Want to try responding again? This time making sense. I'm assuming you are driving that Toyota in the U.S., so my point still stands.
And like most echoes, your words are a distorted, skewed and ultimately mindless repetition of the original sentiments from men far wiser than you.
Good idea on how people can save money... But the road damage probably has more to do with the big trucks (especially the overweight ones). Companies use trucks to ship goods all over the country. These same companies (like Wal-Mart) get all kinds of tax breaks so the taxpayers are stuck with the bill for the roads these companies F up. Speaking of JFK... There are many theories on why he was killed but some point to this speech and these are the words from him you should be paying attention to... https://youtu.be/y8HTr-F-FVM.
You're still dodging my question, but you have piqued my curiosity on this "academic paper". Please share the paper which is done specifically for the state of Texas. So we agree that there is room for productivity and efficiency improvements in state government. Thanks for confirming my point.
You must not be familiar with the history of Japan so I'll summarize: in the 1970's the energy crisis hit Japan particularly hard so they began looking for ways to make everything more efficient - including cars. They then began exporting their cars all over the world. tl;dr energy crisis.
As far as highways go, yes trucks are particularly damaging. As far as city roads go, buses probably possess the most potential for damage. I'm out.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aEdXrfIMdiU?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Sure, I'm the one "dodging." You have the search function, you can find it. Please, provide some evidence for your claim that tax cuts and economic growth are linked in some significant way or just admit that, as usual, you were talking out of your a$$. You don't seem to have a point, nor evidence which would support the one you tried to make earlier. Thanks for confirming the fact that you believe bullsh!t.
Yes, he "hoped" to spur the economy. Surely, if it worked, there would be some evidence to that effect. I'll save you the time, there isn't any, you believe a bullsh!t claim made by greedy people who care more about a quick buck than the future of our country.
Unfortunately, public education is probably what gets hit hardest. Republican legislators can always send their kids to private schools, but they are actually going to need city water, local roads (I'm sure they're fine with tollways for the main arteries), and the like. And their O&G buddies are really going to need all the West Texas infrastructure they can get to frack that place to oblivion. But, if the whole public education system fell into a rip in the space-time continuum, they wouldn't even blink. Maybe then they can get some traction on that school voucher thing. (I actually like the school voucher idea, but don't trust the Republicans to implement it in a fair way.)
Some of them still care but that number is shrinking. Rural districts dont have private school options. And historically rural districts elected Republican legislators that were highly committed to public education. Those districts simply dont have an alternative to public education. But the last four years have seen a wave of retirements and primary losses that have resulted in new tea party/fringe Republicans representing these districts and now they've started to vote against public education funding. It used to be that public education for the most part was better protected than other areas of funding. But it all went downhill in 2010 when Texas's idiot comptroller incorrectly forecasted a 10 billion dollar deficit (note to Texans: elect comptrollers who can do math. Texas hasnt had a decent comptroller since Carol Keeton Strayhorn). In response to this fake deficit, legislators implemented brutal cuts to public education that have never been fully restored (let alone increased since we've had significant population growth since 2010).
I'm certain there was nothing 'incorrect' about the deficit, and even knew it at the time. They seized on a national trend and faked a deficit to force unpalatable cuts onto the citizenry. They could have done a lot of different things to fund the state and public education, but acted out of an ideological belief about how much of other people's education should be subsidized with 'their' money. My kids attend a well-regarded public elementary school. We have an active PTO with a lot of well-educated, stay-at-home moms who volunteer at the school and raise money to complement the school's budget. When budget cuts hurt the school, the PTO is there to pick up the slack. If the playground's fallen apart but the school can't pay for a new one, that's okay because the PTO has a fundraiser to pay for it. They had opex cuts that forced them to let go of a longtime admin assistant. No problem, they sent out an email asking parents to volunteer to come in and do some basic administrative work. Under the same cost regime, a school in a poor neighborhood can't compensate as well. The PTO can't raise $10k+ for new playground equipment. The moms can't come volunteer, they're working. It causes me a lot of ethical conflict because on the one hand I don't want to contribute to the inequity by subsidizing my own school and letting the District get away with not covering their responsibilities. On the other hand, I can't fix it by myself so how can I penalize my own children by not playing along? I'm sure many of those legislators have their kids in schools like mine -- public schools with additional private funding -- so they don't feel the pinch when the cuts come, they just pay to make up the difference for their own kids without subsidizing anyone else. It works great so long as you have the money to afford it.
If they lower sales tax, wouldn't they just raise our property taxes even higher? I rather have lower property taxes over sales tax.
Agreed it was partisan but Susan Combs screwed up. She's should shoulder a lot of the blame. Her bull**** numbers were the impetus for education cuts in 2011. She incorrectly forecasted a massive deficit, period. And the legislature ran with that number and blew up the education budget with massive cuts. Remember Texas is a balanced budget state so her numbers in effect determine the entire budget for the biennium. Then she comes back the next year and decides that we have a surplus that is almost as large as the deficit she previously predicted. That's crappy accounting combined with her own partisan attempts to force cuts by screwing up the budget figures. http://www.texasmonthly.com/lists/worst-comptroller-susan-combs
Before you have an orgasm talking about Jack Kennedy's proposed tax cuts, put into effect after his death by an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, with an equally large majority of Republicans voting against it, you might consider what the tax rates were at the time, and what they were lowered to, and after reading this post, I'd like you to explain why the very, very low tax rates of today make sense in the context of the rates then. Keep in mind that when he proposed the tax cuts, unemployment was 4%. Inflation was extremely low. In 1960, it was 1%. There are those who argue that his tax cuts led to much higher inflation and an unstable economy. The effect on unemployment, already considered as "full employment" at 4%, was minor. Somewhere around a 1/2% reduction. Check the link below. Spoiler http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...4ba654-82bf-11e2-a350-49866afab584_story.html Fifty years ago last week, on Feb. 26, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the sweeping tax cuts that had been championed by his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. The law brought the top marginal income-tax rate down to 70% from 91% and the bottom marginal rate down to 14% from 20%. The 22 rates in between also were cut. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304360704579415483458252384
