Was 2019 the Year of Peak Entitlement Mentality?

Federal budget deficits continue to grow despite a thriving economy


Looking back at 2019 is incredibly disorienting. The country is horribly divided. In fact, the president of the United States was just impeached along partisan lines. The government is running $1 trillion (and growing) annual budget deficits, even though the economy is doing well. Still, listening to many politicians and pundits, you'd think the nation is doing terribly and the government isn't spending a dime. That's 2019 in a nutshell.

The economy is entering its 11th year of expansion. Poverty is at an all-time low; so are African American and Hispanic unemployment rates. The 3.5% overall unemployment rate hasn't been that low since 1969. The unemployment rate for women hasn't been this low since 1952. The employment rate for workers ages 25 to 54 is finally back above its pre-Great Recession level. Wages are on the rise, especially at the bottom of the income distribution. The stock market is on fire. Small businesses and many industries are complaining that they can't find enough workers to fill all the jobs they have.

Not everything is perfect, of course. There's still relative poverty, but that's an immutable fact of life—and of the way we define poverty. Many economists are concerned that productivity isn't growing as fast as it could. This matters because productivity growth is an important source of rising living standards. Manufacturing isn't doing great, either, thanks to the president's self-destructive trade war. Farmers are hurting badly due to the tariffs, as are many of the companies downstream of the tax. Yet the economy continues to show resilience in spite of this.

So what explains the gargantuan budget deficits? During good times, spending on many programs meant to alleviate poverty and economic hardship typically goes down. But not as much anymore. Ever-easier eligibility for programs like food stamps has deviated from the program's original intent. Medicare and Medicaid expansion have guaranteed that the programs will continue growing and adding to the deficit, whether times are good or bad.

Both political parties are carelessly spending on a whim. They just passed a spending package of $1.4 trillion alongside $500 billion in irresponsible tax breaks. And Democrats are actively trying to restore the state and local tax deduction, or SALT, a handout to rich people in high-tax states.

More intriguing is the political discourse. Listening to Democratic presidential candidates, you'd think that Americans are living in abject poverty that can only be remedied by government taking over all student debt, all medical costs and boosting the incomes of a politically powerful group who are already overrepresented in the top income quintile—namely, seniors. Listening to Republicans, you'd think that it's never been as hard to be a woman or raise a family in America. In fact, GOPers today call for programs like mandated paid leave—which they assert is an idea whose "time has finally come"—and large increases in the child tax credit. Others condemn the free-market system as if it hasn't delivered anything but grief to low-skilled workers and destruction to the environment.

The truth is quite different. When the economy is doing well, most people do well, including women and their families. More importantly, it's the same free-market economy that Republicans and Democrats today so vociferously condemn that has produced the wealth that everyone takes for granted.

According to research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in order to get the standard of living that ordinary Americans enjoyed in 1975, today we would only have to work 23 weeks out of the year. To achieve 1950s standard of living now requires a mere 11 weeks of work! People were fairly content back then. In fact, many who complain that the free market has failed us point to those decades as America's golden age. This is an illusion, of course. Most of us make the choice to work more and acquire a significantly better living standard. Yet, few people realize and appreciate how very much more we have now.

At the end of this year, then, I'd venture to guess that the problem in 2019 isn't that free markets don't work but that we may have reached peak entitlement mentality. Let's hope we come back to Earth in 2020 and start to appreciate that while all isn't perfect, we're incredibly lucky to be alive today.

NEXT: Brickbat: Defenseless

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So NOT subsidizing FOREIGN manufacturing anymore is supposedly causing the US –> “Manufacturing isn’t doing great, either, thanks to the president’s self-destructive trade war.”

    Ya – That makes all the sense in the world. I’m sure if we could only get EVERYTHING made foreign our own manufacturing will benefit tremendously… lol… /s

    There’s obviously a reason the founders put, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations” in our Constitution and I’m pretty sure they didn’t mean to “subsidize” it.

    1. Yah, the economy is doing great, except it’s not because of Trumps trade war.

      This is the contradictory nonsense we get when journalists place their ideology ahead of honesty and accuracy. They’ve got the integrity of Baghdad Bob.

      1. well – spit it out.. If you want to point to something else – be my guest.

        1. Consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras pretium tellus eget sapien gravida, a egestas nunc mattis. Vestibulum sollicitudin hendrerit ullamcorper. Praesent volutpat arcu a aliquam convallis.

  2. “Looking back at 2019 is incredibly disorienting.”

    Not for me it wasn’t. Then again I haven’t had my head up my ass since 2016.

    1. Unlike you, R Mac, there is a bout 50% of the people if you listen to the news media that have had their head up where the sun does not shine. The fifty percent of the population are the progressives and democrats still according to the mainline news organizations think the economy is in the dumps and wages are like they were under Obama and the US is on the verge of falling apart. Well, I can agree to some degree to their pessimism especially after the election of 2018 where the democrats took over the house yet spent all year on impeaching the President and not much else got done. The USMCA, for instance, the house has had it for almost a year yet they did not vote on it until after they voted to impeach the president. The impeachment was so important that they had to get it done before Christmas yet now that they have impeached him it is no longer important sent the articles to the senate so that it can try the president. But I can understand their pessimism after the democrats realize that what they have done has is to energize Trump’s supporters and even some who did not vote for him earlier!

  3. No.

  4. The good news.

    Despite government, how many now in my lifetime.

    Americans are more prosperous than ever. Many others in the world where we buy, sell and interact are as well. Because we get up and work. We do it in more ways and more levels and in more places in than any centrally planned economy could possibly achieve.

    From Friedman’s pencil to this amazing thingie I am typing on. Nobody by themselves could build it or imagine it. No government planning committee. No president. No political party could do that.

    Government is getting bigger and taking more of my labor and liberty. More more more every chance they get. Bans on plastic bags and straws. The drug war continues. The military and foreign wars are not even close to over. We spend to imprison far more than we need. The list is endless.

    Don’t even try Trumpies. You are just cost shifting. One man is not the economy. The economy is as much the person who cleans the hotel room, prepares and serves the food, and mows the grasses at mar a lago as it is the dear leader. More so actually.

    Roll out the names, Pelosi, Trump, Schumer, Obama, Bush, Clinton, keep going, grifters all of them.

    Libertarians knew that once. What happened?

    When did it come to which big government party to support and not slashing the power of government in the first place. I don’t know. It was lost somewhere.

    1. “…Don’t even try Trumpies. You are just cost shifting…”

      Got past 5 paragraphs before the TDS peaked through.

      1. You better get back to your safe space.

        1. Those are for all of you with TDS, the rest of us are adults who can cope with the real world.

          1. Whew. Thanks. Thank goodness I don’t need to be in that crowd. Been there and it is not fun at all. I am done shlepping the world on my shoulders. Continue coping. Y’all are doing great.

    2. “When did it come to which big government party to support and not slash the power of government in the first place?” (fixed your spelling)

      1913, when Woodrow Wilson declared the 16th and 17th Amendments as ratified and founded the latest iteration of a central bank. That was the year America died, and the rest has merely been the prolonged death throes.

      1. 1913, when Woodrow Wilson declared the 16th and 17th Amendments as ratified and founded the latest iteration of a central bank. That was the year America died, and the rest has merely been the prolonged death throes.

        Yep. The 16th gave the feds unlimited access to the peoples’ money, and the 17th turned Congress into a representative democracy (AKA Mob Rule) by eliminating the States’s veto power over democratic initiatives.

    3. I used to think Trump was a grifter and voted for Johnson, but not any more (certainly it applies to the rest of your list). A forensic psychiatrist convinced me that Trump was in it for the legacy he wants to create by MAGA.

      The way I see it, he’s doing what he can via EO (where Congress allows the executive branch to write the laws) and isn’t getting any help from Congress. He’s reducing government, which is something Reason supports, but . Reason might write something about his EO deregulation, or support the investigation of the Bidens. Certainly his libertarian leaning judge appointments are very good. But inquiring minds want to know more detail about his EO deregulation and what it’s doing for the country. Of course the MSM, the political establishment, and journalists with TDS would rather not go there, leaving little to support Trump, except for the blessed voters that elected him.

  5. The American government is a very interactive constitution

  6. Was 2019 the Year of Peak Entitlement Mentality? No

    Still missing:
    Universal basic income
    Federally funded free childcare
    Universal single payer healthcare
    I am sure there are more, those three are just of the top of my head. The wish list will never end.

    To save us all the GOVERNMENT MUST DO MORE! (sarc)

    1. Hahahahaha!

      Entitlements are already over 69% of all Federal spending, about 100% of all taxes and all other revenues and growing faster than even our record tax receipts. They have nearly tripled in 19 years and in about 12-15 years will cause complete economic collapse like Greece recently experienced – except there will nobody capable of bailing us out. And, INSANE people like you want to speed that up with more spending. Dolt. Bye bye benefits.

      P.S. The government doesn’t produce anything – it simply takes from what we produce, keeps some for itself, and passes some back – a net loss. Hope you like mommy’s basement, and that she doesn’t get evicted…

    2. don’t forget housing for all and universal equity whatever that means

  7. The market was up about 25% in 2019, largely due to the reduced corporate tax rate. Allow companies to keep their hard earned profits and it is incredible how many new jobs and services they will produce. It will take a few years, but many companies are and will be opening new manufacturing facilities in the USA rather than in unstable corrupt SE Asia.

    The reduced corp tax rate is the single greatest economic event in 40 years. Thank you President Trump!!

    1. Actually, they DIDN’T keep all their profits. They released more as distributions, resulting in such large increases in PERSONAL income taxes that we have record TOTAL tax receipts.

      And, 7 million new jobs.

      Democrats didn’t do this.

      1. A lot of it went into stock buybacks. It is good for investors but not sure how it effects things like income and the job market.

        1. Do you think investors bury their money in their backyard? Or hide it all under their mattress? No. They spend it or invest it further, either way it helps incomes and the job market.

  8. According to research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in order to get the standard of living that ordinary Americans enjoyed in 1975, today we would only have to work 23 weeks out of the year. To achieve 1950s standard of living now requires a mere 11 weeks of work!

    And think how much we’ll appreciate that golden age when the global warming folks return us to the living standard of 12,000 BC.

    1. Gee, I was hoping for something more like 1200 AD, and being able to revel in feudal simplicity.

      1. Can I go off the manor to run an errand, M’Lord? I won’t be long, I promise. Now take my wife, please.

  9. in order to get the standard of living that ordinary Americans enjoyed in 1975, today we would only have to work 23 weeks out of the year. To achieve 1950s standard of living now requires a mere 11 weeks of work!

    Well that’s transparently nonsense.

    Rent an actual 1950’s ranch house – presumably a pretty good measure of the housing stock that people lived in in the 1950’s – or be the new owner of same with the new normal loan-to-income guidelines – and you will have to work prob 18-20 weeks in most places just to pay the rent/interest.

    But hey – I’m sure the hedonic adjustment for a 70-year old house ensures that it is far higher quality and probably bigger – and therefore lower priced than the same new house was then.

    1. Living according to a 1950’s standard of living today would be criminal. Seriously.

    2. If you live in a big city, then yes it’s true that the fraction of income spent on housing has risen dramatically and that you could probably could not “achieve 1950s standard of living [on] a mere 11 weeks work”.

      If you live outside the big city, however, housing as a fraction of income has been much more stable and the article’s metric has a much higher chance of being true. And that’s before you consider the demographic changes in home ownership since the 1950s.

      If you look at the social policies of those big cities and when the housing costs started to go up, it’s very clear that housing costs are a result of the “housing shortage” which has almost entirely been caused by self-destructive government policies like rent control and zoning restrictions.

      1. Don’t forget building codes raising the cost of building an new home beyond the reach of households that aren’t in the top income quintile.

      2. housing as a fraction of income has been much more stable and the article’s metric has a much higher chance of being true.

        The article’s ‘metric’ is pure GIGO. And is a perfect example of how fucked up everything re the ‘inflation indices’ used to measure this stuff over time really are. Precisely because ‘housing’ is one of those measures that those inflation indices deliberately distort. Done in order to keep housing bubbles afloat and to disguise subsidies to homeowners and banks.

        You only see it precisely over the sort of long timeframes where one CAN in fact move into the identical house as way back when – without any ‘antique’ or other weird ‘rarity’ value attached to the house. Just ‘housing’/shelter. so IF one bought that house NEW in the 1950’s – AND one has paid the mortgage off entirely – AND are still living there (so presumably in one’s late 80’s now) – THEN it is possible that one is ‘maintaining’ a 1950’s lifestyle (ie everything except housing) on 20% of what one could expect as income by working (which for that age group no longer requires working either).

        Course the only reason for that is that you would be paying ZERO for housing now. Not even your ‘housing stable as % of income’ (which simply ain’t true either). And presumably wouldn’t be having to (forced into) spend money on replacing furnace/roof/etc because all those sorts of purchases would be deemed ‘lifestyle improvements’ rather than ‘necessities of housing maintenance even by 1950’s standards’.

        And ain’t no effing way anyone who wasn’t alive in the 50’s to buy that house then is remotely in that same ‘protected from inflation therefore benefiting from all the wonders of crappy inflation indices over the long-term’ boat.

        1. “…Done in order to keep housing bubbles afloat and to disguise subsidies to homeowners and banks…”

          Yeah, those ‘banksters’ are out to get you, right JFree? Check under the bed before sacking out and keep the shiny side up on your tin-foil hat!

          1. He does have a point. Federally guaranteed housing loans removed the incentive for banks to be careful about who they lend money to. It’s not like the bank is going to lose anything. As a result the prices of homes is artificially high just as guaranteed student loans have resulted in the cost of a college education being borderline absurd.

            1. You’re right that the government guarantees have increased demand without increasing supply – thus we have upward pressure on housing prices. But the older generations have also supported a lot of regulatory and zoning initiatives to clamp down on future housing starts for the next generation. It wouldn’t be as big of an issue if we could build houses, but old people are way more concerned about their property values than they are about people’s wellbeing.

              1. “Old people remember what interests them: the dates fixed for their lawsuits, and the names of their debtors and creditors.”

                – not Cicero

              2. Frankly, there are 2 main reasons for the housing problems we have.

                1. Shit zoning laws. We all know this here.

                2. The trend for mega companies to excessively concentrate their workforces into fewer and fewer cities. Big business used to distribute employment around the country more, including in suburbs. The last decade and change or two they’ve crammed almost all new jobs into a handful of cities. The tech industry cramming almost an entire global industry into basically 5-6 metro areas is the most outrageous example.

                So zoning needs to change, and businesses need to start spreading the lovin’ around to more metro areas again. SF doesn’t need another 20K programmers… But 20K programmers would be AWESOME for Cleveland.

      3. But living outside some hipster neighborhood in some trendy metro area is sooo depressing and unfair. Only deplorables would choose where to live based on affordability.

        1. Literally every friend I have that owns a house has picked based on affordability. This usually translates to 1+ hour long commutes. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, its just a bummer because its artificial – if we could build houses this wouldn’t even be a discussion.

    3. “…Well that’s transparently nonsense…”

      Assertions from fucking lefty ignoramuses =/= evidence or arguments.

      1. You were expecting a rational argument based on facts?

        What world did you come from?

    4. Median household income in 1950 was $3,300. $3,300 in 1950 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $34,471 in 2018. Median household income in 2018 was about $61,937.

      Seems like you’d need to work a bit more than half a year (55%) to have the same purchasing power as someone from 1950. But the *lifestyle*, without dishwashers, multiple big screen TVs, DVRs, cable TV bill, cell phones, cell phone bills, $5 lattes, internet access bills, streaming service bills, and so on, could be done for less, perhaps a lot less?

      1. “But the *lifestyle*, without dishwashers, multiple big screen TVs, DVRs, cable TV bill, cell phones, cell phone bills, $5 lattes, internet access bills, streaming service bills, and so on, could be done for less, perhaps a lot less?”

        My wife would never…meanwhile I’m happy with a nice local library and an occasional movie. So perhaps I should just retire and let her work to pay for her baubles?

    5. In the 1950s, the size of the typical new home increased to 950 square feet, and by the 60’s 1,100 square feet was typical, and by the 70’s, 1,350. Beginning with the recession in 2000, the average new house size stabilized to 2,320 (square feet). The median size of a completed single-family house was 2,386 square feet in 2018.

      So there’s a more than 2x creep in housing costs (lifestyle) right there.

      But I still don’t believe 11 weeks.

      1. That’s why I used the example of the ACTUAL 1950’s ranch house. They still exist – in large numbers – so you don’t have to head down the path of different house sizes and how those are hedonically adjusted and wildly distorted in the inflation indices.

        These distortions also exist in other items as well – but housing is the one with the biggest impact. eg CPI component weights (from as far back as I could easily find on their site – 1994 or so – so plenty of time for errors to compound)
        For the CPI-W (roughly blue-collar/hourly urban):
        ‘Shelter’ is deemed 28.25% of total consumption expenditures:
        (of which) ‘rent’ is deemed 8.9%
        and ‘owner’s equivalent rent of owner-occupied residence’ is deemed 17.7%

        That latter measure is utter bullshit to begin with. Ignore the fact that ‘owner’s equivalent rent’ is defined as a big pile of incomprehensible bullshit. Or that what homeowners are doing is paying INTEREST and buying an asset – not making a mere rental expenditure with no possible balance sheet impact.

        Nothing more than an attempt to stick ‘homeowners’ and ‘renters’ into the same category and pretend that something like – oh increased house prices or interest rates – affects them both the same. Which for those two measures ain’t true either.
        Even if that wasn’t all utter bullshit, it makes an assumption that 17.7/(17.7+8.9) or 2/3 of that group of urban hourly workers are ‘homeowners’. Which was also bullshit even at the height of post-2000 homeownership – and was in fact higher than aggregate homeownership % for the entire population for everything before 2000.
        The effect of the combo is exactly akin to sticking ‘frogs who rent’ into a pot of boiling water while feeding free ice cream to the homeowner frogs and asserting that on the whole the temperature is about right.
        The total ‘shelter’ component represents nobody in the real world. Nor does it even approximate what anyone might understand as ‘shelter’. It is just made to ‘appear reasonable’ (28% – well that looks reasonable) so you don’t ask questions about what exactly either sub-piece is. Which means – we can just take the inflation outcomes that result for granted. Nothing to see here. Move along now.

  10. Welfarism

    “He that giveth to the poor shall not lack;
    But he that hideth his eyes shall have many a curse.” -Proverbs 28:27

    Excerpt from the novel, Inescapable Consequences:

    Charity connotes voluntary giving. What happens when voluntary giving becomes involuntary taking via governmental taxation of the productive in the name of “humanitarianism and social justice”? What happens when the recipients are not only the deserving poor in true need who are suffering helplessly and hopelessly but the undeserving poor and worthless swindlers? Does not charity then become something else — something evil called “welfarism”?

    The extent to which one is responsible for the welfare of another is an age-old question. Totally responsible? Not responsible, at all? Somewhat responsible? If somewhat, how much?

    These United States had been founded upon the solid bedrock of individual responsibility capped by a thin layer of the shifting gravel of collective responsibility. Over the years as the democratic republic devolved into a republican democracy, the balance reversed. Progressively, voters raided the public treasury via the balloting box in the name of “humanitarianism and social justice”.

    Is there a remedy that most Americans might accept for this malady? Yes, for both individual and commercial welfarism.

    “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” -Matthew 7:7

    1. “Not responsible at all” is the correct answer.

      Charity is a fine thing; compulsory redistribution of wealth and income is tyranny.

      1. Charity is an awful thing because it is done by choice and usually administered by religious people, who we all know are the worst!

        Compulsory redistribution is a wonderful thing because it’s fair, nobody can opt out, and it’s done by government which we all know is super-efficient since it doesn’t waste money on profits!


      2. Since Charity is good, compulsory redistribution of wealth is merely the government forcing you to do good? Why would you be opposed to doing good? Of course, along with that is forced charity to people who don’t deserve it, but . . . something about omelets and eggs.

  11. “…the president’s self-destructive trade war. ”

    So, was WWII “self-destructive?” After all, it killed about 80 million people, 450 thousand of them Americans.

    Yes, there are economic casualties resulting from “the president’s … trade war”–but how much economic damage has China inflicted on us over the last few decades? They steal our inventiveness, they subsidise their manufacturing so they can undercut our own manufacturers, their manufacturing quality is poor, and, in the past, they’ve poisoned our kids with lead-based paints and poisoned, mostly women, with lead in cosmetics.

    Apparently, Ms de Rugy is of the opinion that, in the accounting of things, it’s proper to ignore the benefits and consider only the costs. It apparently doesn’t matter to her that, by accepting a few economic hardships in the short term, there might be long-term payoffs to punishing China for their abuses.

    1. Everything has to be seen in the context of some kind of “war”. It’s just negotiation.

      1. “War is the continuation of political activity by other means” (von Clausewitz 1832)

        Von Clausewitz observed that conflict which can occur for a number of reasons, economic, territorial, social, political, is basically an extension and tool of negotiation. Physical wars and negotiation are inseparable because negotiation occurs before, after, and during armed conflict. Negotiation is a tool of war and vice versa.

        In the case of China there are multiple factors at play. The US and China are both striving to be the dominant world power. This involves economic factors as well as territorial ambitions in SE Asia and the sea lanes. There is a race for military dominance with both nations spending fortunes on weapons and systems capable of destroying the other. There is a technological, space, and cyber race to the same ends. Don’t forget the role of N Korea here either.

        Politically the two nations could not have ideologies more conflicting.

        This ain’t about soybeans and children’s toys. That is the tip of the iceberg about what is going on.

        In the South China Sea we are playing chicken with each other and armed conflict could break out any minute. This is the Far East just before Pearl Harbor.

        Trade war is certainly an appropriate term here. Very different than a negotiation with Canada.

        I believe we are on the wrong track and one based on fear and reaction rather than a clear strategy to benefit the US as the worlds most populous country emerges to become a true player on the global stage. They will no matter what tariffs are applied.

        We are competitors and will be. We do not need to concede anything. In terms of trade it should be fair and open. Applying tariffs then withdrawing them with the promise of selling more pork bellies and calling that victory is not going to accomplish that.

        It is a long game. You are talking about a people with a history going back many thousands of years. To them we are upstart barbarians. Short term is not going to work.

        1. “It is a long game. You are talking about a people with a history going back many thousands of years. To them we are upstart barbarians. Short term is not going to work.”

          Therein lies the problem. Almost everybody on both sides of the mainstream wants to suck ChiCom cock for various reasons. The left because they love authoritarian pricks, and many on the right because they like making a short sighted buck more than anything else.

          Trump came out of the blue and has been undermined the whole time on everything, especially the trade war. The reason the Chinese aren’t coming to the table is because they figure once Trump is gone the next person will go back to rimming their assholes. This whole situation has to stop.

          We’ve basically been treating the 21st century USSR like they’re our buddies like the UK or something… It’s nuts. It’s like building up the Nazis in the 30s. Soooo stupid and short sighted.

          Personally, I think Trump should have gone straight “nuclear” with the trade war, because they have no choice but to give in as they cannot replace the exports to the USA market, and we can collapse their economy overnight. Tell them 200% tariffs on every item coming in starting on a date 6 months in the future. You have until then to meet our demands of opening up your market fully to us and every other country on earth, IP protections, etc etc etc.

          They’d have to comply or going into a depression, and likely have a revolution on their hands. You deal with tyrants harshly, because that’s what they understand. And the Chinese are tyrants.

    2. “So, was WWII “self-destructive?” After all, it killed about 80 million people, 450 thousand of them Americans”

      There were tactical errors made however. Operation Market Garden, Anzio, failure to organize shipping convoys in the first few years, Iwo Jima probably could have been bypassed as it had no strategic significance, failure to listen to submarine commanders that torpedos were defective early on, for example. The biggest one was total underestimation of the Japanese and diplomatic bungling before Pearl Harbor resulting in lack of effective defensive measures. Lots more.

      The goals may be agreed upon but it does not mean that the tactics chosen by the Trump admin are the best way to achieve them.

      Remember what it took to win WWII – allies with a coordinated common approach and goals. We do not have those here.

      1. Because nobody WANTS us to win. The EU and others that should be super on board with getting China to open up are just as sold out as anybody in the USA. It’s fuct.

  12. “Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”


    That was written in the 1840’s. As long as government can rob from the minority and give to the majority, the entitlement mentality will flourish. This has been going on forever.

    “The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” Cicero (~55 BC)

    1. I eagerly look forward to you sourcing the actual Latin text of that Cicero quote. Unless you think he wrote in English – and directly quoted a 1965 fictional novel by Taylor Caldwell called Pillar of Iron (about Cicero). Which is admittedly a hell of a feat by the real Cicero.

      1. Excuse the fuck out of me for not pouring through Latin texts to verify the quote.

        And your smug, snide, and otherwise dickish comment doesn’t refute my point, which is that the entitlement mentality has existed for a very long time and isn’t going away soon.

        1. *poring*

          1. I kinda liked it as “pouring”. Drink up!

            1. I did a John.

        2. You can’t ‘verify’ the quote because it is FICTION. It’s like me quoting Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure and attributing “It seems to me the only thing you’ve learned is that Caesar is a “salad dressing dude” to Cicero.

          1. I get it. Like I said, excuse the fuck out of me for not vetting the quote.

            And again, like I said, your snide remark doesn’t refute my point.

      2. My handy English-Hindi-Latin-Swahili-Chinese-Finnish-Irish-English-SwedishChef-Latin translator indicates that Cicero’s actual words were probably something like:

        In seekeeng tu icquoure, et feluoeble, et Humium, zeey usus puobleec buodgets furrure luoxuory und superbia, et su zeet zeey cuon esse, et muoneged tu cumpletely reduoce, et zeem tu cheus und zee, et Rumuons muost nut sit, et illuoed tu auxilio. fureegners vit. LEEfing vit puobleec suoppurt und impurtuontly necesse est: tu hue leerning vurk igeen borkborkbork

        1. Oh how cute… He discovered Google Translate…

        2. I’m surprised you didn’t make a smug, snide, dickish comment about how Bastiat is translated from the original French, so he couldn’t have possibly said what I quoted because he didn’t use the English language.

          1. I think you’ve read Bastiat and aren’t just using him for your own purposes.

            My smug snide dickish comment was not based on a translation or grammar. It was based on putting an utter falsehood – a fiction – into a dead person’s mouth and implicitly using a fallacious appeal to authority of that dead person as a way to render that fiction into fact.

      3. Yep, spoken by a fictional character. And yet, it was not utterly inaccurate – it is precisely what Augustus did to restore the strength of Rome for a time.

        Apparently, such simple lessons from history are too complex for “modern minds.”

        1. Yes it was utterly inaccurate. That’s the wonderful thing about fiction. Characters don’t even need to be subject to the laws of gravity.

          I expect this sort of abuse of history/tradition from Marxists. After all they go into that with their own self-admitted pre-existing agenda – The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it..

          But when ‘conservatives’ who purport to respect/honor (even deify) tradition/history abuse it quite as easily as do Marxists — well how can you tell the difference between the Marxists and those ‘conservatives’ once you head down into that rabbit hole. In Burke’s grave, someone’s head is spinning like Linda Blair’s.

          1. So Rome wasn’t in debt? Didn’t give assistance to foreign dependencies? Didn’t provide “daily bread” to its citizens? Didn’t have arrogant officials?

            Lighten up, Francis.

            1. Rome was a socialist government. Because they had roads.

        2. Umm…
          Augustus proscribed a bunch of the wealthy and confiscated their estates.
          So not exactly

          1. Isn’t that how you refill the treasury?

            1. It’s certainly one method of doing so

          2. Yeah, but mostly only those that opposed his coming to power IIRC.

            Which, fair enough! If you’re a dictator, are you just going to let your enemies slide and their families keep their wealth so their kids can plot against you? Hell no. Julius was actually very kind in letting his enemies off the hook, and it cost him his life. Augustus learned a valuable lesson from that: Destroy your enemies, no mercy! It’s generally the right call.

    2. Ah, a student of history. The lessons are too simple for the modern mind to grasp…

  13. Looks like the Round Up to me:

    “Lisa Murkowski ‘Disturbed’ by Mitch McConnell’s ‘Total Coordination’ With White House on Impeachment”

    How dare he inject partisanship into this otherwise pristine process?

    1. I thought everyone already knew Lisa Murkowski was “disturbed”.

  14. “Manufacturing isn’t doing great, either, thanks to the president’s self-destructive trade war.”

    Oh dear, another TDS sufferer attempting to pose as a person of Reason. The Trade war has been going on since the 1980s, you can hear Trump talking about it in newscasts from that time. By the way, we are not in any way suffering from the tariffs.

    “The economy has added 348,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump’s election. Those include 263,000 durable goods manufacturing jobs since Donald Trump’s election. One year ago, durable goods employment hit more than 8 million for the first time since the Great Recession.” – This particular quote itself is from Breitbart, but all of the numbers come from the BLS, hard numbers. Same can be found elsewhere if Breitbart causes you political nausea…

    All those jobs Obama said were gone for good – back, and then some. And, our manufacturing IS more productive than ever before.

    “So what explains the gargantuan budget deficits?”

    Despite the obviously impaired mental capacity of the author, the answer to this is simple: Entitlements growing faster than revenues. Entitlements are now over 69% of all Federal outlays, almost 100% of all Federal taxes plus all other sources of revenue, and growing faster than revenue. The President cannot even veto them, they rise automatically more than $100 billion per year. In the past 19 years they have nearly tripled from about $1.25 trillion to $3.25 trillion. If not dealt with, we will have a lovely fiscal collapse in about 12-15 years – and nobody could possibly bail us out. Bye-bye, freebies!

    1. By the way, we are not in any way suffering from the tariffs.

      Seen and the unseen.

      Sure you see those who manage well despite the tariffs, or because of the protection from foreign competition, but you don’t see the jobs that weren’t created because of artificially high priced imports.

      Same principle as the economic argument against minimum wage. Sure you see existing employees enjoying a government mandated raise, but you don’t see the young and unskilled workers who are never hired because they simply can’t produce enough value for an employer.

      1. By artificially high priced imports I’m referring to raw goods like steel and aluminum.

        Another thing you don’t see is the higher standard of living people would have if imports weren’t taxed. Granted the amount that the average person pays in tariffs isn’t huge, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And in aggregate it adds up.

      2. “you don’t see the jobs that weren’t created because of artificially high priced imports.”

        This is what we call fantasy

        1. It’s called economics.

          1. “Another thing you don’t see is the higher standard of living people would have if imports weren’t taxed”

            Again, fantasy.
            You’re imagining a situation based on your preferences and measuring reality against that imaginary image.
            Those jobs, that standard of living if tariffs didn’t exist – don’t exist. They are your fantasy.
            “Imagine there’s no heaven
            It’s easy if you try
            No hell below us
            Above us only sky
            Imagine all the people living for today
            Imagine there’s no countries
            It isn’t hard to do
            Nothing to kill or die for
            And no religion too
            Imagine all the people living life in peace
            You may say I’m a dreamer
            But I’m not the only one
            I hope someday you’ll join us
            And the world will be as one
            Imagine no possessions
            I wonder if you can
            No need for greed or hunger
            A brotherhood of man
            Imagine all the people sharing all the world”

            1. When you make stuff more expensive, people buy less of it. Libtards understand this when it comes to taxing cigarettes, but not with minimum wage. Minimum wage couldn’t possibly result in fewer unskilled jobs because INTENTIONS! Conservatards understand this with taxing labor, but not with taxing imports. Tariffs couldn’t possibly result in fewer jobs in the import industry because INTENTIONS!

              Oh, and as expected you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation other than personal attacks.

              When you have an actual argument, get back to me. Hasn’t happened yet, but maybe just maybe you can address the point instead of ad hominem attacks, which is exactly what libtards do when they know they’ve lost the argument.

              In short, I see no difference between you and a libtard in principle. You’re both so blinded by intentions and partisanship that you can’t consistently apply principles. You care about who, not what.

              1. Sarcasmic goes full psychotic here.

                Here’s an exercise: point out the pro or con of my advocacy.

                Hint: it doesn’t involve tariffs.

                Hint #2: it involves you using imaginary evidence

        2. Typical conservative. Taxes bad! Tariffs good! Why? Intentions! Derpity dooo! MAGA! Trump 2020! Deeeerp!

          1. As a short term weapon in a trade dispute tariffs can be a useful tool. But not as ongoing policy. Trump seems to have gone to them out of frustration with other avenues that require more cooperation from others, and as long as these are not long lasting, that’s great. Yes, there will be some disruptions, but if our IP concerns are addressed then long term we will be much better off.

            1. Yup. Even a modest improvement in trade terms with China would easily make up for the modest pains we’ve had so far. If he gets a proper decent deal with them it could be a huge improvement.

      3. I can see some targeted tariffs as being beneficial. For certain types of imports, you want to shift production to domestic producers. This can only work if you have excess domestic capacity, though. The problem is determining what should be targeted and how much.

        1. Adam Smith said something along those lines. Like one page out of an entire book.

          At least you’re not pulling a libtard and using that one page while ignoring the rest of the book and every principle in it.

          1. Yeah, frankly it depends on what “game” you’re trying to play.

            I think every sane person realizes we shouldn’t be importing saaay our military equipment from China… Because that’s fucking insane. So strategic stuff making sure we have sufficient capabilities makes sense.

            But what about if you’re just trying to hose down the other country? That’s what economic sanctions do. If you can hurt somebody more than you hurt yourself, sometimes it can be worth it.

            I very much don’t agree with most instances of when our government does, well, almost anything. LOL But in principle lots of things can make sense in the right place and right time.

  15. …. $500 billion in irresponsible tax breaks.
    Not stealing my money is somehow irresponsible.

    1. When combined with increased spending, I would have to say it is indeed irresponsible.

      From Government by Bastiat:

      Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

      We have taken that third system and put it into overdrive.

    2. Stealing your money!!

      Ebenezer: You’ll want the whole day off tomorrow, I suppose.
      Bob Cratchit: If quite convenient, sir.
      Ebenezer: It’s not convenient. And it’s not fair! If I stopped you half a crown for it, you’d think yourself ill used, wouldn’t you? But you don’t think me ill used if I pay a day’s wages for now work, hmm?
      Bob Cratchit: ‘Tis only once a year, sir.
      Ebenezer: That’s a poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every 25th of December.
      Bob Cratchit: Yes, sir. I’m sure I’m very sorry, sir, to cause you such an inconvenience. It’s the family more than me, sir. They put their hearts into Christmas as it were, sir.
      Ebenezer: Yes, and put their hands into my pockets as it were, sir. I suppose you’d better have the whole day. But be back all the earlier the next morning.
      Bob Cratchit: I will indeed, sir. Thank you, sir! It’s more than generous of you, sir.
      Ebenezer: Yes, I know it is, you don’t have to tell me.


      1. Nice to see you’ve completely lost your mind.

      2. What does this have to do with taxes? Scrooge may have been a terrible person to work for, but Cratchit could have gone elsewhere, presumably. At least Scrooge wasn’t taking money from him at the point of a sword, like government does. So your little quote serves to remind us that government is far, far worse than Scrooge!

        Happy Christmas!

        1. Further, fucking lunatic lefties like Pod think that the story is “journalism” rather than a lefty fantasy.
          Hint for lefties: fiction=/=reality.

      3. When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. -Bastiat

  16. What else can I be,” returned the uncle, “when I live in such a world of fools as this? Merry Christmas! Out upon merry Christmas! What’s Christmas time to you but a time for paying bills without money; a time for finding yourself a year older, but not an hour richer; a time for balancing your books and having every item in ’em through a round dozen of months presented dead against you? If I could work my will,” said Scrooge indignantly, “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!” (1.21)

    1. Incoherent rambling.

      1. At least it’s not half in bold, with broken links, accusations of assault, *smirk*, etc. like some comments.

        At worst, this is off-topic or misguided. OTOH, it may just be a favorite quote from “A Christmas Carol” that Pod just HAD to share today.

    2. Scrooge was such a bad Christian.

      1. Or he was a really good ((( )))

  17. “Manufacturing isn’t doing great, either, thanks to the president’s self-destructive trade war.”

    Boeing is a manufacturer that seems to be doing particularly poorly, and not due to the trade war. Boeing is America’s largest export manufacturer and has a very large presence in the economy. Next year should be interesting.

    Boeing is an aircraft maker based in the Democrat strong hold of Washington. We don’t discuss it here much, but their poorly designed aircraft, the 737 MAX has been in accidents killing hundreds and has left the company with hundreds of grounded planes and an out-of-work CEO.

    1. From what I have heard it wasn’t a flaw in the design of the aircraft, but rather a flaw in software. And again, from what I have heard, the FAA is expected to approve the plane sometime this coming spring.

      1. “the FAA is expected to approve the plane sometime this coming spring.”

        The FAA is part of the problem, what with regulatory capture and all. I’m not convinced that an FAA stamp of approval will do much to solve Boeing’s troubles.

        ” but rather a flaw in software”

        It seems there are many flaws with more appearing as investigators investigate. Both software and hardware.

        1. The ‘flaw’ was that the placement of the engine rendered it not at all like a 737 in its flying characteristics. Boeing called it a 737 so that pilots would not need to be retrained in how to fly a completely different plane. Which made it very easy to deceive potential airlines/customers and get new orders.

          Boeing knew all this – and put the software fix in for those times during takeoff/landing when the different flying characteristics made it very obviously different from a 737 and when the plane is close enough to the ground to be dangerous. So that it appeared to fly like a 737 most of the time. And rather than inform customers about any of this, they marketed it as some sort of optional doohickey (like fuzzy dice on the rear view mirror).

          Boeing is not close to getting this plane back in service. At least not as a ‘737’. Not only do they now have to get it approved by regulators (not just the FAA) who Boeing bamboozled and who no longer trust anything Boeing says. They also will now have to sell the plane to customers – requiring a full re-training of pilots and probably not ever able to call the plane a ‘737’. Which will eliminate most of what they claim to be the customer order backlog for that plane.

          My comment from that recall time a few months ago is still reasonably accurate.

          1. Outsourcing the software engineering to India for $10/hr probably didn’t help either

            1. Or maybe it was done by some of those folks here who just “learned to code”.

              1. Both can be true

    2. Isn’t Boeing almost the entire reason why the EX-IM Bank exists?

      1. “Isn’t Boeing almost the entire reason why the EX-IM Bank exists?”

        I imagine the bank exists to provide loans to foreigners wishing to buy US exports. And Boeing, America’s largest export manufacturer, would certainly have a part to play. Boeing also undoubtedly had a part in Obama’s Iran play. With the lifting of sanctions against Iran, Boeing would see a lot of money in a long overdue refurbishing of her aging fleet.

  18. Peak? Good news, then. The writer must see some evidence of an incipientGOP or impending downturn in entitlement mentality.

    Very misleading to pin calls for paid family leave on GOPers, when it’s much more popular among Democrats.

    “Irresponsible” tax breaks, phooey! I don’t care if Democratic politicians win politically on this one, the feds counting taxed income as taxable income is nasty.

    Most of the growth in payouts lately has been due to aging of the population. In the past few years, eligibility for food stamps has actually been trimmed back a little, after a previous growth burst.

    How’s manufacturing doing if you measure it by productivity, rather than by total output?

    1. So, when the baby boomers are all dead, the budget can finally be balanced?

      1. If we take them all out tomorrow in a coordinated strike it could be!

  19. the feds counting taxed income as taxable income is nasty.

    Getting a tax break because one lives in a high tax state is an uneven application of the law. As are all specially designed tax breaks. The only tax that is equal justice is one uniform tax rate, a flat tax.

    Imagine if a state had a 100% tax rate, but then provided a 100% kickback. No fed taxes!

    Oh, and f California. I don’t care how many arsonists light it up.

    1. But aside from such a scheme, the design makes sense. Take for example, support of muh roadz. These are paid for by some combination of state and federal spending. Fuel taxes are laid separately per gallon by the states and feds. Income taxes are on net income, not gross. If a shipping company is deducting fuel as a business cost from its income, do they not count in that the tax on that fuel? Then when the feds tax their income, why should they not deduct SALT? The feds and states don’t each pay for the same maintenance cost of the roads, so why do they get to charge twice?

      1. No, it doesn’t make sense. I am taxed on gross income – no deductions – by my local community, so that argument is patently false. All taxes should be on gross receipts, not net. Computing net income is where almost all the fraud and abuse of the system occurs. And since both states and feds pay for roads why shouldn’t they both tax all the income? (other than that taxation is theft)

        1. But for a business your gross income could be big… And you could actually be losing money.

          Obviously there are BS special interest deductions, which I am not in favor of, but having a few reasonable ones is fine by me.

          Obviously I would prefer a flat tax, or even a national sales tax in lieu of an income tax, or something anyway.

    2. Flat tax is far to simple to support the complexity needed to cover-up all the theft going on behind the curtains. I myself would totally support a non-income related itemized tax-bill + also eliminate all “deductibles” entirely on everyone/thing. Perhaps the “spend on the credit card” mentality of [WE] members would change once they got a printed and itemized bill.

      Can’t pay your tax-bill? We’ll take your house, car, send you to the collection agency (Actually apply consequences to citizen supported spending). If you’re already homeless; you’ll need to visit your locally implemented welfare office and BEG from your neighbors.

      Watch as the “popular theft” left-agenda crumbles into the “nothing but criminal intent and excuses” it has always been but too covered by curtains for sheeple to see it.

    3. But taxation is the main method for social engineering!
      And yes, F California.
      F California to death.

  20. The purchase of a home is, for most people, the largest investment they will make:

    Median price for a home in 1955: $5,100
    Median family income in 1955: $5,000

    Median price for a home in 2018: $240,000
    Median family income in 2018: $63,100

    Yes, the average home is twice as big as in 1955, and it has a lot more “goodies.” That is a given. But it also costs almost four times as much.

    So MIT’s numbers may be more accurate than some think.

    1. The [WE] foundation banned 1955 model homes.

      Either pay 4-Times as much for those “more goodies”
      — or —
      Get your “homeless” membership card and live off of other peoples incomes so the [WE] foundation can easily dictate everything about you.

  21. Economy bad – “We need to spend more money to stimulate the economy.”

    Economy good – “We have more money, so we can afford to spend more.”

  22. Don’t worry, there may be more tax give-aways to you folk, If Trump stays as dictator. And I do not see anybody making you PAY FOR YOUR REPUBLICAN WARS.

    The new Trump Debt is 50% higher for one year than the entire National Debt when Reagan took over, showing them how to hide their failures, scams, swindles, and mass killings in the National Debt.

    1. Wars, massive debt. Ain’t bipartisanship great?

    2. Not a Republican, but do you mean the wars that were overwhelmingly supported in both the House and Senate when they were started?

      For the Afghanistan War, the totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting and in the House of Representatives were 420 ayes, 1 nay and 10 not voting. The sole nay vote was by Barbara Lee, D-CA. Lee was the only member of either house of Congress to vote against the bill.

      For the Iraq War, it passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133, (81 Democrats voted for) and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning, at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23 (29 Democrats voted for).

      And the wars continued into Democrat Pres Obama’s terms, during which he had both Houses of Congress for the first 2 years, and split the next 4 years, during which time he nor Congress did anything to stop the wars or the funding for them?

      Those Republican wars?

    3. Trump is a dictator? Was the free election a mira-gee?

      Trump is Hitler! Oh, please specific how he’s a dictator. Show your work. NO CRAYONS.

      Ah yes. The left’s new shtick. Democrat wars become Republicans wars. Debt becomes Republican debt. Obamacare’s disaster will become Trump’s fault.

      Go back to Daily Kos.

  23. Discuss this article on Quora:


    Quora is a vibrant community where everyone must use their real names and a “be nice, be respectful” policy is strictly enforced.

    1. “be nice, be respectful”

      You just lost everyone right there.

    2. Flagged for pimping other sites.
      Fuck off.

    3. Stop spamming, pussy

    4. Yes, but is it “neutral”?

    5. Eat shit.

      And no Merry Christmas for you!

  24. Of the things that annoy me about POTUS Trump, this is #1 on the list: He is spending like a squad of drunken sailors on leave.

    We have got to get spending under control. POTUS Trump inherited a huge national debt. That is not on him. But man, is he adding to it. He can do something about it and he isn’t. This is a major disappointment.

    1. “”He can do something about it and he isn’t. “”

      What do you expect him to do? He’s not in control of the purse. He tried the veto and acted like he was going to stand tuff with a government shutdown. That didn’t work.

      1. Maybe when he doesn’t have to worry about re-election he will allow the government to stay shut for a few years. We need that.

    2. Almost all of the debt is stuff he has no control over, entitlements. Try again.

      1. POTUS Trump assured us back in 2018 that the CR he signed would be the last ‘bad’ one he signed to avert a government shutdown. Here we are, and he signed a gigantic CR. I get that he cannot deliver on everything. But out of control spending is a pretty big issue, and The Donald needs to do more on this front.

        Could he for instance, order an across the board reduction of 2% in Federal spending? Even 1%? I would find it hard to believe we could not find 45B in a 4.5T budget to cut.

  25. Oh Véronique. So lovely, yet so naive.

    There’s no such thing as ‘peak’ anything. Be it ‘peak oil’ or ‘peak retard’.

    In fact, AOC will come along any minute now to regal us all with her sparkling takes on economics to drive the point home.

  26. It absolutely will be known as such. Trump has just built-up The Nanny State Bandwagon. Though, obviously, We’d be in deeper of a fiscal-shithole had Over-The-Hillary Clinton been elected.

  27. With our energy independence, we should be able to close the deficit gap with more for less in the way of production…as for the Debt growth and the lack of spending self control by congress, give-away to illegals and foreign aid to contentious countries, we are not going to climb out of the hole until we seriously begin to cut the size and the spending of government….we are in desperate need of tax accountability and need term limits no retirement to create a retreat of this over sized debt….A ballot driven consumption tax would be a good start for accountability….

    1. We also need to grow the number of representatives to reflect population growth. The last official increase was in 1920. Our population is 300% larger today. More elected officials fewer lifetime bureaucrats and term limits.

      1. The House of Representatives does grow.. The Senate doesn’t and it shouldn’t (there are still only 50-members “States).

        What really need to happen to fix government representation is to KEEP local and personal issues completely OUT-OF our National Government body. It has NO business being there and its entirely Unconstitutional for them to be pretending it does.

        Not only was the Constitution right to begin with and those who ignore it are wrong; it also makes it so NYC cannot make personal judgement calls on the entire western states about something they should have no power over to represent.

        1. It has only grown when we added states. He means we need more people in general, because the number of citizens represented by each Pol is 3x higher now.

          As in we should have 1500 people in congress. I wouldn’t be opposed to expanding the senate either to 3 per state or something.

          You ever wonder why decent people get elected in local, or even state office sometimes? It’s because there are too many elections for the “high command” of either party to completely buy and control. Just by virtue of there being more people in the national congress it would marginally improve the odds of getting decent people in.

          1. vok, I agree about the size of the house. It can and should be significantly higher than the 435 we have now. At least triple. US pop was roughly 100MM when we last expanded the House. I like the possibilities for more political parties, and more ideological diversity.

            If we expand the House, we should eliminate House pensions simultaneously. No benefits for life.

  28. This isn’t very accurate. The cost of housing has skyrocketed compared to how much people earn

    Yes, people can afford digital watches and supercomputers compared people in the 1950s. But stuff they need, like housing and food and cars are more expensive than ever. (Thankfully gas has stayed cheap)

    And let’s not forget health care…visits to the hospital in the 1950s didn’t bankrupt you.

    1. Compare that to which items have the most government intervention.

      1. “Compare that to which items have the most government intervention.” ???

        isn’t that a lot like accusing firemen of being arsonists because they’re always around where fires start? Of course the government is intervening in the most difficult problems, and the intervention is as expensive as Republicans can make it.

        1. Nice try at flipping the equation on its head…

          Fires are SEEN first before Firemen show up and are “Fixed” shortly after..
          As is well demonstrated by comparison to 1950’s regulation… There was no Fire UNTIL the government showed up and the “Fixing” was adding gasoline to it.

  29. Good information I like reason.com because hear have best news Royal Life

  30. Glad to see this much low unemployment rate. I read about women’s employment rate at Write My Assignment For Me It was changed as compared to this. But, overall it was a happy year for the economy.

  31. To answer your question: NO.

    2020 will almost certainly be worse.

  32. Wages are on the rise, especially at the bottom of the income distribution.

    This is where you go “Thank you Liberals, Progressives, and other Moderates for increasing the minimum wage in 21 states with more to follow in 2020.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.