bouzane said:
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
|
That's all well and good, but the GDP rates were through the roof during the Reagan years, they averaged nearly 3.5%. Far superior to what we see today. Workforce participation is at nearly a 40 year low, which completely skews most employment statistics that would likely be pretty meager today if considered.
I was not implying you were toting Democrats, simply that what better realistic alternatives currently exist? Trump was in the private sector, ofcourse he would take whatever he could to improve his bottom line (As has every other business).
I don't think many are painting Donald Trump as Warren Buffett. Then again, Warren Buffett isn't running for President. So above average in terms of investment growth, significant experience globally in business, private sector experience (employing 10,000+ people). I'd consider that experience tangible and light years ahead of "Wife of Bill Clinton", "Socialist promising the world", "Son and Brother of Presidents". And I suspect that this is a primary driver of why many support him.
