don't. You also don't bother that period from 33-37, as you can't find a war to crawl under to justify GD recovery and you would have to credit tax increases, New Deals, etc. And to bring in Europe really shows how you don't get it or you do and are misdirecting. Germany destroyed Europe, the USSR and all the allieds saved Europe. Back to the point - tell us how we quit the dying of 12 million Americans under Hoovernoimics, tell us how we escaped the early GD years.

The 3 main indicators are the GDP, unemp rate and market. We can get technical and split hairs, but these are the major indicators, agreed? The 3rd wheel, unemp, doesn't get fixed until after the first 2. I agree, what makes the issue bipatisan are guys like Eisenhower and GHWB, othr than that it's about TAX CUTS MY FRIENDS vs THE GOVERNMENT SERVING THE PEOPLE. Other than Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower or GHWB, show me a Re[ub since Teddy that was for the people rather than corp interest/rich people.

In the sake of this argument I agree that it is irrelevant, but in the context of correct labeling I think it's relevant. Considering 80% of a student's tuition is paid by the state I think calling the student's portion tuition is incorrect. IOW's you won't have to pay this so-called property tax if you follow the rules, so tags on a car are not a property tax, they're a user fee. Of course you'll argue that, but follow the rules, park teh car and deregister and have no so-called property tax. As I said....

Are you serious? They are so out of touch, they may go the way of the Whig, every time I read more delluded babble I think that.

GDP is +, DJ is over the hump, and unemp claims have slowed. This recovery is fatser than anyone could have expected. God Obama is horrible.

If whatever deficit increase occurred under Obama, I haven't seen the numbers, is his fault, then 21% interest rates were Reagan's fault, right? GWB inherited a very descent economy. GWB has some bad events occur under his terms, but he handled them about as badly as anyone could and Obama received them, so let's be realitic when we blame Obama too much. Furthermore, let's give him 2 years minimum. WHat is the double standard? What are the Dems pushing that they don't have apply to themselves?

So let's punish the people that made good decisions by taxing the hell out of them and reward those that made poor choices by giving them the money? Wonderful motivation for success. Listen up kids, when you grow up, if you work hard the government can take half of everything you own too! There seems to be such a small amount of class mobility that you mean to say let's punish the people who's parents and great parents made good decisions. Also, the only people getting a tax incease thru this are the ones who are very rich or who get their compensation redirected thru a phat insurance policy. I'd love to see the cost incr to you pesonally, as in how it works. Just like teh Iraq/Afghanistan War, how has it cost you a dime?