That's why our military is so weak and ineffective no doubt. The same goes for SS, Medicare and the National Parks. All miserable failures.
I love it when I read about a governor cutting taxes. Nothing like letting people keep more of the money they earn.
That's why our military is so weak and ineffective no doubt. The same goes for SS, Medicare and the National Parks. All miserable failures.
Why are they not blasting CA, NY, MI for their terrible budget woes? how big are their deficits there again? hundreds of billions of dollars?
since monopolies are illegal and we have anti-trust laws to prevent them then well you are incorrect.
so please tell me why UPS, and FedEx still do very well for themselves and the USPS is in a hole so bad that they can't operate.
So you don't think we are going to learn plenty once people actually announce their candidacy?
Do you think the cost of a letter represents an actual figure?
deferring does not equal defaulting.
deferring does not equal defaulting.
From a 1 Billion surplus to deficit is not sound planning.
Yea, when I was doing the math in my head, I come up with the possibility that the state had to have increased spending by about $750 million dollars to have accomplished that.
If I recall Bush did that, results were not positive.
Are the governors likely candidates for POTUS? Did those states just have massive tax cuts with no plan to balance the budget?
Taxes were cut and we had the best tax revenues ever. Had we not had the loan meltdown, those tax revenues would have kept flowing and hopefully we would have gotten some budget cutting congresscritters in place to reduce spending (my biggest complaint about the gov't at that time - they spent like a bunch of drunken Democrats). The Clinton era of prosperity was due to the long term effects of the Reagan era tax cuts. So yes, the results were positive, we just had a congress that spent too much and a People who borrowed too much - neither of which means that the tax cuts didn't increase tax revenue.
From a 1 Billion surplus to deficit is not sound planning.
Did you stop beating your wife? That's a cool one.
How about the Washington Post do a story about how the state governments are doing in all the 50 states rather than singling out one state who has a governor who may run for President? Most of the time no one cares what happens in Wisconsin, what is the agenda now?
Can we have some numbers & some links for that please. Over 1 Billion is a large number- revenue up- yet go from a massive surplu to a substantial deficit-
Loan meltdown???? Clarification please.
Imma step out on a limb here and suggest that it might be because Walker is the governor of Wisconsin and Walker is presumed to be running for the GOP nomination for President, and will run on his record in, ahhh, you know, Wisconsin? :unsure13:
I mean, I don't know. It's just a wild guess. :shrug:
You are absolutely right. it IS a relevant question to ask and Walkers positions are absolutely something people nationwide should be concerned about because he is ASKING them to be concerned about them. The question is not why are Walkers positions relevant. The question is, why are people that accept and tolerate the identical actions of his predecessors in the governors mansion suddenly ****ting themselves intentionally because Walker did what they have done. THAT is a relevant question.
Privatizing is less costly ergo less taxes ergo more money and jobs for the middle class to fill.
...ion debt payment
Scott Walker cut $541 million in taxes last year. Now his state will miss a $108 million debt payment. - The Washington Post
This is the champion of fiscal conservatism and responsible governance? Oh My. Defaulting on a payment, costing the taxpayers' kids more in the future. This is my complete lack of surprise.
Maybe if he just cut taxes some more?
Veey good. I got you to read it after all.
Considering I joined here during his term, and I just learned about this today, no I have not criticised his predecessors
Well...what we know for sure is his predecessors DID use the same payment delay tactic. We also know his predecessor was responsible for cutting a buttload of unionized teachers jobs that they tried to pin on Walker. But by all means...you SHOULD look into it. Look into why a blue state would go away from a democrat governor and why they would not only elect Walker but reelect him comfortably.You may have me there. I'll have to look at his predecessors and see what they did regarding unions, cutting higher education budgets, not making payments on the State debts.
This is such common knowledge that I'm embarrassed for you. Tax revenues during the Bush admin. were at all time highs. Get educated about the real effect of the tax cuts so that we can have an intelligent conversation.
Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era. At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession. Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.
The reason, of course, is that taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily. They did not. Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly. Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust. Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession. Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s. By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average.
Few people remember that a major justification for the 2001 tax cut was to intentionally slash the budget surplus. President Bush said this repeatedly during the 2000 campaign, and it was reiterated in his February 2001 budget document.
In this regard, at least, the Bush-era tax cuts were highly successful. According to a recent C.B.O. report, they reduced revenue by at least $2.9 trillion below what it otherwise would have been between 2001 and 2011. Slower-than-expected growth reduced revenue by another $3.5 trillion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?