posted May 18, 2012 07:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I didn't address this last time, Jwhop, but your weaker dollar statement is also wrong. The dollar lost .6% per year under Obama. Under Bush it lost 4.4% per year.

That's great that Obama's teammates called him O'Bomber. You're not his teammate, however, and there continues to be no rationale that can pull you back from having jumped off that edge.

Obfuscation. It doesn't change the [b]fact that the market has performed better under Democrats. If you can't address that the stock market does better under Democrats, you don't really have anything to say, do you?[/B]

---

posted May 18, 2012 09:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You know that's right. Can't back education, because most teachers are liberal. Might learn free thinking or something.

---

posted May 21, 2012 03:20 AM            

Obama, Bush, republicans, and democrats.

posted May 21, 2012 09:08 AM            

The price of Gold is still the benchmark for the relative value of the dollar. Under O'Bomber, the value of Gold has almost doubled...meaning the dollar has lost almost half of it's purchasing power relative to gold.

Further, it takes a few years for inflation statistics to show up in reporting...about 2.5 years. We're already seeing the effects of O'Bomber's utter stupidity. Rising prices in food, energy prices, transportation prices, commodity prices and almost everything else in our economy. The one market sector that's way down and flat is housing. But that's not a plus for O'Bomber. He and demoscats caused the collapse of the housing sector..Fannie Mae/Freddie/Mac..and the collapse of prices which hurt Americans all over the country since most Americans had most of their money..savings/equity tied up in their homes.

posted May 21, 2012 11:48 AM            

Still grasping, Jwhop. I can only be amused.

If people were to say, research on your claims, they'd find articles talking about how gold is doing against a strengthening dollar, which is exactly the opposite of what you've proposed.

What's more troubling is your assertion that the dollar's value is tied to gold when it's not. You're once again attempting to create a separate reality in order to win an argument. On this point, if people research your assertion, they'll find a number of things the dollar is compared against when determining it's value. None of them will be the price of gold.

We've long ago established your utter confusion on the housing bubble crisis. No need to rehash that nonsense.

Before you go posting things you THINK you know. You should check yourself against actual facts.

posted May 21, 2012 01:09 PM            

How do you always manage to get it wrong. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.

posted May 22, 2012 07:40 AM            

Sorry you're not intellectually capable of understanding the loss of purchasing power of the US dollar under the O'Bomber regime. That loss of purchasing power would be much more apparent if other currencies...say the Euro for instance...weren't also under such downward pressure themselves.

posted May 22, 2012 11:59 AM            

No, gold isn't the standard by which the dollar is valued. Further, gold is in a bubble. Further further, everything including gold is going up against a "strengthening dollar" by all accounts. Further still, none of this disproves that having a Democrat in office, including President Obama, is good for investors.

Your assertion about what I'm capable of understanding is completely wrong as usual. Remember it was me who let you in on the fact that the Bush administration was consciously devaluing the dollar. At first you didn't believe it, but then you found I was right. I've told you in this thread that the further devaluing of the dollar under Obama is nowhere near the devaluing that happened under Bush. If someone amongst us is having difficulty understanding the value of the dollar, it would be you.