Abigail Disney’s new crusade: Fixing the CEO-to-worker pay gap

[WTF]

I haven't read about it in quite a while but the solution is collapse and then overcorrected. That is how we do in this country.

There are some who think the real problem is accumulated wealth....which leads to crony capitalism.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

I haven't read about it in quite a while but the solution is collapse and then overcorrected. That is how we do in this country.

There are some who think the real problem is accumulated wealth....which leads to crony capitalism.

Accumulated wealth is capital. Yes, if we get rid of the capital and convert to a communist system, then crony capitalism will disappear.

Collapse and overcorrection is very possible. It may start with the election of Sanders or Warren and a Democratic Senate. Then at some point in the future when people are fed up, someone like Jack Kennedy will start the ball rolling in the other direction and someone like Ronald Reagan will take us back to where we should be.
And the process will start all over again.

[WTF]

Reagan started this debt doesn't matter bullshit.

[WTF]

Warren or Sanders will not get the nomination much less the Presidency.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Warren or Sanders will not get the nomination much less the Presidency.

who's gonna get the nomination???? bloomie?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

Warren or Sanders will not get the nomination much less the Presidency.

Yeah, WTF, what's YOUR prediction on who gets the Democratic nomination? Presidency?

[oeb11]

ftw will have to be satisfied with H....

Instead of one of the radical Marxist heroes of the DPST's!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Reagan started this debt doesn't matter bullshit.

Actually it started under Carter. The only period when we haven't been continuously running significant deficits was in Clinton's second term. And as others have pointed out here, Newt Gingrich and Republican congressmen deserve as much praise as Clinton and Rubin for that. Here's a table.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Actually it started under Carter. The only period when we haven't been continuously running significant deficits was in Clinton's second term. And as others have pointed out here, Newt Gingrich and Republican congressmen deserve as much praise as Clinton and Rubin for that. Here's a table.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

And it's interesting to track that deficit by year by Congressional control, especially the House where spending arises.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And it's interesting to track that deficit by year by Congressional control, especially the House where spending arises.

Interesting idea. Since Carter, Republicans controlled the House during 1995 to 2006, and also from 2011 to 2018. Democrats controlled it from 1977 to 1994, from 2007 to 2010, and in 2019.

Here are averages for federal deficit as % GDP during this period:

Republican House: 2.25%
Democratic House: 3.92%

Carter: 2.28%
Reagan: 3.99%
George H. W. Bush: 3.78%
Clinton: 0.73%
George W. Bush: 1.91%
Obama: 5.70%
Trump: 4.13%

I should have lagged by one year since, for example, the budget for 2020 was passed in 2019, and should have included the Senate. But I've blown enough time on this already.

[oeb11]

Tiny - thanks - interesting.
National Debt is a bi-partisan spending sin!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Tiny - thanks - interesting.
National Debt is a bi-partisan spending sin!

Thanks oeb. While generally you and I would like to see Republicans in government, during the last 40 or so years the combination of a Democratic President and Republican House of Representatives was most likely to control the deficit. That's except for the Obama administration. Maybe having split government, so the politicians aren't able to accomplish as much by spending our tax dollars, can be a blessing.

[oeb11]

Tiny - you have a valid point. I suspect that having our government split between the parties renders it less efficient - and much less mischief can be accomplished with the other side there to oppose.

I dread the Radical Fascist DPST's controlling the legislative and executive branches of government - ala Bernie/AOC - we would become a Bankrupt Socialist Venezuela from their Soylent Green New Deals and other 4th grade plans for the nation.

I agree - split government probably limits the damage either side can do.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Actually it started under Carter. The only period when we haven't been continuously running significant deficits was in Clinton's second term. And as others have pointed out here, Newt Gingrich and Republican congressmen deserve as much praise as Clinton and Rubin for that. Here's a table.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-deficit-by-year-3306306

Actually GHB deserves more credit than either of those two.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Thanks oeb. While generally you and I would like to see Republicans in government, during the last 40 or so years the combination of a Democratic President and Republican House of Representatives was most likely to control the deficit. That's except for the Obama administration. Maybe having split government, so the politicians aren't able to accomplish as much by spending our tax dollars, can be a blessing.

I've been trying to tell you a Democrat President and a GOP controlled House is the best combination concerning spending and debt. It is the only time Republicans care about spending. Democrats never care.