Not only is unemployment down the lowest it's been 1971. Black unemployment is the lower than it has ever been.
Most Americans believe what they are told in the news. They are told the tax plan will help the rich at the expense of the middle class. This is far from the t***h. The tax cut for the top quintile of taxpayers would be 8 percent of current taxes, while the cut for the middle quintile would be a huge 23 percent. By comparison, Reagan's tax cut was 8.8% for the middle quintille. And Social Security will pay the largest increase in decades.
Now look at what has already happened within hours of the v**e. Several corporations announced significant pay raises for minimum wage employees as well as many if not most employees. Bonuses for hundreds of thousands of employees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars, an increase in hiring, and donations to charities and social programs.
Once these changes hit the majority of American taxpayers, I'm sure they will change their tune on how much they were opposed to it. Of course those who really h**e to have their taxes cut can donate the difference to our government.
Then why has he found nothing. When Ken Star was investigating the Clintons, he found a great deal. Yet the justice Department deemed what he found insufficient. With Mueller's investigation it isn't a case of the evidence is insufficient. It is a case of no evidence being found of collusion at all.
And how bout how the tax bill passing which will make the rich richer also making the middle class richer. Have you seen how many new jobs being created already? How much pay raises for middle class? How much corporate spending on charities and social issues? And hundreds of thousands of bonuses of one to two thousand dollars. This all on top of how much the economy was already improving even without the tax cut due to reversing some of the thousands of regulations businesses had to comply with to operate in the US. Middle class wage earners will pays hundreds to thousands of dollars less in taxes. But I'm sure if you really want to pay higher taxes, you can donate the difference to Uncle Sam.
Socialism: 1- a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be collectively owned. Usually by the government. 2- social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
Hallmarks of socialism include the philosophy that the needs of society are considered more important than the needs of the individual. Another is centralization. Another is public vs private ownership. And another is centralized distribution of resources. Another is single party system or parties which have few effective differences.
Denmark: Decentralized. Constitutional monarchy, with the monarch's signature required for any bill to become law. So the monarch is not just a figurehead. The monarch also has the power to appoint or dismiss any government official up to and including the Prime Minister. Though this is rarely exercised. There are 9 political parties. While the largest is the Socialist Democrat Party, that hardly makes the nation as a whole socialist.
Finland: Their government is a representative parliament. Their parliament is dominated by secular conservatives. They have 8 diverse political parties.
Canada: Parliamentary Monarchy. The monarch has authority over all institutions of government. Legislation is semi decentralized and divided between federal and provincial.
Sweden: While the current Swedish government fits closest so far as a socialist government, it has only been in effect since 1975. It has an export based economy which while strong now, can only remain so under its current form of government while natural resources are abundant. If it keeps exporting lumber and other natural resources at the rate it is now, those resources will inevitably be depleted. While e******y is a hallmark of socialism, Sweden has had widening inequities since its current government has been in effect. Lets see how successful it is when it has been around for more than a few decades.
Ireland: Ireland was a country which had been poor and struggling until it adopted a free market system (in other words a capitalist society) with a low corporate tax rate. Yup. LOW taxes for corporations. One of the things liberals, socialists and progressives have been opposed to.
So of your examples, only one is mostly fundamentally socialist. Sweden. And Swedish socialist form of government has only been around for 40 years. Minimum hourly wage is well below the average for the EU. As low as 5 Euros per hour. Crime rate is high. A large drug problem. So as of now, Sweden seemed to be a great success. But its success is becoming less so over time. Not to mention they do not need a strong or even average sttrength military as we protect them along with many other nations. So without needing to spend for defense, there is more money for other things. If they weren't protected by us, their "success" would collapse.
AS for the US causing the internal problems in Venezuela. Get real. So oil prices are lower. That at the most would cause some reduction in spending. There is no embargo. Nor are there US troops destroying infrastructure or blowing up oil fields. Venezuela got wealthy and had a high quality of life during capitalism. Its citizens had high wages. Cost of living was low. Anfd this was while outside profit making corporations were operating with little restriction. Only AFTER capitalism was overturned and foreign corporations thrown out, did cost of living and far worse begin. Like many who see big business as a boogyman out to destroy the people; you can't understand reality. Corporations only succeed when they make a profit. To make a profit you must have a product in demand and employees wanting jobs. Destroying the employees society is counterproductive to making a profit.
Homelessness has decreased across American with the exception of LA and a few other west coast cities. These are cities which are governed under progressive leaders in progressive states. The increase in homelessness in these cities has been on a rising surge since 2015. Before Trump.
Now as to your assertion that the tax plan will help President Trump by a particular figure; where does that amount come from? And how do you know President Trump will benefit personally anyway?
You made assertions. Now back them up.
The extortion reference was for social security. Not for taxes. SS is supposed to be a government controlled retirement nest egg. Receiving it is not welfare. It is money you paid in which was suppose to be held for your retirement.
The first article provides nothing to back up its assertions at all. The second at least makes an attempt, but it is not rational. It reads like Hillary's excuses and blame, but even less coherently. It says the US is behind OPEC. Minerals, which are not being mined in Venezuela, going up in price have caused oil prices to tank. (Hmm. I wonder why I don't see that at the gas pump.) Really? Minerals vs oil? From there what little coherency there is drops away. So why don't you tell us how capitalism caused Venezuela's crises. And you still haven't answered my earlier challenge. Name a socialist nation which is a success.
If socialism DOES work, give an example. You include, "artificially low oil prices " in your reason for Venezuela's problems. But artificial prices are the antitheses of free market capitalism. They are one of the tools in socialist governance. "Saudi efforts to drive down oil prices have drastically reduced Venezuela’s state budget and led to enormous consequences for the Venezuelan economy." Yet Venezuela weathered low oil prices before the country became strictly socialist. Your low prices are still higher than most other country's main exports. So the prices should simply reduce the amount made from extremely wealthy to simply wealthy. "private food processing and importing corporations have launched a coordinated campaign of sabotage" So you are saying private companies want to eliminate their own profits???? Talk about propaganda! Why don't you study the workings of supply and demand. It isn't rocket science.
If they only spent it on SS, that might benefit SS (until the gov dipped into it even more), but it would do nothing to help our economy. Unlike the Reagan trickle down theory, Trump's puts both incentives and consequences which encourage inshore business. Businesses operating within the USA and hiring US citizens is what will help our economy. Already there has been much improvement since Trump was elected due to the belief he will carry through with his promise of tax cut, certain non safety related deregulations, AND tariffs for offshored goods and services. And so he is in the process of doing. {In Obamas 2nd term he got to the point of signing in more than 100 regulations a day! How can a business keep up with meeting even a fraction of those regulations. They would often require work stoppage to implement. That alone drove businesses offshore or simply closing.}
Social Security problems stem from moving it from a separate interest bearing account to the general fund so the money paid in can be used for wh**ever the gov chooses instead of being held in an interest bearing account for use only on SS recipients. The original set up had interest being compounded daily. If that had remained, even with SS being expanded to people who never paid into it (such as the disabled), there would be a significant surplus.
The emails were on servers provided by the General Services according to the P**********l T***sition act of 1963. In 1963 two items that would have been provided to do the job of what in our times are done by computer emails, are filing cabinets and telephones. If Mueller had taken files and letters out of a filing cabinet, or tapped phones; would that be ok simply because the cabinets and phones were provided by government entity? This is not the same thing as using a government server which is part of your government job's equipment. An entity whose job was to facilitate the t***sition team? The emails were on Trump t***sition team servers which happened to be government property on "loan" to the Trump team. If you loan something, does that give you the right to traipse into someones home without permission to take it back along with any items that had been stored in it?
Now even though what Mueller did was illegal, and might hamper future t***sition teams; he still won't find evidence of collusion there. If he really wants evidence of Russia influencing the e******n, he should look on facebook and other social media where he would find many anti Trump postings done by Russia anonymously.
If this tax plan was going to gut SS, why are we getting an SS increase greater than since the 70s in 2018? The rich get richer but so do the middle class under this tax plan. In fact, the rich were getting even richer when they could outsource and then bring their finished goods back t sell here for a LARGE profit. This is no longer the case. If they take jobs overseas, they must pay a tarriff to sell the goods in this country. The left keep stressing the tax reduction to the rich with the implication that the taxes will be raised for the rest of us. Well if you increase NON government subsidized jobs, you can get back more in revenue while still reducing the tax rate. If instead you use taxpayers money to "create" subsidized jobs; there is never going to be a long term benefit and money is continuously being drained. If more money is being made because companies can afford to hire more and are not outsourcing, more taxes will be paid DESPITE and actually BECAUSE of a lower tax rate. This is one of the ways capitalism and a free market works.
Since this preceded Trump's presidency (as well as started before Obama's presidency), and it was Obama who denied the petition to free the Hammonds; of course blame Trump. Everyone knows that everything wrong that ever happened in our government is his fault. When the feds offered to drop all charges if they deeded over their Steens Mountain land before the trial which took place during the Obama administration; was Trump's fault. Especially the Clintons selling Uranium to Russia and Uranium being discovered in the Malheur Refuge which the Hammond ranch abuts. After the discovery, the Hammonds were charged a ONE MILLION DOLLAR back grazing fee! So despite the dates which preceded his presidency, the Hammonds refusal to sell their land BEFORE Trump was president, the Uranium, the retrial where they were tried as terrorist before Trump's e******n, and Trump's praise of the ranchers standing up for their freedoms in this case; it is obviously his fault!
By the way, the fencing the B*M erected supposedly to stop the Hammond cattle from crossing into the B*M land, just happened to block them from water they had always had access to and actually had a legal right to. Again, this preceded President Trump.