Do you have a link to said Bloomberg report?

I'll read it and get back to you.

In the mean time, I stand by the fact that the economy under Carter and Obama have been terrible. Carter's domestic and foreign policy clearly stand on their own.

I'll grant that Clinton didn't do too badly on the economic front, but he had a Republican Congress holding his feet to the fire and forced him to make some good decisions that he didn't want to make. But that doesn't change the fact that he used public office (prior to and including his presidency) to "pick up chicks". But he DID loosen the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks, GNMA and FNMA to lend money to people who couldn't pay them back. THAT is what opened the door to the housing bubble. THAT is what opened the door to the financial crises.

Obama's recovery has been so tepid as to be immoral from the stand point of the millions of jobs that SHOULD have been created under his watch and weren't. It was only roughly half as good as it should have been. The argument that he inherited a mess just doesn't cut it after this long. Plus most economists agree that MOST recoveries have an inverse relationship to the depth of the preceding recession. By that account, this recovery should have been faster and more robust. Don't you recall that for most of the past 3 years he spent a tremendous amount of energy badmouthing business? Putting into place very onerous, confusing and anti-business policies and regulations? How can any business grow when they don't know what to expect ... especially from Jan 1, 2013 forward?

Then there's his biggoted head of Justice, Eric Holder, who refused to prosecute intimidation claims against thugs in Phila during the last Pres election, ran illegal guns to Mexico and lied to Congress about it, and claims anyone who says bad things about his boss must be a biggot.

Let's see ... what else? He claims to have saved GM. Gosh, last I heard, when a company goes into bankruptcy, they don't necessarily get liquidated and disappear. They get a 2nd chance. But HIS move protected the unions pension funds at 100% and caused Delphi's non-union workers to lose an enormous % of their promised pensions (I forget the number and so won't conjecture ... but it was a big slice). Gosh, I wonder who the union guys will vote for? Hmmm, that's a tough call. But if a Reublican tried that, we'd still be reading about the outrage in the papers.

Anyway, I'm sure none of the above will change your mind. But please do send a link to that report ... I'd like to read what it has to say. If you don't have a link, that's fine. Just let me know and I'll try to find it.

BTW, glad you're not against making money. But the guy you support is against people and company's "...making too much money." Apparently your guy is so bright, so insightful, that he feels he has the right to make that judgement call. Apparently, there is a level of profit that is "too much".

I read a story recently where a regulated company (don't have the details as to what industry, etc.) was inspected by the feds out of the blue recently. He had either never been inspected before or it had been a long time. I had the impression that inspections were not a common occurrence. Anyway, when they were done, the owner asked the regulators what triggered this uncommon review (he had passed their inspection with no issues). They replied that he was making too much money. Al, doesn't this story and the one that QWERTY shared about the guys getting welfare and food stamps, scare you? It should.

There's tons more to be worried about, but I must apologize for going off target. This really should be about OMAG. It's just this coming election is clearly the most important election in generations and I truely fear for our freedoms. So I get a bit emotional about it ... as did the guys who beat you up ... that you weren't aware of.

As regards your written communication. I guess I owe you an apology. But from where I come from, if a writer doesn't care enough to clean up his word structure/spelling, etc., it leads the reader to believe negative things ... which aren't necessarily true, of course.

Regards