English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

The states in which this holds true are:


< >

2007-10-26 20:03:48 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

I'm even confused by this one - Blag... Blogoy... Blachooavich just about shut the entire state down stamping his feet and holding his breath waiting for a budget. I think that the tax base and economic agility hav more to do with successful fiscal policy than either party, which basically dampens everything into a depressing mass of stew.

2007-10-23 07:37:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Doesn' make a distinction whoever is in workplace, the accepted public will basically get the forged set of books... the government keeps 2 instruments of books, the accepted public does not get the actual tale from the government.. From a USAToday article: what's the actual federal deficit? "the federal government keeps 2 instruments of books. The set the government promotes to the accepted public has a greater healthy final analysis: a $318 billion deficit in 2005. The set the government does not communicate approximately is the audited financial plan produced via the government's accountants following usual accounting rules. It comments a greater ominous financial image: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social protection and Medicare have been coated — because of the fact the board that instruments accounting rules is thinking — the federal deficit could have been $3.5 trillion. Congress has written its very own accounting rules — which could be unlawful for a corporation to apply because of the fact they forget approximately approximately important costs such because of the fact the becoming rate of retirement reward for civil servants and armed forces workers. final 300 and sixty 5 days, the audited fact produced via the accountants mentioned the government ran a deficit equivalent to $6,seven-hundred for each American enjoyed ones. The form given to the accepted public positioned the deficit at $2,800 in line with enjoyed ones." greater interior the acticle... "The Clinton administration pronounced a surplus of $559 billion in its very final 4 funds years. The audited numbers confirmed a deficit of $484 billion. "

2016-10-04 10:37:30 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

first, the democratic view is that wealth is to be dispursed among the people, vs having it pool up in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and corporations.

with people earning higher wages, they can pay more taxes, which allows the state to re-invest in education. Typically, the return to a community is $6.00 for ever $1.00 invested in education.

Unregulated democracy does not produce wealth for people, it provides monopoly power for a few. Democrats believe that the economy must be regulated to protect the free markets.

Also, there are somethings the state or government can do better than private industry because of economy of scales. One example would be negotiating drug costs with pharmaceutical companies. If they had to negotiate with the state of Delaware say, then they would be in a position to get very excellent pricing.

2007-10-23 05:43:40 · answer #4 · answered by Fancy That 6 · 2 1

That all depends on what data you use to define success. Many "dem" states have state income taxes so they have a larger pool of money....some "repub" states do too.

Neither party is in the business of letting you live your life though, and thats more important to me than how much of my check they want.

2007-10-23 05:42:11 · answer #5 · answered by Phil M 7 · 1 3

What? Hahaha

Surely you aren't looking at unemployment or homeownership or even Purchasing Parity Power of Median Incomes.

What are you looking at, gross dollars with no consideration for tax rates, take home wages, or cost of living?


The median family income in Oklahoma has a higher purchasing power than the median family income in California...States with higher minimum wages have less employees and less homeowners.

Try again!

2007-10-23 05:46:05 · answer #6 · answered by freedom first 5 · 1 2

the Dem's left the country with a balanced budget , that is until the neo/con's took over, now it's spend spend spend, like there's no tomorrow,

2007-10-23 05:44:41 · answer #7 · answered by akadave 3 · 2 0

There not Clinton's term ended all Republican House and Senate an they controlled spending, but we had a deficit from gez back when Reagan was in Office Democrat house and senate with a veto majority that spent us into debt, then the war came, which never would have happened if Clinton would have taken Bin Laden.

And Carter giving away the panama canal come man get your blinders off.

2007-10-23 05:42:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 6

Do you really think that Democratic fiscal policies in the state of New York and New Jersey are more succesfull? Give me a break.

2007-10-23 05:42:24 · answer #9 · answered by girlygurl23 2 · 3 6

yes you can see it in the fact that since the democrats declared war on poverty, and after fifty years of entitlement programs ---- there are no more poor people.

hurrah for democrats!

2007-10-23 06:00:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers