OT Wisconsin public workers

Page 5 of 5  
wrote:

It would have to be pretty old (25 years old) for the feds and some states wouldn't let you title it anyway until it passed their emission and safety standards
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/24/2011 7:55 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Standards for the model year in question, I presume.
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The thing a lot of people do not understand is the amount of the DoD budget that is simply a jobs program. I just saw a show about the C-17. (big military cargo jet). Congress is still pushing to build more of them in spite of the fact that the Pentagon says they have more than they need now. It becomes clear why when you find out the plane has 600 vendors scattered across 47 states. That gets you a lot of votes on an appropriation bill in the house.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It is 20% but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
I agree we should bring the troops home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heck I'd settle for one of CURRENT parties not run by goofballs. One of these days I may expound on my theory that all of this flows from the ending of patronage at the local level.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Lawrence J. Peter (the man who discovered "The Peter Principle") once said: "I have been studying governments, man and boy, for over forty years. I have yet to discover whether we are being led by well-meaning fools or by really intelligent people who are just jerking our chain."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

was
I've been astounded how people who lived through that time believe it was Reagan's tax cutting mania that brought the US billions in revenue.
It was the PC revolution that made American HW and SW the most sought after product on the planet during that decade. Anyone who knew even a little about PC's could get a job selling, installing, servicing or programming them. The demand for PC's, SW, add-on hardware and programming was so great it could be considered the second US industrial revolution and it had very little to do with parasitical pols from either party, always willing to claim credit for anything good that happened and point the finger elsewhere when anything bad happened.
It was good old Yankee ingenuity, not voodoo "less equals more" economics that caused the spectacular growth we saw in the 80's and 90's. Twisting history to make it seem like tax cuts provided all that new revenue has helped lead us to the mess we are in. Tax revenue shot up during those very, very good years, and every cent of it was spent on projects that would demand money even when the PC-revolution inspired income flagged.
Worse, still, all over the government there was a "spend it or lose it" mentality that further encouraged the squandering of tax revenues. Since giving away money in earmarks and pork barrel projects gets votes and raising taxes does not, the idiocy continued well into the 21st century and will likely continue unabated. Both sides got us into the mess and it will take the cooperating of both sides to get us out. Instead, we're backbiting, bickering and doing almost everything wrong we could do to extract ourselves from this mess.
By the time 2012 rolls around, it will be the Republicans whose radical changes will be rejected. People didn't vote for Republicans in the midterms because they LIKE change. They voted *against* the changes Obama stood for. In 2012 they'll vote against the Republicans, much like they did after the notorious failure of the "Contract with America." As my J-prof said so well "the pendulum swings."
Lean times have some value - they make us evaluate whether things like giving movie companies huge tax breaks is really worth it in the long run. A lot of states are coming to the conclusion that tax breaks don't do what their pushers claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/06/AR2011030601547.html
"An Associated Press survey found that from 2006 to 2008, states shelled out $1.8 billion in tax breaks and other advantages to the entertainment industry. The recession has officials in several states wondering if the incentives are worth the lost revenue."
Whose pocket does that nearly $2B tax shortfall come out of? Jane and John Q. Citizen. The highly skilled jobs almost always go to SAG card holders and those folks are mostly found in Hollywood, as are the companies who make the films. Pols, like starlets, are blinded to the real facts because they think "we going to be in the MOVIES!"
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same with Clinton's surpluses. I have long called those Gates-Greenspan surpluses. Gates as a surrogate for the great increases in productivity (actually the basis for your discussion above) brought about by computers and Greenspan for keeping rates so low for so long. There was one great shining moment when the economy was so breathtakingly overheated that the money was coming in faster than even the combined work of BOTH parties could shove it out the door. RR's revenue increases were largely brought about because the stagflation of the 70s (guns AND butter policies during VN... sound familiar??) was finally broken. It is also at least as short sighted to suggest that NONE of the advantages came from the tax cuts. Intesting little factoid. The Joint Committee on Taxation scoring (Summary of HR 4242; The Economic Recovery Act of 1981. Table 1 estimated revenue effects of HR 4242) showed revenue effects of -$1,565 million (that is they way the put it and I don't want to run the risk of screwing things up by changing it) in 81 cumulating in a negative $267,627 million in '86. Yet if you look at what actually happened (Stat Abstract of the US) you find that the first year's plunge was only about 75% of what thought and there were positive increases each of the rest of the years. Even when you subtract the negative effects from what happened, you find that the real world increases were more than the models suggested the losses would be. So reality worked differently from the models. Not a real big surprise.

AH but that wasn't ever going to happen. Both the CBO and OMB models showed that there would be deficits as far as the eye could see in the first year of the surplus and surpluses as far as the eye could see after the surpluses had peaked (in 1999).

It is not whether you win or lose but where you place the blame.

I think Geo Wills was saying something similar. Both sides tend to take their victories as mandates and then overplay their hand forgetting that it wasn't (in this case) the Tea partiers that got them elected but the moderate swing voters who can very easily swing back again.


Easy target. Nobody wants to do the math, they just want to pontificate. For instance, I would submit that this is probably a good thing. Movies use a lot of local people and spend a lot of money that goes to sales taxes, income taxes, etc., that are only partly offset. Movies also come and go with relatively little impact on infrastructures (you don't have to build schools or roads to support them). So movies are essentially a marginal cost.

The article did not indicate that there WAS an actual shortfall, as far as I could tell. They took out the money, but never got around to adding in supplies bought locally, locals hired, food and supplies bought, etc. And, as I mentioned, it is all essentially marginal income. DOn't know because I don't know if anyone actually got around to looking.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like to credit the surpluses of Clinton's 2nd term to "Gridlock" against spending, and against reductions of taxation to support the spending that survived the Gridlock.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Yet Clinton, too, had his own tax cuts.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.