Highmark

No but his biggest failure still was Iraq and that was a major one.

Show's what you know. You do realize Clinton had significant cuts to capital gains taxes. By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms. But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to theNew York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/ http://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-economic-impact-president-bushs-tax-relief-plan During the first four years of his Presidency, real GDP growth average 3.2%, respectable relative to today’s economy, but disappointing coming as it did following just one year of recovery from the 1991 recession, the end of the Cold War and the reduction in consumer price inflation below 3% for the first time (with the single exception of 1986) since 1965. For example, it was a half a percentage point slower than under Reagan during the four years following the first year of the recovery from the 1982 recession. Employment growth was a respectable 2 million a year. But real hourly wages continued to stagnate, rising only 2 cents to 7.43 an hour in 1996 from $7.41 in 1992. No real gains for the middle class there. Federal government receipts increased an average of $90 billion a year while the annual increase in federal spending was constrained to $45 billion. That led to a $183 billion, four-year reduction in the budget deficit to $107 billion in 1996. However, with his masterful 1995 flip-flop on taxes, President Clinton took the first step toward a successful campaign for re-election and a shift in policy that produced the economic boom that occurred during his second term. Welfare reform, which he signed in the summer of 1996, led to a massive reduction in the effective tax rates on the poor by ameliorating the rapid phase out of benefits associated with going to work. The phased reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers between the U.S., Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement continued, leading to increased trade. In 1997, Clinton signed a reduction in the (audible liberal gasp) capital gains tax rate to 20% from 28%. The 1997 tax cuts also included a phased in increase in the death tax exemption to $1 million from $600,000, and established Roth IRAs and increased the limits for deductible IRAs. Annual growth in federal spending was kept to below 3%, or $57 billion. The Clinton Administration also maintained its policy of a strong and stable dollar. Over his entire second term, consumer price inflation averaged only 2.4% a year. The boom was on. Between the end of 1996 and the end of 2000: Economic growth accelerated a full percentage point to 4.2% a year. Employment growth nudged higher, to 2.1 million jobs per year as the unemployment rate fell to 4.0% from 5.4%. As the tax rate on capital gains came down, real wages made their biggest advance since the implementation of the Reagan tax rate reductions in the mid 1980s. Real average hourly earnings were (in 1982 dollars) $7.43 in 1996, $7.55 in 1997, $7.75 in 1998, $7.86 in 1999, and $7.89 in 2000. Millions of Americans shared in the prosperity as the value of their 401(k)s climbed along with the stock market, which saw the price of the S&P 500 index rise 78%. Revenue growth accelerated an astounding 59%, increasing on average $143 billion a year. Combined with continued restraint on government spending, that produced a $198 billion budget surplus in 2000. Shared prosperity indeed! But one created not by raising tax rates on high income but not yet rich middle class families, and certainly not by raising the capital gains tax rate or by imposing the equivalent of the Buffett rule, a new alternative minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million, nor by massively increasing federal spending. Rather, it was a prosperity produced by freeing America’s poor from a punitive welfare system, lowering tariffs, reducing tax rates on the creators of wealth, limiting the growth of federal government expenditures, and providing a strong and stable dollar to businesses and families in America and throughout the world. A shared prosperity can be achieved again. But to do so, the American people will have to overcome the envy feeding myth perpetrated by President Barack Obama and the spin-masters and leadership of the Democratic Party that raising tax rates on high incomes will somehow lead to more job creation, more opportunity and increased prosperity and security for the middle-class.

God I hope he did this. Time for other countries to keep up their end of the CONTRACT. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/trump-handed-merkel-374b-nato-bill-during-talks.html President Trump handed a bill to German Chancellor Angela Merkel for about $400 billion -- money he claims Germany owes NATO -- during their White House meeting earlier this month, according to a British newspaper. Trump has been outspoken about NATO countries not meeting their pledge to spend at last 2 percent of GDP on defense. He raised the issue publicly in the joint press conference he held with Merkel on March 17. “I reiterated to Chancellor Merkel my strong support for NATO, as well as the need for our NATO allies to pay their fair share for the cost of defense,” Trump said at the joint press conference. “Many nations owe vast sums of money from past years, and it is very unfair to the United States. These nations must pay what they owe.” But The Times of London reported Sunday that Trump had gone a step further and told officials to calculate how much German defense spending had fallen short of the target since 2002 -- when former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder committed to higher defense spending. The bill was then handed to Merkel during their private meeting, The Times reported, to the tune of more than 300 billion U.K. pounds – about $374 billion. Trump's colorful move was described as “outrageous” by a German minister. “The concept behind putting out such demands is to intimidate the other side, but the chancellor took it calmly and will not respond to such provocations,” the minister told The Times. The White House denied the report to Business Insider, with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer saying: “No, this is not true.” The Times reported that Trump had his staff prepare similar bills for other NATO members not meeting the 2 percent targets. If true, the hardball tactic may have had some effect, with Merkel reaffirming at the press conference her nation’s intention to keep the 2 percent commitment. “NATO is of prime importance for us, and it was not without very good reason that we said during our summit meeting in Wales that also Germany needs to increase expenditure. We committed to this 2-percent goal until 2024,” she said. “Last year we increased our defense spending by 8 percent, and we’re going to work together again and again on this.”

I agree and have said that all along but when you got so few taking up so much of the costs it makes sense to look at that as well.

All caused by the housing market crash that had little to do with GWB policies. In fact he tried to reign it in early in his first term only to be shot down by the dems. Lots of things/people/policies caused that. GWB had good growth and job creation up till 2008. He also had record tax revenue. Where he fucked up was Iraq. Should have stayed out of the quagmire or at a minimum had a much better plan on how to manage it. That is 100% on him.

for a president still searching for signature achievements. I had to laugh at that. Not even to the 100 day mark yet. Quote from Obama during his first 100 days. Obama stated that he should not be judged by his first hundred days: "The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."[6]

Yep.

This makes a difference. Reality is the airport is filled with chicks that have no business being in yoga pants.

Its the economy stupid. 4-5% growth and HC fix failure will be forgotten in a hurry.

People are trying to point fingers at the house conservatives as the holdup when the house moderates were just as big as issue as they were crying they wouldn't vote for it if this or that is done. This goes without saying that the dems had not one supporting helping fix the ACA. These were not major changes they were trying to implement. Its dems bill let it go down in flames. Lets see if they will come to the table then.

Running good and affordable is two completely different things.

It's not shocking but it should be some guidelines as how to manage costs. It simply isn't sustainable hammering 80% of the population for 20% of the people. We need to take a good hard look at reasonable rationed care.

Freedom Caucus needs to get off their ass and propose a new plan not just repeal the ACA. The GOP will get hurt if pre existing conditions are not covered.

I disagree. Its hilarious that is what the dems are saying now but America still know's its theirs.

Yeah, I bet your just a real tough guys in front cops.

If Trump works with the dems to try and save Obamacare my bet is MC, Vince, Sno and others are lining up on their hands and knee's eagerly waiting to blow donny.

More comedy from MC. Great start to the week!

Reality is Obamacare is failing. I say let it fail. The dems want it they can have it.

The girl is 10.

The second source that Fish gave us was a chart from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That chart showed exactly what Bates said: Twenty percent of the population accounts for 80 percent of total expenditures. Maybe even more shockingly, the chart also shows that just 5 percent of the population accounts for 50 percent of all expenditures.

I've heard its worse in the US. I'll have to look it up, my wife and I were just talking about this yesterday. I do know that like 70% of a person's HC spending is usually in the last 2-3 years of their life. MIL was an administrator at a nursing home for 35+ years.

Cause the DNC rigged the primary? Well that and thankfully not enough of the country are socialists and or communists yet.

I'd bet our percentage on means tested govt assistance is much higher than Canada's. Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released today.May 28, 2015

I was just commenting on countries per capita spending. Not who pays what. We all know the wealthy or business will pick up the tab in the US.

Bad people in every profession. Lots of good ones too. One not too far from me just caught a little boy who needed to jump from a 2nd story because of a fire. Yes some abuse their authority but rarely do we see people get treated poorly who obey the law and the commands of the officer. They want to go home after work no different than any of us. I don't see any evidence that this old man simply got beat up because he asked them to leave. Seems pretty clear he got in his car to go them.