PDA

View Full Version : Reaganomics at work?


Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 04:52 PM
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071223/taxed_out.html?.v=3&.pf=taxes

You be the judge.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 05:01 PM
This has what to do with Ronald Reagan??

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 05:12 PM
This has what to do with Ronald Reagan??


Decentralization of government and the resulting local taxation.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 05:14 PM
Decentralization of government and the resulting local taxation.

Ronald Reagan talked a lot about the decentralization of government, but did very little about it. Government grew under his watch, but at a slower than normal rate.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 05:27 PM
Ronald Reagan talked a lot about the decentralization of government, but did very little about it. Government grew under his watch, but at a slower than normal rate.

This is what he wanted. Lower fed taxes...Taxes levied at the local level. I wonder what he'd think about it now. I know I don't like it. His wife was great on Different Strokes, though. So I won't completely hate him.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 05:33 PM
This is what he wanted. Lower fed taxes...Taxes levied at the local level. I wonder what he'd think about it now. I know I don't like it. His wife was great on Different Strokes, though. So I won't completely hate him.

Federal taxes are higher now than when Reagan left office. But it's not like there isn't plenty of wasteful government spending going on at all levels.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 05:54 PM
Federal taxes are higher now than when Reagan left office. But it's not like there isn't plenty of wasteful government spending going on at all levels.


Perspective. How are they in comparison to when he came INTO office?

Vegas
01-02-2008, 06:03 PM
Perspective. How are they in comparison to when he came INTO office?

He left office almost 20 years ago, so I fail to see why your perspective is very valid.

But regardless, you're missing the point of lower marginal taxes. Revenues went up when tax rates went down. But the free spending politicians spend at least 100% of the excess.

Ed Who?
01-02-2008, 06:03 PM
Perspective. How are they in comparison to when he came INTO office?

Two words: Appropriations Committee.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:24 PM
He left office almost 20 years ago, so I fail to see why your perspective is very valid.

But regardless, you're missing the point of lower marginal taxes. Revenues went up when tax rates went down. But the free spending politicians spend at least 100% of the excess.

I don't understand how ab intended effect on his philosophy being brought to the forefront when it begins to come to fruition is not valid...Somehow this will be spun...but trust you me the Reaganator wanted tax collection moved to the local level...It'll be fun to watch his plan crumble like the communist manifesto when put into real life situations...as it will still result in the governmental waste...and on even larger and more sporadic levels than at the federal level...


Just like commies...Crooks are crooks...No matter how much you slice the pie...Decentralization just adds more crooks to the party....I wonder what his true feelings would be if alive...after he spun himself out of the weave and pointed out the issues at hand, very Greenspan-like in method.

No exemption soup for Ronnie here...You lay a foundation backed by the love and support of most the nation...You also lay in the pile of sh*t in its wake.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 07:25 PM
I don't understand how ab intended effect on his philosophy being brought to the forefront when it begins to come to fruition is not valid...Somehow this will be spun...but trust you me the Reaganator wanted tax collection moved to the local level...It'll be fun to watch his plan crumble like the communist manifesto when put into real life situations...as it will still result in the governmental waste...and on even larger and more sporadic levels than at the federal level...


Just like commies...Crooks are crooks...No matter how much you slice the pie...Decentralization just adds more crooks to the party....I wonder what his true feelings would be if alive...after he spun himself out of the weave and pointed out the issues at hand, very Greenspan-like in method.

No exemption soup for Ronnie here...You lay a foundation backed by the love and support of most the nation...You also lay in the pile of sh*t in its wake.

The philosophy is not what's bad. It's the corrupt politicians at all levels that are bad.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:27 PM
The philosophy is not what's bad. It's the corrupt politicians at all levels that are bad.

Just like socialism.

ryr8828
01-02-2008, 07:33 PM
Just like socialism.

Socialism also takes away incentive, kind of like high taxes and welfare.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:40 PM
Socialism also takes away incentive, kind of like high taxes and welfare.


That so? Then why did we base the foundation of our rocket technology and/or military advancement on German scientists' work?

Furthermore, I'm still baffled why Ronnie is beloved. He, to reiterate, enabled a philosophy where government would be handled locally...so that every locality you entered would need separate governance and, therefore, more governing figures...Was he that naive and ignorant to think there would be LESS crooks with more people IN government??? Sounds kinda bunk to me.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 07:42 PM
That so? Then why did we base the foundation of our rocket technology and/or military advancement on German scientists' work?

Furthermore, I'm still baffled why Ronnie is beloved. He, to reiterate, enabled a philosophy where government would be handled locally...so that every locality you entered would need separate governance and, therefore, more governing figures...Was he that naive and ignorant to think there would be LESS crooks with more people IN government??? Sounds kinda bunk to me.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You dislike growth in government if it's local. How does a bigger federal government solve the problems of government growth?

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:44 PM
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You dislike growth in government if it's local. How does a bigger federal government solve the problems of government growth?

Outside of the social security office, state government is easily the most wasteful...much moreso than federal government. I'll concede SS.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:47 PM
Outside of the social security office, state government is easily the most wasteful...much moreso than federal government. I'll concede SS.

I guess, before the dems crucify me, that I'll qualify this statement and say that military spending is considered vital to me...so I don't consider it wasteful....

KinjaKahn
01-02-2008, 07:47 PM
Outside of the social security office, state government is easily the most wasteful...much moreso than federal government. I'll concede SS.But state governments competing among themselves within the US will be subject to population growth and shrinkage, and their revenue should reflect it. This is good for the USA.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 07:51 PM
Outside of the social security office, state government is easily the most wasteful...much moreso than federal government. I'll concede SS.

I disagree that state governments are more wasteful than the fed.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:58 PM
But state governments competing among themselves within the US will be subject to population growth and shrinkage, and their revenue should reflect it. This is good for the USA.

No...A larger state tax revenue will just create a circular effect of people coming to and from places...and as the cost becomes higher with inflow, then people will leave...leaving abandoned homes and economic destruction in their wake...Think bubble towns. That is happening as we speak...Development runs hogwild in states that are low cost...They become higher cost due to...development..(ie impact fees which are some of the biggest ripoffs known to man that create budget surpluses and overestimating future budgets as well-ie property tax increases due to valuation increases) and when ghost towns are left in the wake due to that higher cost-those estimated budget numbers don't come into fruition, and we have inefficient/ineffective and flat out stopped work...Meanwhile the government, in its oh-so-wise thought process has contracted out the work and is still liable to pay cancellation fees...Pay itself right into bankruptcy.

Florida is a golden boy for the failure of Reaganomics. Government, no matter how small, cannot be entrusted to plan properly for such great inflows and outflows of population. Competition indeed. Why do you think, on a national level, that there is so much outrage over immigration? It's the same crap on a national level. "Dude...Stay out...You're costing me money."

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 07:59 PM
I disagree that state governments are more wasteful than the fed.

Then I would disagree with your (wrong) opinion.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 08:00 PM
Then I would disagree with your (wrong) opinion.

You have the right to be wrong in doing so.

So why do so many people move from California to Nevada? We're talking about 5000 a month.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 08:08 PM
You have the right to be wrong in doing so.

So why do so many people move from California to Nevada? We're talking about 5000 a month.

In 5 years, when 5000 are moving from Nevada to Wyoming? (pick a state), what will you say about the wake? Much less, what will you say about the wake left in California, and their oh-so-much-better run government than the feds?

Vegas
01-02-2008, 08:11 PM
In 5 years, when 5000 are moving from Nevada to Wyoming? (pick a state), what will you say about the wake? Much less, what will you say about the wake left in California, and their oh-so-much-better run government than the feds?

California (and other high tax states) need to clean up their own house. If people in those states keep electing tax and spend politicians, they get what they get.

But I fail to see why downsizing the federal government (assuming that ever happened) would mean that state and local governments would have to grow. The government at all levels needs to shrink.

KinjaKahn
01-02-2008, 08:11 PM
5000 people left Michigan per month in 2007. There are no ghost towns.

Vegas
01-02-2008, 08:12 PM
5000 people left Michigan per month in 2007. There are no ghost towns.

Michigan is a great example of a state that needs to clean up its act. They refuse to lower tax rates.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 08:15 PM
5000 people left Michigan per month in 2007. There are no ghost towns.

Crackhouses don't count.

Jiddy78
01-02-2008, 08:16 PM
Michigan is a great example of a state that needs to clean up its act. They refuse to lower tax rates.

Better run than the federal government?

Vegas
01-03-2008, 12:08 PM
Better run than the federal government?

Yes. There is far more waste in the federal government primarily because the federal government has more money to waste.

Jiddy78
01-03-2008, 12:25 PM
Yes. There is far more waste in the federal government primarily because the federal government has more money to waste.

And if State Government was given that same amount of money when left in charge?

You are using a resulting end to justify a means...but the alternative means provided will still result in the same end....and if yer me, a more wasteful one...

Vegas
01-03-2008, 12:30 PM
And if State Government was given that same amount of money when left in charge?

You are using a resulting end to justify a means...but the alternative means provided will still result in the same end....and if yer me, a more wasteful one...

The desired result is less overall government.

IBC
01-03-2008, 12:44 PM
Reagans awesome legacy really lies in central America.

Jiddy78
01-03-2008, 02:13 PM
The desired result is less overall government.

Impossible with our need for defense. You dream righty. Inviting state taxation will only further it as the need for defense will probably never stop, and therefore, the resulting need for federal government....which will be abused, because it always is.

Decentralization will only add to the pain. Like lumping more sh*t on an already large pile.

Jiddy78
01-03-2008, 02:13 PM
Reagans awesome legacy really lies in central America.

???

IBC
01-03-2008, 02:24 PM
???

The death and destruction there that he encouraged, the death squads trained by our military during that time that still operate today. The fact that "reds" did eventually take over some of those countries, and it didn't fuckin' matter one bit. Hundreds of thousands dead for a broken ideology. Sound familiar?

Jiddy78
01-03-2008, 02:26 PM
The death and destruction there that he encouraged, the death squads trained by our military during that time that still operate today. The fact that "reds" did eventually take over some of those countries, and it didn't fuckin' matter one bit. Hundreds of thousands dead for a broken ideology. Sound familiar?

You want honesty? I was too busy checking out Madonna's hairy armpits in Playboy at that time. That might be a symbol...