"full employment" is a term that has varied meanings. traditionalist see it at 3%, others go as high as 7%. under the definition you've proposed the term could have easily been used for the majority of the past 30 years...
what's to bitch about on the economy?
1. the economy has grown, however real wage growth has not been spread across all economic strata.
2. the economic growth has come at a huge cost of debt. the growth you seem to believe is a result of supply side policies has been a result of the opposite, the huge increases in government spending.
3. the huge increases in government spending have not been devoted to areas that one can call investments in our people or infrastructure.
Quote:
|
And if you want someone to do something about future obligations how about asking some of your democrat friends to participate in actually doing something about social security and not demagoguing it to death.
|
of course, this has NOTHING to do with the debacles of the current administation's budgets...
seems that you've forgooten the clinton proposals...of course, they were based on the idea (a lost one in the current administration) that the federal surpluses could be used, (along with expanded ira's and 401 limits). the clinton concept was that ss did not need to be dismantled, which the bush proposals surely would result in.
you see, the clinton budgets had surpluses.