Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10...14_OPCHART.html

 

Goes to show that the mainstream media is no better than the trash blogs at delivering useful or unbiased information.

Why choose 1929 as the cutoff? Who invests for 79 years? If you started investing in 1929 at about 20 years old you would be 99 years of age today. Why not make it something useful like 1963, the time a person who is retiring this year would have entered the workforce and began saving for retirement around the age of 20?

I'll tell you why. Without the HUGE bias of Hoover on the results nobody would read it.

If a President presides over a huge market bubble which starts to crack in his last year in office does he get full credit for the gains while the poor sucker who takes over gets shafted with the losses? According to this survey he does (ala Bill Clinton in 2000). If the credit crisis has held off for another few months, crashed in say February instead of September, would it be Obama's fault? According to this survey it would be.

Statistics and lies, all utterly meaningless.

 

Mark Twain- There are three types of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

That shows nothing due to the noise and slant anyone could choose to put on it. Passing the buck is the perfect example, as cthree said. And anyone could easily interpret that data as they want regardless--either say the Democrats did a better job with consistency or that the "good" Republicans (the four that did >10%) are the ones that applied party policy better--Bush is easy for many to write off at least.

 

I agree.....if anything.....the less government does...the better!

 

One of the dumbest things I've ever seen someone invest so much time in.

 

Not only that....economic plans often take years to play out. Look at Reagan. His economic policies are credited with the prosperity we have had over the past 20 years....until now...b/c GWB grew government and government spending more than any democrat could ever hope for.