Completely and utterly false. Incredibly naive. Conservatism built this country into the greatest the world has ever know. Progressivism and liberalism is what is tearing it apart today.
True.
BTW, his (assuming) argument that "the gap between the rich and the poor grew" is a naive, childish, almost 4th grade position. And it tells us that he (assuming) is either extremely dishonest, or has no clue regarding finances, or even math.
Let's use some basic math to illustrate WHY the gap grows under any administration and why it is a good thing.
1) Let's say ... two people decided to invest some money. For simplicity, let's say one person invested 1,000,000 and the other invested 1,000. For the liberals, the difference is $999,000. Let's say, for argument's sake, that they both earned THE SAME RATE OF RETURN, or 10% because we want to be FAIR and if they get the same rate of return, that would be fair, right? (More on that assumption in a second.) So, and we just agreed the rate of return is FAIR ... then the first person will have $1,100,000 after one year and the second person will have $1,100, which is a delta of $1,098,900. What?!? The gap between the rich and poor grew larger?!? Oh, the horror!!
1a) Let's tilt the scales in favor of the poor person (that is what you libs wet dream about, right??). Let's give them 20% and keep the rich person at 10%. The gap still grows ($1,098,800 ... still higher than $999.000).
2) Now, the ROR in part 1 was 10% for both the "rich" person and the "poor" person. Now, pretty much anywhere you go, when you have more money in any investment, the bank or institution will reward you with better returns. IOW, the rich person would likely earn more than 10% (on average) and the poor person would only make 10%. Further, the poor person likely does not make good financial choices (which is partly why they are poor in the first place), so they may actually get less than 10% in reality. This would drive the annual difference EVEN HIGHER. Let's go one step further down the rabbit trail: once people learn how to make money (assuming the rich person saved their money over time), then they know HOW to make money. While the poor person may still be "coddled" and hasn't figured out how to build wealth yet. But, whatever, keep the 10% for both just to keep it simple.
3) Finally, one thing the liberal "analysis" doesn't account for is new people in the equation. For example, let's say when someone is 22, they only have the $1,000 from part 1. I haven't done the study, but I suspect that someone NEW turns 22 EVERY SINGLE day. So ... there is a new person at $1,000 every year! What does that mean? Going back to example 1), the "rich" person has $1,100,000 and the "poor" person has $1,000 (because they are new to the sample). The gap, then, is actually larger at $1,099,000. The gap grew again? What?!?
So, the gap grows every year and that is a GOOD THING. The only thing that would change the gap from growing is 1) no one can make any money ... which helps no one (communism), 2) the market totally collapses ... which helps no one (socialism), or 3) two poor people make a law and take, by force, from the rich person (democracy). Thank God for the Republic.
Looks like someone needs to be "coddled" even more...
