Its over 12,000 today because Wall street saw what happened in the last election. I can't understand how this is biased when they use 14 different sources and again numbers don't lie. This is the change you voted for people. You can continue to ignore the facts or adhere to fiction. Take your pick, is the way you make it out be.
It's not a problem of the numbers. It's how the numbers are used.
There's not a single person in the world who could have been elected POTUS in 2008, and completely turned this country all the way around into a full hard-on bull market hyper recovery.... in 2 years.
Fact is, regardless of who currently sits in the White House, one person cannot turn around a U.S. economy single handedly. The president does not have that kind of power. Any other person elected to that position would most likely have had very similar numbers resulting from their first 2 years. Not from an economic downturn of this magnitude.
Again, it's not the numbers... it's how they are USED. Regardless of who else could have possibly won in 2008, the economy was in a free-fall. Of course things are going to be worse now than they were 2 years ago. The economy was tanking before the 2008 elections, and it continued to tank immediately after. Not only that, but it was one of the worst downturns since the Great Depression.
It's VERY obvious how the numbers were going to play out, before Obama was even elected.
As an analogy, this would be biased if Christians used the bible to explain what is happening today. But because we believe in the bible, that would make us extremist, wingnuts, holy roller wackjobs.
Nostradamus has so far been more accurate.
A report card is a report card, you get a letter or a number on your school report, because I check my son's now every quarter. If his grade goes backwards from quarter to quarter, do I blame the teacher or do I blame my son? And what happens if it goes the other way. I usually praise my son for his hard work. But right away we wanna lay blame to those not directly responsible. He came into office promising great change and better times, well many are still dissappointed and still not willing to point fingers at who keeps feeding porky pig! Again no has spent more in two years than this man!
An economy takes YEARS to turn around. Especially from one of the worst economical downturns since the Great Depression.
A more accurate analogy (using your example) would be if one child was taking a test. They were failing miserably, answering wrong on almost every question. Then the test is taken from the student when they are only halfway done, and given to your child in order to complete the test. Problem is, your child cannot go back and correct the wrong answers from the first child, and the total score from the entire test will be reflected on your child's report card.
In other words, your child has only partial responsibility for the test, yet is graded on it's entirety... including the wrong answers from the other child. Think your kid's grade is going to be 100% reflective of what they actually did? Of course not. He didn't start the test.
And don't take this example of mine and pretend that I'm referring to the first child as if it were Bush. Because I'm not. Again, it takes YEARS, and one single person does not hold enough power to sway an economy in that manner. So no, Bush isn't to blame for it's entirety either. There's a very long list of people, policies, corporations, laws, and practices that attributed.... over many years.