The last eight years or the last two?

The American thinker poses the question. Should we judge our economy on the last eight years of the Bush administration or the last two under the Reid/Lollopelosi congress?

The Obama/Biden ticket's entire campaign theme is based on "the last eight years." Maybe we should really look at "the last two years," or the time period when both the House and the Senate were run by Democrats.

In December 2006, after six years of Bush and the last month before the Democrats took over both houses of the national legislature, a snapshot of our economy looked like this.

• Unemployment stood at 4.4%.
• Real GDP growth over the previous four years (under a Republican President, House and Senate) averaged 3% per year.
• A gallon of regular gasoline cost $2.30.
• The S&P 500 stock index stood at 1418, or 84% above its post-911 low and more than 7% higher than when Bush took office.
• Every year of Bush's Presidency, real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income per person went up. By the end of 2006, the average person was making 9% more in real terms than before Bush became President .

Personally, this is what has made the McCain campaign the abject failure it's been to date. If you are going to run on change, you argue that you can't reform and economy with corruption in congress and you'll never reform it with a democratic president.

But I'm just some Joe the Plumber type, what do I know.

More....