I assume you are ducking having any answer other than buy a book. Why don't you just summarize his evidence.
The Western system is rigged to pleasing "today's voters." It's a voting system. The unborn can't vote. It's the system "the people" wanted. Why despise it?
It appears to be a hell of a lot more sustainable than the rest of the federal budget. And if you read you link all the way through you will note that the author says that the numbers don't prove sustainability either way.
Going to be rather hard to get doctors and drug companies out of the healthcare system. Insurers would be easy and since Medicare is more administratively cost effective than private insurance probably a good idea.
When you sell it and we collected double the capital gains revenues at the Bush 15% rate as the Clinton 29% rate. And you said We hit a FIFTEEN PERCENT revenue growth in 2005, that is NOT slightly that was huge. Residential housing is less than 5% of GDP. There's not a lot of capgains in residential housing and again a minor part of GDP. We had a serious recession, a dot.com bubble and 9/11 in 2001. The Republicans mostly made the right moves which helped to mitigate the depth and length and get us into a full and robust recovery. The Democrats totally failed to do the same starting a year before the 2008 recession even began and all through and even after it ended.
Wage increases have been outpacing inflation. Spending Power: Wage Gains Well Outpace Inflation Both weekly and hourly wages increased at a 3.2% pace over the past year. Year-over-year wage gains are well outpacing inflation, which is good news for lower-income households that are seeing their spending power increase. Year-over-year gains in weekly wages have been north of 3% for over a year now. Harriet Torry Graph won't paste but in the link https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/march-2019-jobs-report-analysis/card/1554468947
Train more doctors so the marketplace reduces their salary. Drug companies--allow pharmacies to import unless, say, the price is below the OECD average.
You're all over the place. If the Bush tax cuts were so good for the economy, how come economic growth was faster under Clinton? Why would tax revenue be growing faster under Bush if the economy is growing more slowly?
We once had both the House and the Senate--plus the White House. In fact, it was as recent as January of 2017. It is entirely fallacious to assume that the Senate requires 60 votes to pass any legislation. Fifty-one will suffice. (Or just 50, plus the vice-president's similar vote.) The 60-vote threshold is needed to break a filibuster. But the recent notion that all one really needs to filibuster is merely to raise one's hand, and utter the word, is absolutely ridiculous. No one wants to inconvenience himself anymore--or so it would seem, anyway--by speaking on the floor for hours (even for days) on end. So we no longer see a real, genuine filibuster. Absent a real filibuster, I would certainly not respect some (arbitrary) 60-vote rule.
It’s delusional to claim that 60 votes in the Senate is not required to pass legislation. The only exception to that is reconciliation. Reconciliation is the process used to pass ObamaCare and the Trump tax rate reduction legislation.
I do not "despise" our current system. I merely believe that The Political Class--which I do despise--is abusing it. My preferred solution: Get rid of every Professional Politician--whether he (or she) has a "D" or an "R" by his (or her) name--and rely entirely upon citizen-politicians to sacrifice by interrupting their careers, and going to Washington for a few years. This is the way that our system used to work. There is really no good reason that it cannot work that way nowadays.
Sixty votes is required to break a filibuster. But nothing else. (In fact, I am old enough--71, to be exact--to remember when 51 votes were quite enough to pass legislation. Any legislation.)
And a vote cannot be held unless you have 60 votes. That's how it works. Legislation is passed with 51 votes or more - if tied at 50 the VP is the tie breaker.
And maybe we could pluck "citizens" off the streets and have them run the evil corporations. And maybe "citizen" generals too? "Citizen" investors, doctors and nuclear arms operators might be a stretch, but hey, let's give it a go. Maybe we could dress 'em in Mao suits too.
Because Gingrich and Kasich forced him to sign capital gains rate deductions after his tax rate increases had slowed the rate of growth of GDP, passed welfare reform which put more workers into the workforce and paying taxes. Go research it the fact remains it was. So why should we go back to the Clinton 29% capgains rate when it produced half the revenue of the Bush43 15%.
Why would more people become doctors is the salaries are going down. And OK if the drugs and the factories producing them meet FDA standards.
Easy enough just to read the synopsis online and realize he is talking nonsense. But I gather you have not read it either.
Except you keep pretending one year of increased revenues proves anything. Why don’t you try to explain the drop of the next three years.
Just commenting on the fact that apparently you don’t actually know or can explain what the book you referenced actually said.
Let's say you're right (you're not). What did Bush do that slowed economic growth? Did he raise taxes? Nope. Did he undo welfare reform? Nope. You tell me--what's the relationship between the capital gains tax rate and capital investment? How about answering the question? Why would tax revenue be growing faster under Bush if the economy is growing more slowly? http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cap_inv_fig.png So why should we go back to the Clinton 29% capgains rate when it produced half the revenue of the Bush43 15%.[/QUOTE] Let me translate for you what happened... in the Bush years, we had a lot of capital gains taxes paid during an unsustainable asset bubble.
Let's say I am, refute it. I don't agree with the premise of your question that Bush slowed the economy. There were four times the realizations Bush versus Clinton. More people working paying taxes at higher incomes, more capital gains realizations, a solid economy. What's your point? There weren't a lot of capital gains in residential housing, it was an across the board solid economy. Residential housing is less than 5% of GDP.
