California

The government has shrunken at an exponential rate ever since Reagan got in office.

First of all I apologize if I am attacking you Watermark but what you are saying is so far off the mark I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you or what. It's hard to respond to this because it is so inaccurate.
 
Okay, so you're just trolling. Good on you, carry on.

I mean, Beefy, a politician gets into the governers office, says "Hey, you know, we've gotta roll back that tax cut, wasn't such a good idea, because we can't fund education anymore."

Gets voted out. The next guy in office comes in, cuts the education budget. Kids now have doufus teachers, sit on the floor in school because class can't be taught, but Beefy's fine.
 
First of all I apologize if I am attacking you Watermark but what you are saying is so far off the mark I don't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you or what. It's hard to respond to this because it is so inaccurate.

How could you NOT get what I'm saying?

The government as a part of our economy has shrunken by about half since 1980. And you guys still act like it's the biggest thing in the world.
 
The government has shrunken at an exponential rate ever since Reagan got in office.
Exponentially? If it had done that it wouldn't exist.

The reality is that each Federal drop is more than doubled by the growth of State government in the same time period. We are over governed, and not in any dire need of replacement.
 
I mean, Beefy, a politician gets into the governers office, says "Hey, you know, we've gotta roll back that tax cut, wasn't such a good idea, because we can't fund education anymore."

Gets voted out. The next guy in office comes in, cuts the education budget. Kids now have doufus teachers, sit on the floor in school because class can't be taught, but Beefy's fine.

Alright, if you want to troll be my guest. My apologies for interupting.
 
Exponentially? If it had done that it wouldn't exist.

The reality is that each Federal drop is more than doubled by the growth of State government in the same time period. We are over governed, and not in any dire need of replacement.

There hasn't been a tax raise in Mississippi in about a century.
 
Alright, if you want to troll be my guest. My apologies for interupting.

LOL Yeah, he does this. Next week he'll be talking about how we spend less on Prohibition than we did in the 30's and how that's a great barometer of how the government is shrinking.
 
There hasn't been a tax raise in Mississippi in about a century.
This means nothing. There has been economic growth and revenues increased, as well as federal block grants going to the states.

State government has grown hugely, while Federal remained relatively stagnant after and during Reagan when compared with population growth.

One of the main things that sane people put forward to curb the growth is to not replace the next group of retirees.
 
This means nothing. There has been economic growth and revenues increased, as well as federal block grants going to the states.

State government has grown hugely, while Federal remained relatively stagnant after and during Reagan.

So, if the state governments budget was 10,000 in 1900, that means it should be 10,000 in 2000?

Good logic. :clink:
 
This means nothing. There has been economic growth and revenues increased, as well as federal block grants going to the states.

State government has grown hugely, while Federal remained relatively stagnant after and during Reagan when compared with population growth.

One of the main things that sane people put forward to curb the growth is to not replace the next group of retirees.

http://www.urban.org/publications/310264.html


Yeah, it grew by thirty percent. But state government budgets would have to grow by about 500% to keep up with cutbacks...
 
lol man, I'm just laughing, because I can't understand, how stupid you could be.

Come back tommorrow whenever the drinks have worn off and we can talk this over.
 
So, if the state governments budget was 10,000 in 1900, that means it should be 10,000 in 2000?

Good logic. :clink:
Per capita EMO boy.

State governments have grown at nearly double the rate that they would need to in order to keep it level per capita. And there is no real need that they grow consistently on a per capita basis.
 
Back
Top