| Rpruett said: Reagan had incredible economic growth during his presidency. The Bushes not so much. Really from the Democratic side you have Clinton and prior to that who was the last Democrat who was in charge of a strong economy?
I suppose you're right, we should yield to people who have not shown any ability to invest or grow their personal wealth in any other capacity other than taking tax payer money. Maybe we should be voting for someone who couldn't pass her bar exam initially, nothing like nepotism to ensure great hires!
If Trumps statement is correct that he received a loan of one million dollars, (and his high-end estimated worth is 10 billion dollars).... He would have tangibly increased his wealth roughly 10,000%. In regular people standards, If you were to receive 50,000$ and show growth of 10,000% that's akin to you being worth 500 million dollars.
|
We've been over this before, Reagan's economic growth came at the expense of a massive increase in the nation's debt. Reagan's economic accomplishments were not particularly impressive when taken in context, he was simply far better than the Bushes, Obama and Carter. Reagan's D grade in economics is the best thing the Republican party has accomplished in decades so again, their trash talking would be hilarious if it were not so pathetic.
I don't know where I endorsed any Democrats (a political organization that I thoroughly despise) so you might want to work on your reading comprehension because it seems to be lacking. Your little tirade about taking tax payer money can also be applied to Trump because he needed government bailouts on multiple occasions in the last 25 years. Hell, both parties seem to subscribe to a neo-corporatist / fascist economic model in which tax payer revenue is siphoned off to private organizations and individuals in an effort to undermine competition (a bold affront to capitalism and economic freedom). This reminds me of a quote:
"in a society where one can not fail, one can not succeed".
I don't know how I fooled it up last night but I thought Trump was pretty average as far as investment growth was concerned. Trump's total worth has increased by a factor of ~43 since 1982 (Edit ~200 million vs 8.7 billion) whereas the S&P has increased by a factor of ~16 making him above average (I had somehow concluded that he only outperformed the market by a factor of 55%, not 155%). That being said, Trump still isn't anything special even without considering all of the government handouts he has taken to "earn" this wealth. There are many high profile investors who have done a far, far better job than Trump could ever dream of (Ellison's net worth has increased by nearly 300 fold in a shorter span of time for example). So to reiterate, Trump is a lousy candidate once you get past his cult of personality. His greatest success is being an above average investor.
