Party of the Rich

[PHXConx]

why of course he is, he is after all a disciple of the great Messiah Obama who does no wrong.
 
in reality he hasn't done anything of merit since he's been in there and now they are break neck to get on the Hilliary band wagon when she may be even less qualified for the job than obama was.

i had a guy tell me today on a different website that inflation was a sign of a improving economy...  
 
my answer was like yea just like the 1970s and that booming economy lol 

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

i had a guy tell me today on a different website that inflation was a sign of a improving economy...  
 
my answer was like yea just like the 1970s and that booming economy lol

You're not a finance major are you?

Inflation is a result of economic growth. Of course it is a lot more complicated than that simplistic statement.

 

[PHXConx]

You're not a finance major are you?

Inflation is a result of economic growth. Of course it is a lot more complicated than that simplistic statement.

no its not its a result of an inflated dollar, if the dollar is worth LESS then it takes more to buy things... see Wiemar republic.
 
do you think that it was because the bread industry was booming and its was a good thing that at the end of the weimar republic you were spending 3 billion paper marks for a loaf of bread?

 

[delldude]

Correct....either way of the dollar value scale...neg or pos.....with whopping results......
 
Jeez, don't see the Weimar......
 
Gold was forty an ounce 'back in the day'......forty pieces of paper for an ounce of gold.....Acapulco Gold just happened to cost the same.
 
Now, what is it two thousand something pieces of paper for an ounce?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

no....

You should have stopped there.

 

[PHXConx]

You should have stopped there.

you as well

 

[700UW]

 

[delldude]

 
[SIZE=11pt]Notice that he started talking about debt in “the 1980s”. That was to pin the old canard on Ronald Reagan that the lower Reagan tax rates on wealthy Americans produced big deficits. Meanwhile Obama himself has produced the biggest deficits in history. So his statement about the 1980s was a classic Democrat tactic to shift the subject.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]The Reagan debt was not at all what Obama wants you to think. But to understand it and how liberals manipulate the facts about the Reagan years, it is important to think about how debt is calculated. Because you always have to consider debt in terms of how much money you have overall. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]Think of it this way: Imagine you have $50,000 in debt. If you earn $50,000 a year, that is a 100% debt rate. If you earn $1 million a year, that is a 5% rate. So you always have to look at the rate of debt in relation to total wealth, not the raw amount, to better understand the debt burden. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]So here are the actual debt figures starting at the end of World War II, based on data from usgovernmentspending.com with the percentage rate of debt:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In 1945 and the end of World War II, GDP (Gross Domestic Product, our annual national wealth) was $223 billion while the national debt was 116% of GDP ($259 billion). The high debt was a result of the huge government costs of World War II.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In 1960, at the height of the Cold War with a very strong economy and still-heavy military expenditures – roughly three times the rate of military spending today – GDP was $526 billion and the national debt was only 54.4% of that GDP. The strong economy was producing lots of revenue to the government, cutting the debt level  from 15 years before, and the military budget was cut substantially from 1945.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. This low debt figure came after Jimmy Carter cut military expenditures steeply during his tenure (1977-1981). And this was at a time of maximum danger. The [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Soviet Union[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] still had a huge military. Reagan promised, if elected, to turn the [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]US[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] military around.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In the last full year of Ronald Regan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In 1995 under [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Clinton[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt], GDP was $7.4 trillion and debt was 67.1% In 2001, GDP was $10.2 trillion and debt was 56.5%.  By 2005, under George Bush, GDP was $12.64 trillion and debt had grown to 62.8%.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]The numbers since 2007 have been: 2007 ($14.08 trillion, 64%), 2008 ($14.44 trillion, 69.15%) 2009 ($14.26 trillion, 83.3%) and 2010 $14.62 trillion, 94.3%). Today in April 2011, it has reached 100% of GDP. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]Notice how little GDP growth there has been over the last four years – only about 4% – but how much the debt has increased by 45% as a percentage of GDP since 2008 (69% to 100% under Obama). Yet the media savage Ronald Reagan for a 59% increase in eight years that included a huge victory over the Soviets.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]OK, so Obama said … “as far back as the 1980s, [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]America[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] started amassing debt at more alarming levels…” And if you ever have heard about the 1980s, the liberal mantra always has been that “Reagan reduced tax rates on the rich and that caused the national debt to triple”.[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]That is nonsense. Here are the numbers again:[/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, the GDP was $2.79 trillion, and the debt was 32.6% of GDP. In the last full year of Ronald Regan’s tenure in 1988, GDP was $5.1 trillion, and the debt was 51% of GDP. [/SIZE]
 
[SIZE=11pt]So notice that the GDP increased by a whopping 82% over just 8 years under Reagan. That is a huge leap. Under Obama between 2008 and 2010, it increased only about 3%.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]http://www.redstate.com/diary/nikitas3/2011/05/25/about-that-reagan-debt/[/SIZE]

 

[700UW]

 

[signals]

That was then and this is now...

Corporations contribute to ALL parties and ALL candidates to cover their bases. Perhaps the politicians should return the contribution but that would be un-American!

 

[Dog Wonder]

Perhaps the politicians should return the contribution but that would be un-American!

As long as they don't watch the World Cup they will be forgiven.

 

[SparrowHawk]

What a crock of SHITE!
 
If a liberal ever in the history of mankind understood how money works that ratios of Debt to Equity, Debt to GDP and things like that have much more impact the the actual amount owed. For example if (As under Reagan) I grow both the economy and the debt to the point where the debt to GDP ratio is LOWER I have improved our finances.
 
Take a look at the Debt to GDP ratios and you'll see what I mean.
 
At the end of Reagan's 2nd term the Debt to GDP was 52.6% DESPITE a 185% increase in the debt.
 
Conversely, When Obama took office the Debt to GDP was 74.1% and hovers around 102.9% this very day. Under Reagan, Clinton & Bush I we had a debt to GDP ration that was serviceable & sustainable. Bush II saw the ratio increase about 17% from 57 to 74 percent. Under Obama it has been quite a different case with the debt to GDP ratio increasing nearly 30% in 6 years.
 
Further it is interesting to note that the biggest skinflint, cheapskate of the bunch was Bill Clinton and by a wide margin. Basically, RR jump started the economy, kept us out of big time wars, Bush (for the most part) Sr. Keep things going, Clinton, took advantage of the economy and cleaned up the balance sheet A LOT. These last two? Not so good. IMO we are where we are as a result of Bush AND Obama,  

 

[signals]

As long as they don't watch the World Cup they will be forgiven.

Not your forte, huh?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Not your forte, huh?

You haven't been keeping up with Ann Coulter?

 

[PHXConx]

You haven't been keeping up with Ann Coulter?

not if i can help it..