The problem is with you using nominal figures for Reagan, but then switching to real figures for Obama. What on Earth does the BEA have to do with that?
Last edited by Conservative; 07-11-13 at 08:09 PM.
Do you think that's a rational substitute for you getting caught dishonestly cherry-picking GDP number that you personally favor?
Here's the list of presidents, along with the level of increase, or decrease, of the U3 unemployment rate after 53 months in office...
Clinton -2.3 -32% Johnson -2.2 -39% Kennedy** -1.2 -14% Obama -0.2 -3% Reagan -0.1 -1% Carter*** 0.0 0% Bush +0.8 +19% Eisenhower +1.4 +48% Nixon +1.5 +44% GHW Bush*** +1.9 +35% Ford* +2.0 +36%
* = in office 29 months
** = in office 34 months
*** = in office 48 months
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
You claiming Bush's (and Republicans) policies had nothing to do with it is either turning a blind eye to it or simpoly don't understand what caused the crash.
And yes, Bush did say that. Not something like that -- exactly that.
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech
So you can deny it all you want, but Bush tacitly confessed to the "crime".
I don't even know what any of these threads in BN are about anymore because whenever I open them they have nothing to do with the topic.
"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."
Forget about comparing Reagan's numbers with Obama's. Your claim, as bizarre as it is, is that we should factor in inflation from 2009-2013, but not when looking at the numbers from between 1981-1988.
Inflation affects ALL of the numbers, not just for Obama.
But again, you like the nominal figures better between 1981-1988, just so you could make the fallacious claim that he doubled GDP, when in fact, he didn't.