He made it possible for businesses to expand and keep more profit. That not only resulted in more jobs but competition for employees increased, raising wages. Unemployment for minorities and women was the lowest ever. Yes his deficits were high but in order to get military spending he wanted he had to make a deal with Democrats who wanted more spending. And he had a ways to go to catch Obama who by far spent more than anyone. Don't argue that Obama was saving the economy because he could have let businesses fail. Short term pain instead of putting it on taxpayers for generations. Business can reorganize under bankruptcy laws. All we got for 8 years of Obama was stagnation. Under Trump we were getting growth until the virus hit. And too many Democratic precincts were determined to shut down to hurt Trump's economy. Shutdowns did more damage than the virus.
Again, this is false on its face. During the depths of the Great Recession, which Obama inherited, his worst budget shortfall was $1.4 trillion. Trump's budget deficit this year will be ~$3.9 trillion. In his so-called "stagnant recovery" he averaged 2.4% GDP growth with a deficit of roughly $600 billion. Trump achieved an historic, meteoric GDP growth of... oops.. it was only 2.5% per year, on average, his best year being 2.9%. And that's with a budget deficit of no less than $1 trillion per year. These are the facts, on the ground, you can easily see them yourself on the government's own website. So no, sorry, there was nothing genius or groundbreaking about Trump's economy, he merely added historic debt to add very slightly incremental gains.
There’s a big difference in funding police, fire departments and pathetic as it is our education system. You will destroy healthcare in this society and all the countries that piggy back off America. Our system does all the heavy lifting when it comes to new treatments.
You are not just talking about chipping in so we all get healthcare, like you commies like to pretend. You are talking about price controls, determining what treatments will be available, does a person have to lose an eye first before the other is considered necessary, how much doctors make, the equipment hospital can have and prices to use it. It goes even further than that with you ReRes.
It a slippery slope from we have a vested interest in a healthy society, to taxing the * out of the unhealthy cheap foods to prevent people from eating them. Determining what kind of motorcycles others are allowed to own, what kind of cars they can drive. Of course any regulation like this will behind a do what I say not what I do tax that keep to poor stupid Americans in line with your belief system.
Firstly, you have failed to articulate why Americans have a right to security, fire protection, and education, but not health. And I'll ask again - do you support social security for the disabled? Healthcare for the elderly? These are all "socialist" programs. Secondly, everything else you posted was speculative nonsense. Australia has a very robust private healthcare and a public one. Scandinavia, South Korea, Japan - all prosperous, capitalist nations that have robust public healthcare options. No one is calling for price controls, death panels, blowing up private healthcare, whatever other such crap you're spouting off.
Something else you failed to address - you are
already paying for the poor's health insurance when an uninsured person gets hit by a car, or when a person who's too poor to afford a doctor goes to the ER to get routine care, and you are paying at a
far more expensive rate than if they would simply have a family doctor. Why not acknowledge this, and put into place a system where this doesn't happen - a subsidized public option so the poor can get routine care as well, and at much better rates. I really don't see how that's an unreasonable proposition.