You may have said that. If you feel I'm supposed to search for it, you're talking to the wrong guy. Purpose of the graph was to point out the frequency of increases. Although, that, evidently, is a bit too complicated for you.
Dumbfuck, no one asked you to search for it. Meanwhile, you posted a graph anyway which displayed exactly what I said about the federal fund rate and then you idiotically posted how I need bifocals as if it showed something different from what I said.
Resorting to name calling now.

Yes, that graph says it all. Big difference between Clintons 3.5% rate raise over 8 YEARS and Trump's 2% rate raise
over 2 YEARS......and counting.
What name calling? Is it an insult to call a dumbfuck a “dumbfuck?”
Regardless, your nonsense is DOA if your argument is that raising it 2.25 points (not percent, as you idiotically stated) is too much over only a 2 year period since it was raised 2.5 points in 1994 alone.
Hahaha, you can interchange the points with a percent they charge, Faun. .25 points is the same as .25%......talk about idiotic.
LOLOL
Uh, no, you can’t. Well, you can if you’re an imbecile. But otherwise, no you can’t. They have entirely different meanings.
Going from a rate of 3% to 6.5% is a 117% increase, not a 3.5% increase. It’s an increase of 3.5 percentage points. There is a difference, even if you don’t quite grasp the distinction.
But this certainly puts your posts in perspective.