I just tracked down that Urkelization: http://www.madville.com/funny/304720_obama_urkel. Turns out it was posted in early March of 2009, when Obama had had less than two months to stop the Bush slide. I guess it was silly of me to take it seriously enough to inquire about the graph. Proves my buddy was right that I'm no genius.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey, 19:15, look at the Dow. Compare 2008, the last year of Bush, with the rest (Obama). Then tell us what the heck your graph is!

You must not have an economics or finance degree. People like you should not be permitted to vote due to being so uninformed.

You are correct that my degree is not in finance, but the graph speaks for itself. Your response, unfortunately, totally evades my question.

Yes, the graph speaks for itself, but not in any meaningful way to someone without any sort of financial background like yourself, as you equate the market change to Obama (LMAO!!!). Hey, I'll give you a special tip because I like you - put all your money on small caps this summer - go all in the stock market right now! All summer long, and then pull out Labor Day weekend, okay genius?

You should not be giving investment advice. You are a gambler, and one driven by politics. Guys like you are right until you implode and then no one hears about it except in Off Topic, where your wife talks about how you ruined the retirement account. Double fail.

The graph is a reflection in the outlook for the economy and the growth in corporate earnings.

Okay, right, we all pulled out of the market in January 2008 and went all in when the Dow hit 8,000 and made a fortune, and I recently got out at almost 13,000 (dow). But I give terrible investment advice, right?

By contrast, YOU, who thinketh the market "outlook" is so great due to the annointed one, go ahead and go all in it right now and make your fortune - the "outlook" is great this summer!

Yeah, you haven't been around long enough to know what you are talking about. Everybody calls the market a few times in their life. You are showing how little you know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey, 19:15, look at the Dow. Compare 2008, the last year of Bush, with the rest (Obama). Then tell us what the heck your graph is!

You must not have an economics or finance degree. People like you should not be permitted to vote due to being so uninformed.

You are correct that my degree is not in finance, but the graph speaks for itself. Your response, unfortunately, totally evades my question.

Yes, the graph speaks for itself, but not in any meaningful way to someone without any sort of financial background like yourself, as you equate the market change to Obama (LMAO!!!). Hey, I'll give you a special tip because I like you - put all your money on small caps this summer - go all in the stock market right now! All summer long, and then pull out Labor Day weekend, okay genius?

You should not be giving investment advice. You are a gambler, and one driven by politics. Guys like you are right until you implode and then no one hears about it except in Off Topic, where your wife talks about how you ruined the retirement account. Double fail.

The graph is a reflection in the outlook for the economy and the growth in corporate earnings.

Okay, right, we all pulled out of the market in January 2008 and went all in when the Dow hit 8,000 and made a fortune, and I recently got out at almost 13,000 (dow). But I give terrible investment advice, right?

By contrast, YOU, who thinketh the market "outlook" is so great due to the annointed one, go ahead and go all in it right now and make your fortune - the "outlook" is great this summer!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree about Obama. Way more charm..

Besides Romney's personality (or lack of) ruins it for me

We are talking purely about LOOKS - Romney LOOKS better. Lots of ugly people are charming - like Bill Clinton. (except I am guessing Obama might have a better chest/abs than Romney - just guessing. . .).

Romney is a dog. His hair is terrible. (He looks like he takes stylist tips from Jimmy Swaggert.) He squints a lot. His eyebrows are too bushy. His nose is too big. His clothes are boring. Absolutely no sense of style.

Obama isn't the best looking guy. (Those ears!) But he has nice eyes, and his sense of style is impeccable.

Anonymous wrote:Are you crazy?

Obama is clearly more attractive than Romney.

Obama looks like he smells like an ashtray......sorry.

I do not see how anybody can think Mitt is handsome

I think Franklin Pierce has a certain rakish bad-boy charm.

Anonymous wrote:np: Stock market isn't the economy. But GDP is:
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Thanks for the info. The graph yoou linked to:

looks like verification of disastrous drop at the end of Bush, followed by steady, but disappointingly slow, recovery under Obama. Since the GOP stopped Congress from enacting Obama's full program, which was not as aggressive as many of us would have liked, that's about what we should have expected; Krugman has been saying so all along.

But again, what was that graph in the Urkel pic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey, 19:15, look at the Dow. Compare 2008, the last year of Bush, with the rest (Obama). Then tell us what the heck your graph is!

You must not have an economics or finance degree. People like you should not be permitted to vote due to being so uninformed.

np: Stock market isn't the economy. But GDP is:

[http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey, 19:15, look at the Dow. Compare 2008, the last year of Bush, with the rest (Obama). Then tell us what the heck your graph is!

You must not have an economics or finance degree. People like you should not be permitted to vote due to being so uninformed.

You are correct that my degree is not in finance, but the graph speaks for itself. Your response, unfortunately, totally evades my question.

Yes, the graph speaks for itself, but not in any meaningful way to someone without any sort of financial background like yourself, as you equate the market change to Obama (LMAO!!!). Hey, I'll give you a special tip because I like you - put all your money on small caps this summer - go all in the stock market right now! All summer long, and then pull out Labor Day weekend, okay genius?

You should not be giving investment advice. You are a gambler, and one driven by politics. Guys like you are right until you implode and then no one hears about it except in Off Topic, where your wife talks about how you ruined the retirement account. Double fail.

The graph is a reflection in the outlook for the economy and the growth in corporate earnings.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-09/obama-s-re-election-case-bolstered-as-jobs-data-point-to-stronger-economy

That data is old and was out of wack, the last 2 reports show a flat line and even worse situation because people have dropped out of the work force

At least the second graph is a legitimate graph ...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Hey, 19:15, look at the Dow. Compare 2008, the last year of Bush, with the rest (Obama). Then tell us what the heck your graph is!

You must not have an economics or finance degree. People like you should not be permitted to vote due to being so uninformed.

You are correct that my degree is not in finance, but the graph speaks for itself. Your response, unfortunately, totally evades my question.

Yes, the graph speaks for itself, but not in any meaningful way to someone without any sort of financial background like yourself, as you equate the market change to Obama (LMAO!!!). Hey, I'll give you a special tip because I like you - put all your money on small caps this summer - go all in the stock market right now! All summer long, and then pull out Labor Day weekend, okay genius?

Anonymous wrote:

Those eyebrows!