Reply With Quote
And States not spending more than they bring in with tax revenue is a bad thing? Why is it Texas's responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Illinois for their irresponsibility?
The GOP mission from now to Nov. 2010 is simple - keep the Dems and Obama from creating jobs and helping American families at all costs...
GuardianFrom now until 2 November, the Republican party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward: the more people who are unemployed on election day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore, anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.
While it may be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans' behaviour. They have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans' actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by the mid-terms.
The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin on 1 July 2010. Since they are generally required by state cons utions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and lay off workers to bring spending and revenue into line.
State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government, this pace is likely to accelerate. The Republican agenda in blocking aid to the states may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment rolls by early November.
The idea is simple for Republicans keep unemployment up and the economy down and then blame it on the Democrats in November.
And States not spending more than they bring in with tax revenue is a bad thing? Why is it Texas's responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Illinois for their irresponsibility?
no .
Any serious observer figured this out by 22 Jan 09.
I saw an estimate that 400K school, municipal, county, state employees to lose their jobs in the next few months.
Even if the states had absolutely no fat in their spending, the drop in tax revenue due to the Banksters' Great Depression would still cause enormous difficulties.
Below the top 5%, America is ed. And the Repugs are doing everything they can to deepen and prolong the edness.
Unlike the Federal government, States have a cons utional mandate to balance their budgets. You either raise taxes, cut expenses, or both.
Pretty simple concept.
you mean cut services
I don't suppose the Dems can order another census?
If thats what it takes, yeah.
(a hem) Supermajority
Maybe, but most services aren't anywhere close to a right.
So which services would you cut right from the begining?
Any serious observer figured this out long before then. Whoever's out of power wants to be back in power and bad news helps get people in power get kicked out of power. Doesn't matter which side it is, both teams play the same game.
This is when America loses.. unfortunately the flame throwers on both sides are successful enough in demonizing the other side so as long as this continues there will never be bipartisiahip..
Personally, I thought that anyone that wanted to be President in 2008 was out of their ing mind. Just too many systemic problems without the political will to fix them. Obama won the election running against Bush. Unfortunately for him that won't work in 2010 or 2012. It just makes him sound like a whiney little .
Do you know how Texas balanced its last budget, CC?
I was going to ask the same thing..
smoke and mirrors.
I would have to look at the whole list of services if it were my choice. It's a hard decision since dependence of such services causes problems to remove them. I wouldn't eliminate everything I would want gone, but cause any large change would have a large impact. The bulk of services would have to be reduced over time since jobs are attached to them. If it were my choice though, over the next few years, a very large share of social services you be gone. Remaining services would be given what they need financially, but under sets of rules that mandate real attempts are made to get out of the need of government services.
No. It was very real as far as Texas is concerned.
I know they used stimulus money last year because it was available. Thats no secret. At the same time we know we are looking at another 18 Billion in cuts and/or a combination of cuts and tax/fee increases. Thats life.
If you are making and spending $100,000 a year and your income drops to $50,000 you don't keep spending $100,000.
In fact, the Democratic party in Texas is playing the role of the Republicans in the US Congress and trying to make political capital against Perry and the state Republicans out of the deficits.
that's what the lib s don't think to understand with taxes either. When you tax people more, they have less to spend into the economy.
I'd need more details if you are trying get support from someone like me. There are many social services that are needed so if you are going to do away with free and reduced school lunches that would be a negative. If you are going to do away with social services primarily dealing with children and the elderly that would be another negative. from what I see most services are geared towards the young and elderly so you better be ready to defend your cuts to these demographics. "The debt is out of control.." isn't going to cut it. If you were to proceed to try and cut these services then you would surely be a one term'er.. for example I would like to see you sell the ending of food stamps after 6 months because, I assume, in your mind it should be more than enough time to get a job. In reality you're world doesn't necessarily translate into what is actually going on..
Basic services like fire, police, schools, I don't consider social services. There is no master plan. change would require changes based on responses of other changes. You cannot just make a plan and do it.
How about this. I would start by requiring drug testing of those receiving social services and not working. A simple change that will make people want to work if they have to support their own habits rather than tax payers.
In the long run, my intent of changes would be to make it more practical for a person to work rather than not work. we neen more tax payers and less tax users.
So why is it Illinois' responsibility (via Federal government deficit spending) to bail out Texas for their irresponsibility?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
