The immense growth in the 50s and 60s was fueled by the end of war, the GI bill, and the large number of returning servicemen. Marriage and births increased significantly along with the desire for homes. Huge building boom that created a demand for workers which was filled by the returning GIs. During that time, taxes were higher and the government and the economy were switching from a military basis to a consumer base. Too both improve our highway infrastructure and create more jobs for the returning GIs, we embarked on building the internet highway system based on the European highway design.

In the 70's we had the oil crisis and a downward spiral in the economy. That also was the time when government initiated many of the social programs as a result of the "Great Society". Taxes remained high and the economy struggled until the Reagan tax cuts in 1981. Even with that stimulus, the economy struggled because of the price and shortage of oil. The economy finally started to make a decent recovery through the 90's. That ended in 2000 and the economy again struggled for many years with the major crash in 2008. It has taken a number of years to recover from the 2000-2008 time period.

The Obama administration was able to stabilize the financial system and we slowly started on the road to recovery although very anemically. I don't believe the economy recovered to the pre 2008 levels until well into Obama's 2nd term. Today we continue with the economic expansion from 2012 and it has accelerated under Trump from both the tax cut stimulus and the regulatory reductions. Now we are entering into new trade agreement which should continue the economic growth. We need to get our economy to where there is very little need for social programs to help most people. The best social program is a job for everyone!

The only programs I can think of that people or someone on their behalf paid into are workman's comp, unemployment insurance, medicare, and social security. I sincerely doubt any of those will be actually cut. I can see requiring more years of paying into SS and Medicare for the benefits. I can see an increase in my medicare premiums. I can see using a different COLA to reduce benefit growth. The problem is that there is not enough money coming into those programs to sustain them for the long term. This is an issue Congress should have addressed many years ago but they will not until the crisis is here. Most of the dems only want to raise taxes while most of the repubs want to reduce the benefits. The actual answers are somewhere in between but compromise in Congress is a dirty word seldom spoken. You can see this in the dems reaction to Trump's suggestion he is open to looking at changes. It is exactly the headline you used and is only to score political points!!!!!!

If I discriminate against someone because of their social or economic status, is that racist?

If I discriminate against you because of your morality, is that racist?

If I discriminate against you for your sexual orientation, is that racist?

In my opinion, you are only a racist if you discriminate on the basis of skin color or race. All the other factors while being discriminatory are not racist based!

Who the other person is has some part in being available to them but the required conditions of the "relationship" are the biggest factor.

Back when I was working, all the overtime I wanted was available. My income level was in the upper 20%. I would look at my after tax income to decide if I wanted that overtime. If I could hire someone to do my at home work for less than my net pay, I would hire them and work the OT. When it got to where it was not financially to my advantage, I'd turn down the OT. Tax rates do make a difference in reality.

I think most upper income people would not have a problem with higher individual income tax rates if the government didn't throw all the money away. I would have a hard time paying more in taxes so someone else could have a better lifestyle without earning it. It is NOT the responsibility of society to support those who are unwilling to support themselves!!!

from that link:
President Trump suggested on Wednesday that he would be willing to consider cuts to social safety-net programs like Medicare to reduce the federal deficit if he wins a second term,

Asked in an interview with CNBC if cuts to entitlements would ever be on his plate, Mr. Trump answered yes.

“At some point they will be,” Mr. Trump said, before pointing to United States economic growth. “At the right time, we will take a look at that.”

So it is something Trump and his administration are willing to look at. Nothing planned, nothing proposed, only wanting to look at when the time is right. We all know the current safety net programs are not sustainable as they currently are. In most cases, additional revenue and reduced benefits will be required to provide long term stability to the programs. The sooner we start looking at these programs, the less painful the changes will need to be. Minor adjustments should have been made 20-30 years ago!!!!

You say he is "NOT representing the people". He is representing the hard working men and women who PAY the taxes. He is NOT representing the people who expect the government to support them. I also believe their are no cuts to Medicare but their are some proposed for Medicaid. Those Social Security "cuts" you speak of must be in the COLA used or in the SSI program. Would love to hear your interpretation of the Social Security and Medicare cuts you reference.

The facts:
1. the Trump administration put a hold on Ukrainian funds Congress had appropriated.
2. Those funds were later released to Ukraine.
3. The administration internal deliberations on withholding the funds were not released to Congress.

Democrat assumptions:
1. The funds were withheld for political purposes and had nothing to do with Ukrainian corruption.
2. That the funds were released as a result of Congressional Democrats pressure.
3. That the original Burisma investigation had been completed and no corruption was found.
4. That Congress has the right to know all the administration internal policy discussions that they want to now about.

These Democrat assumptions are the entire basis for the Articles of Impeachment.

Chiefs!!

Those who survived 8 years of the previous administration!!

May I remind you, most of the recent Presidents did not serve in the military. Who of the current Demo candidates are military veterans?

There is a major difference between 2 people being socially compatible and them being relationship compatible. When you limit yourself to only those that you view as probable relationship material, you will not date much and fail to learn the possibilities of others. These are part of the choices we make in our lives and the results we achieve.

Many may say they are ready to date but only if their prospective date can fill all their check boxes. Very few are willing to do a casual date with anyone!!!

It is almost impossible for 1 person to meet all the needs of another person and still maintain who they are. It was easier to have that 1 on 1 relationship when women were subservient to men but they then had to give up who they were for the sake of the relationship. We have evolved in the status of women now for the better but it has brought on a whole new set of issues we haven't figured out how to deal with. These issues are causing a lot of difficulties for a successful relationship.

sounds like an intimate encounter later with a love doll!

"If you do not get what you want, then the problem is yours",.....and no matter what you do or change it is not something you can change!

Answer: KY

desire for and lack of, We all are looking for what we want but do not have, could be money, sex, health, whatever.

A poor choice unless mutually agreeable within the marriage.

fortunate you!! I have more money than sex and I don't have much money!!