Toggle sidebar

Does the below mean anything???

B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
S&P 500 in the first 645 trading days of each presidency
Ronald Reagan

+23%

George H.W. Bush

+36%

Bill Clinton

+29%

George W. Bush

-26%

Barack Obama

+46%

Donald Trump

+29%


 
M

MichiganHerd

All-American
Aug 17, 2011
44,277
9,609
0
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
 
P

Pospecteer

All-Conference
Dec 8, 2006
36,502
3,161
113
And the fact that the write-ups on each President tells a different story than what the graph shows.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
MichiganHerd said:
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
Click to expand...

 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
Boomboom521 said:
S&P 500 in the first 645 trading days of each presidency
Ronald Reagan

+23%

George H.W. Bush

+36%

Bill Clinton

+29%

George W. Bush

-26%

Barack Obama

+46%

Donald Trump

+29%


Click to expand...
Meh. I hate these silly comparisons, but Trump and Trumpers did go around gloating about it. Tough call.
 
B

boomerwv

Freshman
Jan 16, 2008
9,988
79
48
MichiganHerd said:
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is Obama was exponentially better than Reagan?
 
B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
MichiganHerd said:
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
Click to expand...
I asked if the numbers meant anything. I’m not trying to prove anything.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
Boomboom521 said:
S&P 500 in the first 645 trading days of each presidency
Ronald Reagan

+23%

George H.W. Bush

+36%

Bill Clinton

+29%

George W. Bush

-26%

Barack Obama

+46%

Donald Trump

+29%


Click to expand...
The biggest thing to take away from that post is that our stock markets have been treading water since the tariffs started. Completely obliterated the momentum from the tax cut.
 
O

Original Mountaineer1

Sophomore
Aug 27, 2001
63,466
198
0
MichiganHerd said:
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
Click to expand...



So If I had a billion dollars and it went up 0.5% I would have $5 million more ......So I guess a .5% bests 46% and 29%?????
 
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,948
1,662
113
Boomboom521 said:
I asked if the numbers meant anything. I’m not trying to prove anything.
Click to expand...
It means I must have made some poor investment decisions when Obama was POTUS......My portfolio has made major progress since Thump as been in office.
 
W

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,556
40
31
B

boomerwv

Freshman
Jan 16, 2008
9,988
79
48
WVUCOOPER said:
I don't think you people understand Boomer's post. He was only going off the Herd Fan's math. He wasn't actually arguing Obama was exponentially better than Reagan, just mocking the board herdie.
Click to expand...

You've gotta be a little bit intelligent to understand satire.
 
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,091
693
0
Does this mean anything ?

Zero was playing ZERO % interest for 8 years...

and that's where the nickname comes from...

 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,618
6,224
113
MichiganHerd said:
I don't think Boom understands what he just attempted to prove. Basic math skills aren't for everyone.

For example, if I had $100.00, and increased it be 46%, I would have an additional $46.00.

If I had $200.00, and increased it by 29%, I would have an additional $58.00.

Which is better, Boom?
Click to expand...

You are wasting your time. Neither him nor anyone else on the Left even likes Capitalism or the stock market it represents much less understands it!

Just remember, Trump's either a racist or a misogynist, or a White Nazi nationalist supremacist. None of them can argue anything else about the Left's better plans to increase P/E ratios on individual shares, they're only comfortable discussing what a creep Trump is.
 
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,091
693
0
Boomerwv said:
So the great Trump economy couldnt withstand 2.25% rates?
Click to expand...

You idiots were saying this is Zero's economy...

which is a lie... as usual...

Competing with the currency manipulating Chicoms is difficult...

but when the Federal Reserve & Chamber of Commerce are fighting Trump, you know they want to wreck our economy...
 
B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
atlkvb said:
You are wasting your time. Neither him nor anyone else on the Left even likes Capitalism or the stock market it represents much less understands it!

Just remember, Trump's either a racist or a misogynist, or a White Nazi nationalist supremacist. None of them can argue anything else about the Left's better plans to increase P/E ratios on individual shares, they're only comfortable discussing what a creep Trump is.
Click to expand...
Crazy puke
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,618
6,224
113
Boomboom521 said:
Crazy puke
Click to expand...

Name calling from you is typical and that's because it's all you on the Left have because neither YOU nor any of your other Socialist comrades are capable of explaining how to increase individual earnings on dividend generating shares nor do any of you even like the idea of individual investors getting rich or independent wealth being created privately through personal investments in corporations. Matter of fact the very idea absolutely, positively, unequivocally, unalterably, unarguably, disgusts you! (relatively speaking) You know I'm right too [winking]

"No where man don't worry, take your time don't hurry. Leave it all, 'till somebody else lends you a hand....ah...ah...la...la...la...la....la....."

 
Last edited:
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,618
6,224
113
WVU82 said:
You idiots were saying this is Zero's economy...

which is a lie... as usual...

Competing with the currency manipulating Chicoms is difficult...

but when the Federal Reserve & Chamber of Commerce are fighting Trump, you know they want to wreck our economy...
Click to expand...

They don't even recognize the economy they're so busy trying to give Zero credit for wasn't even possible according to him! Remember this...his words?
 
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,618
6,224
113
the answer was electing me....abracadabra zero!!!!
 
Last edited:
atlkvb

atlkvb

All-American
Jul 9, 2004
82,618
6,224
113
bornaneer said:
I didn't blame Obama......Where did I say such a thing? Oh....I had growth during Obama....just much better under Trump......with basically the same portfolio.
Click to expand...

Remember, Zero was the absolute worst President since the Second World War! He had the absolute rock bottom lowest GDP of any modern U.S. President. He's the first modern US President never to achieve at least 3% GDP in any year he was in office! No one's ever been that bad. He's dead last and at the bottom of the list as the worst.

Fact.


Here are the average growth rates for each president:

  • Johnson (1964-68), 5.3 percent
  • Kennedy (1961-63), 4.3 percent
  • Clinton (1993-2000), 3.9 percent
  • Reagan (1981-88), 3.5 percent
  • Carter (1977-80), 3.3 percent
  • Eisenhower (1953-60), 3 percent
  • Nixon (1969-74), 2.8 percent
  • Ford (1975-76), 2.6 percent
  • G.H.W. Bush (1989-92), 2.3 percent
  • G.W. Bush (2001-08), 2.1 percent
  • Truman (1946-52), 1.7 percent
  • Obama (2009-16), 1.6 percent (dead last)
 
Last edited:
bornaneer

bornaneer

All-Conference
Jan 23, 2014
30,948
1,662
113
atlkvb said:
Remember, Zero was the absolute worst President since the Second World War! He had the absolute rock bottom lowest GDP of any modern U.S. President. He's the first modern US President never to achieve at least 3% GDP in any year he was in office! No one's ever been that bad. He's dead last and at the bottom of the list as the worst.

Fact.


Here are the average growth rates for each president:

  • Johnson (1964-68), 5.3 percent
  • Kennedy (1961-63), 4.3 percent
  • Clinton (1993-2000), 3.9 percent
  • Reagan (1981-88), 3.5 percent
  • Carter (1977-80), 3.3 percent
  • Eisenhower (1953-60), 3 percent
  • Nixon (1969-74), 2.8 percent
  • Ford (1975-76), 2.6 percent
  • G.H.W. Bush (1989-92), 2.3 percent
  • G.W. Bush (2001-08), 2.1 percent
  • Truman (1946-52), 1.7 percent
  • Obama (2009-16), 1.6 percent (dead last)
Click to expand...
The Truman numbers were certainly expected because of the post war era. Obama has no excuse based on the lefts continuing harping of how bad Bush left the economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom