1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLet me ask you, who do you think pays more taxes? Is it the folks in Texas or the folks in New York and California? Nuff said! ðŸ˜
That'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.
My only advice for the folks in Texas is to use that money to build a wall all the way around their state. That will make it that much easier when they succeed from the rest of these liberal tards.
1 edit
That was a really cool article from 2008.
Here's one from Today.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17294
Texas sales tax collections are $1 billion behind
On Friday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison called for immediate cuts.
"We cannot afford to wait," said Hutchison, who has challenged Gov. Rick Perry in the March 2 primary. "Governor Perry should have already done this."
She added that it's "imperative that state agencies start doing all they can now," because "experts predict that the state will face a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall" in next year's session.
Mind you, Texas is still doing a good job and fairing a lot better than many states. Still... get with the times.
Originally posted by no1marauderPutting away surplus money for a rainy day (or paying down existing debt, if they have any), is excellent fiscal policy. The problem with states like California is that they put all their spending policies in places assuming that the economy would always be strong and were simply unprepared for any kind of decrease in tax revenue.
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.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPleae read my post.
So politics do not affect the perfomance of the economy?
Or the Dems and Republicans essentially have the same policies?
Certainly politics has some affect on the performance of the economy.
To assume it has total control or direct responsibility for it's performance seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Originally posted by monster truckWe're talking about performance over many decades here, not just comparing one Dem to one Rep, or something.
Pleae read my post.
Certainly politics has some affect on the performance of the economy.
To assume it has total control or direct responsibility for it's performance seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Originally posted by sh76Also, any proposed tax increases were voted down in referendums, while many cuts in public spending were also voted down. The constitution of California is just a joke.
Putting away surplus money for a rainy day (or paying down existing debt, if they have any), is excellent fiscal policy. The problem with states like California is that they put all their spending policies in places assuming that the economy would always be strong and were simply unprepared for any kind of decrease in tax revenue.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's only in Socialist style countries where the gov. is in control of the economy.😉😀
We're talking about performance over many decades here, not just comparing one Dem to one Rep, or something.
Here, gov. is a factor for sure, but just how much is impossible to measure in my opinion.
Originally posted by monster truckGovernment has a huge impact on the economy. You can see a clear correlation between socio-economic models and performance of GDP when looking at GDP per capita.
It's only in Socialist style countries where the gov. is in control of the economy.😉😀
Here, gov. is a factor for sure, but just how much is impossible to measure in my opinion.