Whateverusaydear wrote on October 29, 2009 07:09 PM: And if the money spent on the UNNECESSARY war in Iraq over the years is factored in since it started, did the money spent (and continue to spend) have any influence on our economy? Or was all that money spent on an unnecessary war just forgotten or just not considered important? How many billions have been spent on this unnecessary war in Iraq?

I'm not interested in this repub/dems blame game that only seems to perpetuate the division of the masses and keep the same politicians in power; all the parties (and the voters who enabled them) can share the blame.

Why MUST we continue to build smaller public schools? It certainly doesn't seem to have had any beneficial effect on Nevada public education. We are ranked pretty low, right? I remember schools back east: would it not be cheaper to build bigger schools instead of a slew of small schools? Are the children back east less educated than Nevada children because they went to the larger red brick buildings?

Nevada's issues are not the same issues in other parts of the country. Were a good portion of our state's revenues in part based in recent years past on our overpriced housing values, and people borrowing on those outrageous values to finance a standard of living they couldn't afford?

Anna J Cat wrote on October 29, 2009 06:06 PM: Even though I am a cat and spend most of the day under the bed and hiding from my brothers, I am also affected by the economy in Las Vegas.

My mom, who loves to straighten things, is struggling with bills. Therefore, she is unable to buy me a hat.

And being a cat,
I would like a hat.
That's why they call me
Anna J Cat

GH wrote on October 29, 2009 05:41 PM: After reading my 4:46 post it sounds like I'm giving Reagan a free ride.

What I meant to say was despite the increase in tax revenues Reagans budget proposals and the even larger House spending bills spent all of the increase and more.

Both of them were guilty of overspending.

GH wrote on October 29, 2009 05:01 PM: President Reagans tax cuts are a great example to understanding how taxes can directly affect the economy.

The Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, the Reagan tax cuts, provided a 25 percent across-the-board cut in personal marginal tax rates.

How did this cut affect us?

The top 1% of earners went from paying 17.6% of all personal income taxes to paying 27.5%.

The top 10% of earners went from paying 48% of all personal income taxes to paying 57.2%.

The bottom 50% of earners went from paying 7.5% to 5.7%.

The 50th - 95th (middle class) percentile went from paying 57.5% of all personal income taxes to 48.7%.

The numbers don't lie, under Reagans 25% across the board tax cut individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

The bottom line is the more money people have the more economic growth the country experiences and as a result the government makes more in tax revenue.

Don't believe me, believe President Clintons Council of Economic Advisers.

The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: "It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth."

joan wrote on October 29, 2009 04:51 PM: I am not spending at all. As a laid off teacher without a place to even live, it is surprising that UNLV Foundation calls me daily to ask for money. If your school career services can't help you find a job, they surely should not be asking you for money when you are living on the street. Nevadans, it is time to leave this place & start fresh where the economy is better.

OBAMA DEPRESSION wrote on October 29, 2009 04:47 PM: Well, welcome to the Obama Depression. The Democrats have f...d it up so bad that there is NO RECOVERY... anywhere.
Tax increases have killed us, and these a-holes want more of our hard-earned wages. I say pis on 'em. Now we have that idiot Pelosi and the House Democrats trying to screw us even more with this ridiculous so-called health care "Reform"... it's a joke and it's going to kill you first.

GH wrote on October 29, 2009 04:46 PM: ex-vegan, you missed the entire point of my comment.

REAGAN cut taxes and INCREASED government income, the democrat controlled HOUSE which controls the spending bills SPENT the entire increase and added deficits on top of it.

ex-vegan wrote on October 29, 2009 04:34 PM: @GH You failed to mention that under President Reagen, the U.S. had the largest deficit in history at the time. Remember the clock that calculated the deficit? How quickly we forget...

Mitch Cumstein wrote on October 29, 2009 04:04 PM: Tomorrow the RJ will run a story about how bright and shiny the state's economic prospects are and how the worst is over. A couple of weeks ago, the paper ran stories on consecutive days about the state of the local real estate market: one rosey, the other dismal. The kicker is that BOTH stories cited the same sources for completely opposition propositions. The real news is what we see, not what we read or hear. And what I see is dismal. The safest play? Move to one of the recovering cities.

Michael McAuliffe wrote on October 29, 2009 03:43 PM: Time to add a new tax!

Taxing and regulating marijuana at $50/ounce x 13,000 lbs monthly consumed in the state = $125,000,000 annually. It would also save $92,000,000 in enforcement, judicial and incarceration costs here in Nevada. That $217 million represented 40% of the state budget deficit as projected in April.

Before you condemn this proposal, please understand that these figures are based upon current use estimates, while cannabis is still prohibited. That grass is is being smoked despite the best efforts of the state.

Adding another sin tax for pot would help defund the Mexican drug cartels, bolster our own state revenues, and allow us to place controls on its sales to better protect the kids.

It's either that, or spend billions to erect a wall on our border with California when they legalize next year.

Read All Comments