09 Jan 10
7 edits
That's right, the conservative state of Texas enjoyed an $11 billion surplus as of a year ago. Can liberal states such as New York and California learn from the lessons of the past economic performances of Texas as they drown in their own excrememt of debt? My guess is no. They are too consumed by their economic intellectualism, also known as spending like a druken sailor. 😀
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17294
My I suggest moving the nations capital to Austin?
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderI praise a government that is able to actually balance its check book so that the populace is not wasting their money paying out interest. Currently, the federal government spends close to $1 trillion a year in interest to the debt. So tell me, how many people could we cover in Medicare for $1 trillion I wonder? Instead, they flush it down the commode.
Why do you consider the government taking in far more money than it needs to be a desirable thing? I thought right wingers despised the idea of taxation - yet here you are praising a state government for over taxing.
09 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI thought we were talking about states, not the federal government. But since you brought up the worst offender, the federal government, I will give Clinton his due for not spending like Obama and "W".
Fiscally, Democrat presidents have a better record than Republican ones.
BTW: AFter Obama is done, you won't be able to say that anymore so until then, so enjoy!!
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by no1marauderA good point indeed.
Why do you consider the government taking in far more money than it needs to be a desirable thing? I thought right wingers despised the idea of taxation - yet here you are praising a state government for over taxing.
Perhaps a better question is how well do those taxes serve the payers?
09 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by monster truckCan you even imagine 8 years of "W" and then 8 years of Obama? By that time we will be $100 trillion in debt.
[b]Well, I guess everythings going to be peachy for the next 8 years then.😉
Just to give this perspective, the universe is only around 15 biilion years old. For Obama though $15 billion is mere pocket change. LOL.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckAs I pointed out in an earlier thread about Social Security, the federal government in the mid 1980's increased taxes to help fund Social Security, but they then stole the money from the increased taxes.
A good point indeed.
Perhaps a better question is how well do those taxes serve the payers?
There is no sepreating taxing and spending, they go hand and hand.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyI suspect that there will not only be cuts in payouts but increases in the taxes to support them as well. The next generation is in for a double penetration of their wallets.
As I pointed out in an earlier thread about Social Security, the federal government in the mid 1980's increased taxes to help fund Social Security, but they then stole the money from the increased taxes.
There is no sepreating taxing and spending, they go hand and hand.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by whodeyThat's not "balancing their checkbook"; it's taking way more money from the people than necessary. It's something Texas government has done for years. Why you are praising a government for taking more of its people's money than it needs is the question though it seems like a question you intend to ignore.
I praise a government that is able to actually balance its check book so that the populace is not wasting their money paying out interest. Currently, the federal government spends close to $1 trillion a year in interest to the debt. So tell me, how many people could we cover in Medicare for $1 trillion I wonder? Instead, they flush it down the commode.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by monster truckSo Dems are elected when things are going well and Republicans are elected when things are not going well? I guess that explains Obama being elected...
Well, I guess everythings going to be peachy for the next 8 years then.😉
The basic assumption that the prevailing party is directly responsible for the economy is a stretch at best.