Lucky...

I used this table: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/consumer_price_index/historicalcpi.aspx which tabulates inflation differently. I don't know the components of the CPI, but it seems impossible to not have massive inflation as house prices doubled, gas doubled-tripled and food shot up. Any info on the components of the CPI?

I agree with that, but the part about D's and balls; theyhave and that's what pisses off the right. Finally the pussy RW using reconcilliation far more than the left, all the while decrying the Dems for using it occassionally, have it back in their face with the Dems using it now with HC. The Dems have finally grown some balls. Now, not enough tho, as Lieberman still caucuses with them instead of being tossed out. But the left wants to be calm and rational, so they give a little and look like pussies with issues liek that rather than intolerant of any difference as with the right. This is how it shakes down: brettski74: You apparently skipped over the conclusions at the end where he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless,... The Author: But the fact that they are correct doesn’t mean the figures are even remotely meaningful. You can zig-zag all you want, you should man-up and admit you morphed it a bit to make your point. It happens, next time you will say something like, 'it seems the author feels this is meaningless.' You did write, "...he stated that these kind of comparisons are meaningless,..." so you don't really need quotes with that kind of statement. If you've ever played the game where person #1 starts out with a story and tells it to another and this continues for several people and the last person's story is examoned and usuallu far different, this is a prime example of that error. See, he said, "But the fact that they are correct doesn’t mean the figures are even remotely meaningful." and you follow with, "...these kind of comparisons are meaningless,... Did did misstate what the author stated to benefit your point. Oh so now even a direct quote with quotations are just trivial procedure; I think I know who I'm arguing with here. Is English and the rules of it just an obstacle? I appreciate your wiggling, but to overtly state that direct quotes are just paraphrasations really lowers your stock value. I don't believe it is wrong to paraphrase and I do it all the time, but I just qualify it as such. You would be a lawyer's cross-examination dream; this is how a person gets ripped apart. BRETT: He said X, Y, and Z. LAWYER: Didn't he really say A, B and C? BRETT: Well yes, but but it was kinda the same thing. LAWYER: Do you want this jury to believe anything you say when you misrepresent people's statements with your own? BRETT: Hey, it's all the same thing. JURY: This is why I agree that 25:1 is extreme, 6:1, as with the othr article I posted is probably more reliable and these were written 2 years ago, so we can bump that a little bit. As well, I don't cite an article, write 1 sentence and say, 'See, see, it's all true.' I cite articles and make a lot of commentary. I realize the RW usually uses the other method and has a hard time understanding what's wrong with constantly posting a big cut-n-paste with 1 very small sentence of their own. I do agree that there isn't a 1:1 ratio of X Party = Y outcome, but the evidence is overwhelming considering the crashing under Repub policy an the growth under Dems over 80 years. Can itbe a coincidence? Not totally for that long. What data am I ignoring; THE DATA WHERE THEY MORPH TIMELINES? Thsi hypothetical data you are embracing as tho it were true and you claim I have a credibility problem???? I do agree that dividends bring the 25:1 down some, but as for market growth it's hard to argue that the market surges under Dems and has for 80 years, if you want to call 80 years of data coincidence like Bill does then have a good time. Of course an ad hominem is required and becuase, as you say, I must be discredible, the 80-year set of overwhelming evidence is invlaid. Do you think professional (PhD) economists comment on issues such as these that are political? My hunch is they do not, but perhaps they do. Maybe someone can research an article written bya PhD in this area that has been reviewed. BTW, thx for the 3rd grade understanding of how peer-reviewed journals are read by peers before publication, I had forgotten that like 20 years ao. Obviously you didn't read my posts, as I like Eisenhower and GHWB, for that matter Teddy Roosevelt, so I'm not you and just partisan. How in the fuck is this a discussion about the poor Mr Strawman? What I was quite obviously saying is that the rich stagnate teh economy, the poor stimulate it; tax cuts are bad for the economy sinc eit allows the rich to pool inactive money. If you're offended by me emphasizing my key points I just don't give a fuck. Really? You don't think the rich did amazingly well under Clinton and crashed under GWB? The same with Hoover v FDR? Just keep the 'coincidence argument' alive and well and enough people will believe it. Actually more of a manipulation playground for the rich. Of course, and deregulation under the Repubs facilitates this. But my argument isn't that of gov's influence on the poor, it's more about the political party's influenc on the market.

One more that does NOT understand what "ILLEGAL" means? What lawrocket is saying, and all have missed, is that the law changes. We have so many constitution-thumpers in here, some have piped in here, yet they defer to the version of legal they want, whether the contemporary one or not, then when it's convenient they'll refer to the 1787 version of legal. It's just pure selectivity. BTW, this kicking out of the competition has been going on for centuries; legality is just a convenient excuse this time.

Pretty ass-toot alright.

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

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.

It only has to do with SCOTUS decisions; if they're inline with your thinking, they used great interpretational skills and the Constitution is beautiful. If the decision disagrees with you then the judges are cum-swallowing faggot queerbait activists. It really is a tired expression, I've been around a lot of lawyers and they generally have that opinion. See, a liberal person could view a conservative court as being activist when they render decisions that are of course conservative. Like all the hits the constitution took over the past 3 decades in regard to 4th issues; the doorway used to be the threshold of doom, absent exigent circumstances or a fleeing felon, a cop couldn't pass thru that w/o a warrant. Now a Texas case where a cop crossed that w/o a warrant or other qualifying circumstances arrested/convicted a guy for drugs, the courts all the way to the SCOTUS reviewed it an decided a cop can enter your house, remove all persons until tehy can secure a warrant. It was teh answer to people seeing the cops and flushing drugs. Teh doorway was the threshold of no pass until these GOD DAMNED ACTIVIST JUDGES went and got all maggotty conservative. See, I can do it too, truth is, the decision is a blow to the 4th, but the judges weren't anymore activist than tehy were with Roe v Wade, it's just the penduluum swinging that way. We could say the same court was activist both opposite directions in 1972 and 1976. 1972 with Furhman v Georgia they cleared off death row in every state and took a moratorium on cap pun, which is why Manson is still alive. Then 4 years later the same or same basic court decided Gregg v Georgia and reinstated the DP. So they were "ACTIVIST" both opposite direcctions, right? Just because you or I dislike the decision doesn't make it activist. That's the last thing we need is another super-left shit head in office to nominate more activists....err I mean Jusitices. Activists...err I mean Justices, is completely different; you didn't mean activist judges / justices at all, no way. What a joke, you can't even own up to the obvious. When you're done with semantics then we can have a conversation above the 6th grade. You hate decisions made by justices that liberal presidents appoint. Can we get out of the 6th grade yet? Really, your dodgeball is getting pathetic. You said you didn't want Palin as the Repub nominee, as that only gives Obama a free pass to appoint activist Justices. That is my paraphrasation, if you need to keep wiggling out, feel free. LOST N CONFUZED: That's the last thing we need is another super-left shit head in office to nominate more activists....err I mean Jusitices. LUCKY: ANy lawyer will tell you it's rediculous to use the term, "activist judges" as that is just a way to say they hate the decision. LOST N CONFUZED: Ok, good thing I never have used the term "activist judges". LUCKY: Right, it was, activists....err I mean Jusitices.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm Ah, I see, we get pro-gunners in there and they interpret the const correctly, if we get decsions we hate, they are activists. ANy lawyer will tell you it's rediculous to use the term, "activist judges" as that is just a way to say they hate the decision.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

Like the left hates (insert name here)? Ok, I get it....... But you have to remember, it is called attacking when someone disagrees with Obama No, we're atacking the factual nature of the OP. You're trying to strawman, "they do it too" into the mix. You are entertaining I will give you that Kind of like Hannity So you digress, we are attacking the factual aspect of the OP, you the purveyor of the strawman.

I see, the red states possess most/all of the negative attributes and the blue the poitive, yet you claim the blue fucked up by electing Obama, Clinton, etc? Makes pure sense.

As an observation, just like wages and workplace mortality, red states have: - The fatest people - Lowest wages - Highest workplace mortality I imagine the highest rates / largest number of wrongful executions Pretty much all that's bad tends to hang around red states.

Like the left hates (insert name here)? Ok, I get it....... But you have to remember, it is called attacking when someone disagrees with Obama No, we're atacking the factual nature of the OP. You're trying to strawman, "they do it too" into the mix.

What, did she dial up the incline on the ol' craftmatic? Sure, I was being sarcastic. Can't believe anyone, regardless of political ideology, who would side with the cops here.

I bet she had double-parked a time or two and had gotten away with it. Karma my friend, karma.

Pretty much-it didn't bother me when he was just a Junior Congressman from Illinois Oh! You were talking about the other a different guy.... That's rich! The dumbest president in history, elected by the dumbest electorate in history as well.

They have access to evidence we don't. Besides, they can levy their own claims and with negligence and otehr claims, you're just being semantic. Sure but the cops shouldn't facilitate it. Make up your mind. I don't care how old a peson is, if a senior is ill and needs meds, better to ask, even if it seems wasteful. Jebus Christ dude.