the welfare reform signed by clinton was the same that he vetoed twice before.
it was not working with congress it was seeing the polls begining to blame him for the impass.
reform was done in Mass by the state, not by the fed as is the way it should be.
i do not agre with their solution of mandatory coverage but as a state it is their right
to do it the way their representatives, at the will of the people wish. i prefer a market based
medical saving account system an catastrophic ins coverage to let people make their own medical choices and keep costs down by choice of elective medical services, not insurance controlled decisions.
the tax and spend work programs did nothing to rebuild an economy only keep people working at a minimal subsistence level, which is a third world method of populace control not a free market system based on your personal initiative and freedom to help and better yourself.the rise of the middle class in the 40s-50s was due to a generation who had saved a world through their hard work and sacrifice and proceeded to do the same for themselfs. without govt help.
the road and infrastructure system of the model T era was dirt most infrastructure improvement was done during WW2.
he not only wants to raise cap gains (stock dividends included-hello retirees), and the marginal rates but remove SS and medicade caps to save system. problem there your taxes over 50000 go up by 15% 7.5% you pay and 7.5% your employer pays
read no raise and layoffs as his payroll increased, any inc in payroll increases fees in unemp contributions state payroll deductions, and those who have made higher "contributions" from the raising of the cap will be eligible for higher payments when they retire -- once again just pushing the problem down the road for someone else
to worry about. tax rates are for control of actions not revenue or they would institute a flat tax.
control is never given up by elites and rulers voluntarily - only when forced to.
as to the regan era and incomes
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1120&full=1
There is some disagreement about what date should be used to measure the economic starting point of the Reagan era.
A common ploy of Reagan's critics is to measure the economy's performance from 1979 to 1989 and falsely describe the
record over this period as "the Reagan years." For example, in 1991 the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee of
Congress released a report entitled "Falling Behind: The Growing Income Gap in America," which purportedly proves that
the victims of Reaganomics were the least affluent Americans. The report concluded that "families in the lowest forty
percent of the income distribution actually had lower real incomes on average in 1989 than they did in 1979." Upon closer inspection, however, what the income data really show is that when Jimmy Carter's economic policies were in effect, family
incomes plummeted by 9 percent, but that after Reagan's economic policies took effect (1982-89), family incomes rose by 11 percent. In the Joint Economic Committee report, Reaganomics is blamed for the poor performance of the economy under
Carter. Ronald Reagan had many seemingly magical qualities, but his policies were never able to influence the economic
direction of the nation at least two years before they took effect. Some of Reagan's supporters, on the other hand, define
the Reagan years as only the seven years of economic expansion, 1983-89, while conveniently omitting
the recession years of 1981 and 1982. [6]
Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2
percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent
growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89.
and tax revenues after the Regan tax cuts doubled from personal income collections, money was not the problem, fiscal discipline was as is always the problem with govt spending
democratic administration policy of income redistribution resulted in income growth?
nooooooo, redistribution it is only capable of income shifting nothing is added and growth by definition is something getting bigger not lateral transfer.
if ya think they need more money, send some of yours,
entitlement reform
the biggest snag is old folks-they vote in massive numbers and this is a promise to them they will not allow to be broken.
a large number did invest and are now retired on those dividend paying stocks. if they could do it why cant todays generation?
good behavior? penalizing for unheatthy lifestyles? how about letting that happen by giving them the choice earlier in life on their own retirement. its called personal responsibility. govt was never meant to take care of you only to secure our borders, keep us safe and git out of your way and allow you to do it
the fed and the constitution
that is a big problem, the fed is doing things - creating money that are forbidden by the constitution- the legislation
for it was written by rockefellers and rothchilds--in their own interest.
not reading and adhering to the constitution has given us this travesty of a govt we have now.
flat tax
those offshore tax shelters employed by the likes of the kennedys,clintons,sorous, and a new 1 million dollar account opened by the Obama family (they only avoided 330,000 in taxes with that move ) would also be taxed. no loopholes, no deductions - just a flat percent.
if you need new revenue - seize all wire transfers to Mexico as they are illegally obtained funds and as criminally generated funds could be confiscated under various federal laws.
the lower income classes do pay taxes now SS,medicade,gas tax,
all these would be replaced by the flat 15% tax - if this govt cannot live on that it is incapable of any modicum of fiscal responsibility. business - who pass taxes on to consumers- would be able to write off equipment when purchased, not this depreciated crap
and salaries. the more they spend the more the economy grows and the more taxpayers there are, econ 101.
and when budget is fixed drop it to 10%. if they cant live on that we need new ones in there ---- hell we do now anyways
pay as you go by congress?
thanks i needed a good laugh.
they will put it on future generations and spend all they can collect and borrow. they must first find a way to pay back a stolen SS treasury. the 2035 date, that is the date when all previously collected SS monies will be exhausted, if they were on hand now and not just IOUs
the system starts paying out more than it takes in on an annual basis in 2010. the extra funds since they are no longer there will have to come from general treasury.
South Dakotas epa just denied the construction of an already approved plant for reasons of global warming concerns. there has not been a new refinery in 30+ years and they are at present at 98% capacity with 50% of all refineries in Tx&La frankly were tired of yall using our recourses, refusing to develop others and watching the only drilling allowed being done off our coast by the Chinese- who are angle boring offshore to under calif, and i cooperation with the Cubans off the Florida coast which we are not allowed to do.3 billion bbls in shale oil placed off limits by congress. ENVIRONAZIS are exactly the reason we are not
energy independent. they wont even allow nuclear (90% in France)for electricity. snail darters trump dams, a fish just caused the shutdown of a water system i california
no drilling wont solve it all--but conservation wont either- they are both needed as well as new tech. but until we develop them we need oil
tell new england to conserve their way to warmth this winter when heating oil prices go through roof because supply is low and prices are high.
