Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
If we had to be in a surplus, then Ron Paul couldn't have changed much either, without changing everything.
|
No, I'm saying if Ron Paul ran the country after Bush, I think he would have succeeded because he has sound economic ideals.
Quote:
|
Stimulating the eco has worked before... for sure in various sectors of the Eco, just like this current one has done. No, it wasn't a perfect solution - but it isn't like it was a total failure either.
|
It may have worked in various sectors but a massive expansion of the money supply doesn't work for this country. How I miss the Gold Standard.
Quote:
|
Clinton did not leave us in a mess... he left us with a surplus though. Obama hasn't enough time to fail for the Liberals to blame him, probably why most don't blame him. I have heard left/liberal/dems Blame him for the mess we're already in though, even on GFY.
|
He didn't leave us in a mess but he unintentionally started the financial crisis.
Quote:
|
What economic policies and how are they destroying companies? Anything going up or down in my Companies, is not any part Obama's fault. He didn't really print trillions of dollars, I hope you understand that.
|
I meant countries, sorry. He definitely printed a good deal of money, although trillions may be an exaggeration.
Quote:
|
Unemployment is the very last thing to improve and it was in a mad drop, along with the eco, dollar value, the stock market, and housing when he came into office. All of which have stopped dropping. All of which naturally fluctuates even in a good market.
|
What are you talking about? In real value, the stock market has been plummeting since 2000, anytime the market rises these days, it's due to low volume trading, there is no mad drop in unemployment because stats fluctuate up and down and Obama tried to use census workers as "employed", and housing is at record lows.