Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on October 21, 2012, 09:38:06 AM
-
. . .
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
The whole story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
-
If Romney wins I'm sure middle class Republican will be happy to give up their mortgage interest deduction in order to pay for Romneys tax cus on dividend and capital gains. Uber rich people don't need mortgages so they couldn't give a rats ass about the mortgage interest deduction
-
. . .
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year) (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end) (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents (EXCEPT UNDER OBAMA)
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations (NOW UNDER OBAMA)
The whole story: by Adam Hartung, Contributor
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
fixed
-
fixed
I can't believe Forbes got that wrong
surely you have some sources for your claims
-
Adam Hartung, Contributor
"Thanks for commenting Christian Conner. The primary intent of the column was to encourage people to seek out facts about the history of the parties, and the historical policies of the candidates – and not rely on conventional wisdom, or possibly myths that have been created out of history."
-
. . .
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
The whole story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
Blacken is actually correct on this....although a little skewed of the truth, he does bring a good point for me to resolve..it is proven, by Goldman Sachs global research, that under a democratic president and a democratic senate the economy prospers more..you can use historical evidence to prove the upcoming election's potential ecomonic benefit..what blacken failed to mention and Forbes as well is that the next 4 years are very different that any period of time in America..fiscal cliff is upon us..Obama runs a very different economic agenda than what bill Clinton did ..bill Clinton expanded the free markets..bill clinto did not favor tax hikes, obama care, ect ec.Obama wants to skink them the private sector with much strict regulation...pretty much everything bill Clinton offered, which is one of the most economical effective time, Obama does the opposite..to compare Obama ti previous democrats is blasphemy..no other president what put such a large burden on our budget..
Blacken fail
-
Blacken is actually correct on this....although a little skewed of the truth, he does bring a good point for me to resolve..it is proven, by Goldman Sachs global research, that under a democratic president and a democratic senate the economy prospers more..you can use historical evidence to prove the upcoming election's potential ecomonic benefit..what blacken failed to mention and Forbes as well is that the next 4 years are very different that any period of time in America..fiscal cliff is upon us..Obama runs a very different economic agenda than what bill Clinton did ..bill Clinton expanded the free markets..bill clinto did not favor tax hikes, obama care, ect ec.Obama wants to skink them the private sector with much strict regulation...pretty much everything bill Clinton offered, which is one of the most economical effective time, Obama does the opposite..to compare Obama ti previous democrats is blasphemy..no other president what put such a large burden on our budget..
Blacken fail
by "expanding free markets" are you referring to NAFTA or the deregulation or the commodites industry or something else/more?
-
by "expanding free markets" are you referring to NAFTA or the deregulation or the commodites industry or something else/more?
Look up Lawrence summers, Alan Greenspan, and Robert rubins work..they were the pioneers or gov free markets...
-
Look up Lawrence summers, Alan Greenspan, and Robert rubins work..they were the pioneers or gov free markets...
so you're referring to deregulation of the commodities and capital markets
that's what happened at the very end of the Clinton administration with the result being the near collapse (they actually did collapse but were bailed out) of credit markets less than 10 years later
here is what Greenspan said when testifying to Congress:
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity," Greenspan, described as a maestro and an oracle while at the central bank, told a House committee. Greenspan called that "a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works."[/quote]
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6100290&page=1
-
Greenspan is attempting to shift blame from the Fed. One of the theories behind the cause of the great recesssion of 2007-2009 is that the Fed stayed on a tight money policy for too long. The irony here is that Ben Bernanke has posited that the fed caused the great depression fo the 20's and 30's by holding to a tight policy for too long.
-
Greenspan is attempting to shift blame from the Fed. One of the theories behind the cause of the great recesssion of 2007-2009 is that the Fed stayed on a tight money policy for too long. The irony here is that Ben Bernanke has posited that the fed caused the great depression fo the 20's and 30's by holding to a tight policy for too long.
the "great recession" was triggered by a worldwide collapse of the credit markets due in large part (though not in whole) to the deregulation of the commodities market which allowed the AltA mortgage mortgage to come into existence and which allowed an insurance company to issue insurance policies (credit default swaps) without having a penny of reserves to back them up (due to their high credit rating which brings in the collusion between the bond rating agencies and the companies that directly paid them in return for favorable ratings)
Eventually bankers figured out that a cool way to make money was to create pools of loans that were designed to fail so that that could cash in on the CDS's
http://www.propublica.org/article/all-the-magnetar-trade-how-one-hedge-fund-helped-keep-the-housing-bubble
-
Robert Hetzel...an economist with the Fed in Richmond...says the recession of 2007 would have been moderate had the fed not held to a tight policy.
He outlines his case in his book...The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? (Studies in Macroeconomic History)
-
Robert Hetzel...an economist with the Fed in Richmond...says the recession of 2007 would have been moderate had the fed not held to a tight policy.
He outlines his case in his book...The Great Recession: Market Failure or Policy Failure? (Studies in Macroeconomic History)
the argument against Hetzel assertion is that easing monetary policy would have done nothing to fix the problem of toxic investments on the balance sheets of banks all over the world which is what triggered the meltdown to begin with
-
The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.
In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move. The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%. That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%. When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them. Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.
-
The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.
In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move. The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%. That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%. When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them. Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.
I can't totally argue against that though the original TARP plan was to buy the toxic assets but in the end very little of that was actually done.
-
The weakness there is that Hetzel isn't adressing the cause...simply the degree of the effect.
In my view, eliminating mark to market accounting woukd have been a wise move. The default rate on subprime mortgages peaked at @ 20%...the aggregate of all mortgages was far lower, IIRC closer to 5-6%. That means at worse the underlying asset for mortgage paper traded institutionally was paying at worse 80%. When the market froze...banks were forced to write those assets down to nil because there was no market for them. Allowing them to carry an imputed value based onth einterest recieved would have kept their balance sheets far healthier and obviated the need for the government to step in and buy these supposedly "toxic" assets.
But the toxic assets are still on the balance sheets, all the magic and illusions and rule changes can't hide that fact. The bad assets are still there and the debt is still there. Vaporizing the rule of law wasn't the way to go and is never the way to go. All that is assured is this will happen again and it will be worse than the last collapse.
It's like telling a cancer patient that all is well because the AMA has changed the medical definition of cancer to something more positive.
This was and continues to be the true form of Voodoo Economics.
-
. . .
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
The whole story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
How many of the above quoted statistics involve the current Democratic President?
-
If Romney wins I'm sure middle class Republican will be happy to give up their mortgage interest deduction in order to pay for Romneys tax cus on dividend and capital gains. Uber rich people don't need mortgages so they couldn't give a rats ass about the mortgage interest deduction
This is a great point. It's funny how many people voting Romney carry mortgages and are voting for less write offs for themselves...
-
This is a great point. It's funny how many people voting Romney carry mortgages and are voting for less write offs for themselves...
whats also hillarious are the ppl voting for obama due to govt assistance they feel the govt should provide for ppl. Those same ppl bitching about "rich" ppls taxes not being high enough. Ignoring the fact that even if we took all their assets we could only run the massive govt for 3 months.
The same ppl who dont realize and ignore the fact that if we keep spending like drunken obamas we will have no choice at all but to raise taxes on the middle class.
its a fuking knee slapper I tell ya!!!!
-
whats also hillarious are the ppl voting for obama due to govt assistance they feel the govt should provide for ppl. Those same ppl bitching about "rich" ppls taxes not being high enough. Ignoring the fact that even if we took all their assets we could only run the massive govt for 3 months.
The same ppl who dont realize and ignore the fact that if we keep spending like drunken obamas we will have no choice at all but to raise taxes on the middle class.
its a fuking knee slapper I tell ya!!!!
well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.
You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.
-
well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.
You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.
haha sure sure
the middle class has done so great under obama, all he need is another 4 years right necrosis?
-
well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.
You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.
that's not what rush tells them :D and you know they get their marching orders from him and hannity,shit they admit it they have the highest ratings :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
well one thing is for sure, Republican policies are generally worse wrt to economic growth, that's quite clear.
You guys are in for a really rough haul if Romney gets in. He is going to rape the middle class so hard, lol.
LOL - NY, CA, demo run cities are all in the toilet as a result of liberal policies.
-
that's not what rush tells them :D and you know they get their marching orders from him and hannity,shit they admit it they have the highest ratings :D :D :D :D :D :D
LOL media matters broham!!!
-
I like a lot of the romney platform. Some, I do not.
Im surprised forbes took this position.
-
I like a lot of the romney platform. Some, I do not.
Im surprised forbes took this position.
I dont agree with everything from mittens - but overall he will give business confidence to hire and expand - hence why he must be elected.
-
I like a lot of the romney platform. Some, I do not.
Im surprised forbes took this position.
why are you suprised
the same basic info has been posted on this forum many times, probably even by yourself
-
why are you suprised
the same basic info has been posted on this forum many times, probably even by yourself
CA, NY, IL, MI, RI, CT are in the toilet why?
-
CA, NY, IL, MI, RI, CT are in the toilet why?
I live in CA and I'm doing fine
unlike you, my property value has gone up 100k in the last year, my income is the best it's been since 2005 and next year looks to be even better
-
I live in CA and I'm doing fine
unlike you, my property value has gone up 100k in the last year, my income is the best it's been since 2005 and next year looks to be even better
Are you operating a ball washing station funded by the Stim Bill?
-
Are you operating a ball washing station funded by the Stim Bill?
you talk about it so much I assumed that was your real job
-
I dont agree with everything from mittens - but overall he will give business confidence to hire and expand - hence why he must be elected.
aw shucks, you cited my exact reason :)
-
that's not what rush tells them :D and you know they get their marching orders from him and hannity,shit they admit it they have the highest ratings :D :D :D :D :D :D
Only dead fish follow the stream
-
aw shucks, you cited my exact reason :)
I agree with you 100%. If for nothing else - that is why i support Romney. I also have to admit - the total lack of any respect and consideration he shows obama in the debates inperson has made my legs tingling.
I loved when he called obama "boy" in front of 70 million people
-
I agree with you 100%. If for nothing else - that is why i support Romney. I also have to admit - the total lack of any respect and consideration he shows obama in the debates inperson has made my legs tingling.
I loved when he called obama "boy" in front of 70 million people
yeah i have no problem listing the 10,000 things I hate about romney. he's a big phony, he's anti-gun at heart. without a tea party 2010 rise, he probably would have scooted LEFT in order to win the nomination in 2012, if that was hot at the time. He adapts well. So I think he'll get into office and probably give the ultra-rich about 1/2 of what they want - I hope he doesn't get a repub senate - keep washington moving slow. We saw the damage that both bush and obama did while they had both houses - very EXTREME... Obama's gone very moderate (comparatively) without the House in his pocket.
-
LOL - NY, CA, demo run cities are all in the toilet as a result of liberal policies.
red states take in more government money then they expedite, your comparison is a failure. The facts are the facts, Demo policies improve economic position.
-
you talk about it so much I assumed that was your real job
What line of work you in?
Not a flame. Just curious.
-
red states take in more government money then they expedite, your comparison is a failure. The facts are the facts, Demo policies improve economic position.
Buump
-
yeah i have no problem listing the 10,000 things I hate about romney. he's a big phony, he's anti-gun at heart. without a tea party 2010 rise, he probably would have scooted LEFT in order to win the nomination in 2012, if that was hot at the time. He adapts well. So I think he'll get into office and probably give the ultra-rich about 1/2 of what they want - I hope he doesn't get a repub senate - keep washington moving slow. We saw the damage that both bush and obama did while they had both houses - very EXTREME... Obama's gone very moderate (comparatively) without the House in his pocket.
In my dream world Romney would run as a successful independant.
-
In my dream world Romney would run as a successful independant.
Do you think Romney is genuine?
Just curious.
You have to admit, he's been all over the place.
-
LOL - NY, CA, demo run cities are all in the toilet as a result of liberal policies.
Examples?
Quantify "the toilet"
Thanks
-
Do you think Romney is genuine?
Just curious.
You have to admit, he's been all over the place.
Romney actually came across as a pretty smart individual.
Then he ran to be the GOP candidate and to appeal to their mostly dumb-as-fuck voters he needed to be someone he is not.
-
Do you think Romney is genuine?
No, not at all. But he's a politician, it's what they do.
-
Do you think Romney is genuine?
Just curious.
You have to admit, he's been all over the place.
His candidacy is a microcosm of what is totally wrong with our political system at this point. In that everything is funneled into two parties regardless of the candidates actual beliefs. The candidate is trimmed, changed and molded not into an actual candidate but a speaker for the party platform. Same thing with Obama, if he was just to run as a candidate not associated with either party he would be running hard left. It's like tha scene from Pink Floyds 'The Wall' where all the students are on the conveyer belt and then dropped into a splicer afterwhich they all come out the same.
As for Romney being genuine....no, not with everything he is saying..
-
His candidacy is a microcosm of what is totally wrong with our political system at this point. In that everything is funneled into two parties regardless of the candidates actual beliefs. The candidate is trimmed, changed and molded not into an actual candidate but a speaker for the party platform. Same thing with Obama, if he was just to run as a candidate not associated with either party he would be running hard left. It's like tha scene from Pink Floyds 'The Wall' where all the students are on the conveyer belt and then dropped into a splicer afterwhich they all come out the same.
As for Romney being genuine....no, not with everything he is saying..
Good post
-
I like a lot of the romney platform. Some, I do not.
Im surprised forbes took this position.
The article was written by a "contributor", not someone on the payroll.
-
What line of work you in?
Not a flame. Just curious.
Since late 1991 I've been self employed in finance related field
-
Since late 1991 I've been self employed in finance related field
how come your not at 100,000 post ;D
-
His candidacy is a microcosm of what is totally wrong with our political system at this point. In that everything is funneled into two parties regardless of the candidates actual beliefs. The candidate is trimmed, changed and molded not into an actual candidate but a speaker for the party platform. Same thing with Obama, if he was just to run as a candidate not associated with either party he would be running hard left. It's like tha scene from Pink Floyds 'The Wall' where all the students are on the conveyer belt and then dropped into a splicer afterwhich they all come out the same.
As for Romney being genuine....no, not with everything he is saying..
the head of the Republian party disagrees with you
"This is the platform of the Republican Party; it's not the platform of Mitt Romney,"
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/244549-priebus-rncs-abortion-policy-not-the-platform-of-mitt-romney
-
how come your not at 100,000 post ;D
at my current pace I should be there in bit more than 26 years from now
-
the head of the Republian party disagrees with you
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/244549-priebus-rncs-abortion-policy-not-the-platform-of-mitt-romney
Do you think Mitt is espousing his true core beliefs while on the campaign trail? Abortion, guns, health care and such? Do you think if he stuck to those and campaigned with those he would have gotten the nomination?
-
Do you think Mitt is espousing his true core beliefs while on the campaign trail? Abortion, guns, health care and such? Do you think if he stuck to those and campaigned with those he would have gotten the nomination?
Since he has been on virtually every side of every issue I'm sure he's revealed his core beliefs somewhere along the way but who knows what he will atualy do if elected
I'd like some very specific details on how he plans to lower taxes by 20%, raise defense spending and balance the budget/cut the deficit
I"m very concerned that he will destroy the RE market by getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction and trying to shutdown Fanne/Freddie. I don't think he has a clue what to actually do to accomplish his stated objectives. He reminds me of a diet guru telling you that on his plan you can eat as much cake and icecream as you want every day and still lose weight. I think he is a complete fraud
-
Since he has been on virtually every side of every issue I'm sure he's revealed his core beliefs somewhere along the way but who knows what he will atualy do if elected
I'd like some very specific details on how he plans to lower taxes by 20%, raise defense spending and balance the budget/cut the deficit
I"m very concerned that he will destroy the RE market by getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction and trying to shutdown Fanne/Freddie. I don't think he has a clue what to actually do to accomplish his stated objectives. He reminds me of a diet guru telling you that on his plan you can eat as much cake and icecream as you want every day and still lose weight. I think he is a complete fraud
you mean cutting social programs while increasing military funding and cutting taxes wont help to reduce the debt/defecit? :o
-
you mean cutting social programs while increasing military funding and cutting taxes wont help to reduce the debt/defecit? :o
Clearly you are forgetting about the power of the magic underwear.
-
you mean cutting social programs while increasing military funding and cutting taxes wont help to reduce the debt/defecit? :o
The cuts would have to be severe and it's not likely he would have support from either side for that level of spending cuts
first thing he would have to do is make up for the lost tax revenue just to get back to the point where we started from
-
Clearly you are forgetting about the power of the magic underwear.
shit, I forgot about that too
I think we'll all need a pair to make his plan work
-
Since he has been on virtually every side of every issue I'm sure he's revealed his core beliefs somewhere along the way but who knows what he will atualy do if elected
I'd like some very specific details on how he plans to lower taxes by 20%, raise defense spending and balance the budget/cut the deficit
I"m very concerned that he will destroy the RE market by getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction and trying to shutdown Fanne/Freddie. I don't think he has a clue what to actually do to accomplish his stated objectives. He reminds me of a diet guru telling you that on his plan you can eat as much cake and icecream as you want every day and still lose weight. I think he is a complete fraud
The GSE's need to go, but how to do it is anyones guess.
Everything else, who knows. I mean, several months ago we were hearing the battle cry of 9-9-9 from a cartoon character.
-
The cuts would have to be severe and it's not likely he would have support from either side for that level of spending cuts
first thing he would have to do is make up for the lost tax revenue just to get back to the point where we started from
of course. i was being sarcastic dude. ;D
-
The GSE's need to go, but how to do it is anyones guess.
Everything else, who knows. I mean, several months ago we were hearing the battle cry of 9-9-9 from a cartoon character.
Why do they need to go
they served a valuable function for many many years and worked just fine until recently when they got caught up in the same shitstorm as everything else
they certainly were not the cause of the meltdown but just a casualty
-
Why do they need to go
they served a valuable function for many many years and worked just fine until recently when they got caught up in the same shitstorm as everything else
they certainly were not the cause of the meltdown but just a casualty
1.) I'm not a huge fan of private/public mash-ups.
-
1.) I'm not a huge fan of private/public mash-ups.
fair enough
-
of course. i was being sarcastic dude. ;D
I thought maybe you were doing that but wasn't sure
-
Is these true?
-
1.) I'm not a huge fan of private/public mash-ups.
IMO the private sector needs to be intimately involved in the development of educational curriculum and business regulations.
-
1.) I'm not a huge fan of private/public mash-ups.
me either.. I dont think they look good even on paper
-
Why do they need to go
they served a valuable function for many many years and worked just fine until recently when they got caught up in the same shitstorm as everything else
they certainly were not the cause of the meltdown but just a casualty
They didn't get caught up in the same shitstorm...they played a huge part in causing it...thanks to the tenure of Walter Mondale's buddy James Johnson....
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17brooks.html
-
. . .
• Personal disposable income has grown nearly 6 times more under Democratic presidents
• Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has grown 7 times more under Democratic presidents
• Corporate profits have grown over 16% more per year under Democratic presidents (they actually declined under Republicans by an average of 4.53%/year)
• Average annual compound return on the stock market has been 18 times greater under Democratic presidents (If you invested $100k for 40 years of Republican administrations you had $126k at the end, if you invested $100k for 40 years of Democrat administrations you had $3.9M at the end)
• Republican presidents added 2.5 times more to the national debt than Democratic presidents
• The two times the economy steered into the ditch (Great Depression and Great Recession) were during Republican, laissez faire administrations
The whole story:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2012/10/10/want-a-better-economy-history-says-vote-democrat/
but deficit went from 8 to 17T under obama with insane unemployemnt and tons fo new crony regulations choking business adn hand em outs to unions liek forced unionization of fedex which was kicking ups butt
I think if you took government expenditures out of GDP would see the real story.
Governmetn takes capital and gives ti to non producers.
This is why less governmetn causes huge economic grwoth and higher wages as capital is accumulated.
Simple and we did ti for a long time and USA is no1 lets not ruin it now.
-
but deficit went from 8 to 17T under obama with insane unemployemnt and tons fo new crony regulations choking business adn hand em outs to unions liek forced unionization of fedex which was kicking ups butt
I think if you took government expenditures out of GDP would see the real story.
Governmetn takes capital and gives ti to non producers.
This is why less governmetn causes huge economic grwoth and higher wages as capital is accumulated.
Simple and we did ti for a long time and USA is no1 lets not ruin it now.
Capital accumulation is a big part of a healthy and growing economy. It's hard for people to accumulate any kind of capital to start a small-business/invest etc when inflation+ZIRP is destroying your savings.