>>Numbers can be fun. We can go back to 1994 before the Republican Congress was elected and compare those numbers to the ones you site to see the positives. We can do this throughout our history and as long as we restrict the years within certain cycles we can conclude whatever we want, right?
>
>That is the point, and the problem with your posting. Simply taking the economic indicators from Part1 and using the timeframe from Part2 you get a much different picture. That, and the conclusions reached were at best misleading.

I only posted it to present the entire email in the context I received it. I never made any claim to the accuracy of the numbers, nor did I say I agree with the conclusions.

My posting was meant to needle a bit. ;)

The president and Congress have VERY little effect on the economy as a whole. They can really screw up individual parts with stupid plans like burning food for fuel, but I digress. Market forces, global economic conditions and the FED have a much more dramatic effect on the economy as a whole. Where the President and Congress do have an effect is in tax policy. The economy is choppy right now, but that is all. The big trouble spot looms in 2011. None of the Presidential candidates will have any effect on the economy as compared to the reversal of the tax cuts. Business and investors are already adjusting for the coming increase. I personally have made massive changes in my investments to avoid the hit and I encourage everyone else to as well.