I dont think the left has to blackmail judges it has carefully screened before appointment Those judges are as batshit crazy as the rest of libdom As for Roberts I suspect he likes to be invited to parties with the beautiful people in washington who are all liberals He sold his principles for popularity
Your chart is surplus/deficit not revenue growth. Clinton came into office in a strong growth period and tax revenues on a strong upward curve. The year he passed his tax rate cut revenue growth hit 9% and all indications it would continue that curve. Instead revenue growth slowed to 7% and here's the kicker, the additional revenue for that year passed was differed in to 1995 and 1996 and even with the differed revenues tax revenue growth fell to that 7%, GDP growth also slowed. Gingrich and Kasich forced him to sign their tax rate cuts on capgains and sign their budgets with their spending restraint and their welfare reform which put people back to work and no longer a government expense but now a source of tax revenue and produced the budget surpluses
Medicare is just as sustainable as the rest of our government. And nobody has posted any evidence that Medicare for all would increase the percentage of GDP currently spent on healthcare. And dismal is our life expectancy or infant survival rates or any of many other statistics. We spend vastly more than any other developed country and do not achieve statistics comperable to our expenditures.
The problem is that the R's cannot reduce spending unless they have a House majority and 60 votes in the Senate. What they are forced to do to get what they want is to go along with D spending. I almost wish that Mitch would change the Senate rules to only require 50 votes for legislation as has been done to approve judicial appointments but that opens a huge can of worms when the D's get back in power. On the other hand it would be very easy to pass the exact legislation which supports the party platform and it would be very obvious which policies work and which policies do not work.
What's amiss, we have increased productivity their industrial automation and increasing efficiency and not that those wages went up after Republican pro growth policies and tax policies.
Come'on man - Medicare for All would be a disaster. When corrections are made our life expectancy and infant mortality are at the top of all global nations.
Exactly. Mr. Langley who knows better is saying that a dump truck driver who is as productive as 1000 laborers with shovels should be paid 1000X what a laborer with shovel makes.
Why would Medicare for all be a disaster? Do you actually have facts. But I do agree that with enough fudging even our pathetic healthcare outcomes could be made to appear better.
UK. Read this - "In Excellent Health - Setting the Record Straight on America's Health Care" - Scott Atlas, MD - 2011. I know you won't but I try.
Medicare for 62 and over currently is not sustainable. So why would adding everyone to Medicare make it different? https://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/Is_Medicare_Solvent_and_Sustainable.pdf
There's a slightly steeper curve on revenue growth after the Bush tax cuts, but that can be attributed to the unsustainable asset bubble that burst in 2007. The Bush revenue growth wouldn't/couldn't continue because Bush created a housing bubble. I showed you the other graph to suggest what sort of surplus we might have had.
You can't support your claim. It's rhetoric. What's wrong is that workers aren't getting a larger cut of the increased output. 90% per capita growth and workers get a 6% raise in forty years. You support that sh't?
Raise taxes. Better yet, get some huge snouts out of the healthcare trough--doctors, insurers, drug companies.
Wouldn't you need to take profits into consideration? You can increase productivity yet if the cost of doing business increases, then not as much filters to the employees.
Your chart supported it. It's not the workers creating the increased output, the machine that the business is paying for and paying to run is. If you want to make more then increase YOUR productivity and value to your employer.
Assets don't pay taxes, it was because of a strong economy and full employment and rising incomes. Woulda coulda shoulda's are pure speculation. The fact is the tax rate cuts especially capital gains produced 4 times the realizations than at the Clinton 29%, that's a reflection of economic activity. A $161B deficit and two years later the Democrats had it at $1,400B and kept it over $1,000B for the next three years. And we are still living with those huge increases in spending and entitlement expansions.
Sure, and why I didn't put a figure on what percentage should go to workers. Something more than they're getting now.
Appreciating assets pay capital gains and they also create a wealth effect that increases aggregate demand. It was also because of the housing bubble. The wealth effect is real. What are you talking about? Asset bubbles generate capital gains. We had a serious recession and declining revenues. Simply maintaining SS, Medicaid, and Medicare promises forced us into deficit territory. The collapse of consumer and business demand had to be countered by increased government spending and/or reduced taxes that put money in the hands of consumers or business.
I was watching a Laura Ingram segment when she was talking about how well the lower classes were doing in the Trump economy. She showed a graph showing a steep rise in wages with the lowest income people having the best rate of increase. It was only on for a second, but I saw something and backed it up to make sure. Even the best wage increase didn't hit the zero mark, so wage growth still is under the increase in cost of living. I am no expert in these types of financial matters so I don't know what can or should be done. I leave that for you guys to debate. However, it did at least appear that it was worse under Obama and is heading in the right direction.
