What should local governments do about declining revenue?

Tue, 02/03/2009 - 5:06pm
By: The Citizen

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by kyleen44 on Mon, 02/23/2009 - 8:44pm.

I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU DENIED MY ACCESS TO YOUR SIGHT FOR thundereagle2244@yahoo.com please answer! Tom

Submitted by Nitpickers on Tue, 02/17/2009 - 6:26pm.

When the hospital has 1500 employees for a 100 bed hospital, they already have maybe 150 a day who don't show up but are paid anyway!

The emergency room is a bigger operation than the hospital anyway!

I really have never seen anyone around there break into sweat and work like say a UPS driver does!

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 8:13pm.

Goverment should learn to do what we have to do.. Look at your income and debt.. If income exceeds Debt.. then go ahead and buy that Plasma TV or better yet save it.. If debt exceeds income then don't buy new projects.. I do not want to see anyone lose jobs, but I am sure some bacon can be trimmed somewhere...

Submitted by mysteryman on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 8:36pm.

You got it... As i have always said we must protest all tax increases no matter how small, i do not care if it is two or three dollars as some of our fellow bloggers have informed me that "that will not bust Fayette citizens", however if you let them do it once, they will be back for more next year, and so on and so on... There is no end to it, so you darn right ill fight over every dollar, no matter if its a water rate increase or tax increase. Its time for our government to quit spending on unnecessary projects, and focus just on providing the services that are already in effect. PEACE

Submitted by baroombrawl on Mon, 02/09/2009 - 4:48am.

Empires aren't built by not progressing, even at a heavy expense.

That tribe found in South America and one in Africa, who are living pretty much as they did hundreds of years ago, is what happens with no progress.

Credit seems to be the only way to progress. Cash is always spent upon what exists, not on what might be developed!

Humans are selfish for this generation, not the next--especially if it means paying more.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 4:59pm.

and what happened to Rome and why.. The politicians became morally bankrupt.. Taxation become the highest in history.. and the producers stopped producing.. Sound Familiar?

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 9:26pm.

(Rome's) "Taxation become the highest in history"?

I'm serious here, were you home-schooled?
*shaking head*

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Tue, 02/10/2009 - 9:32pm.

I was speaking of ROME.. you know of the "ROMAN EMPIRE".. Did you study History at all.. You probrally went to public school.. so probably not..

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 5:19am.

Li'l Snipey, you must have slept through your Mom's attempt to teach you about ancient Rome.

The Roman Empire fell largely due to relying too much on German mercenaries.

Taxes had little to nothing to do with the fall of Rome: taxes consisted of a 1% sales tax and a 5% inheritance tax, AND citizens of Rome were exempt from paying the tax. Rome had nothing in the way of government services, so taxes were kept low.

The single biggest cost to the Roman Empire was its mercenary army, and they were paid with wealth confiscated via conquest. Google "plunder economy" sometime and you'll see just how breathtakingly ignorant your above comment was.

I look forward to your inevitable fact-free reply.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 8:04am.

Gaius Julius Caesar[1] (pronounced [ˈgaːius ˈjuːlius ˈkaɪsar] in Classical Latin; conventionally pronounced [ˈgajəs ˈdʒuːliəs ˈsiːzɚ] in English), July 13, 100 BC[2] – March 15, 44 BC,[3]) was a Roman military and political leader. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.

A politician of the populares tradition, he formed an unofficial triumvirate with Marcus Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus which dominated Roman politics for several years, opposed in the Roman Senate by optimates like Marcus Porcius Cato and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus. His conquest of Gaul extended the Roman world to the North Sea, and he also conducted the first Roman invasion of Britain in 55 BC. The collapse of the triumvirate, however, led to a stand-off with Pompey and the Senate. Leading his legions across the Rubicon, Caesar began a civil war in 49 BC from which he became the master of the Roman world.

After assuming control of government, he began extensive reforms of Roman society and government. He was proclaimed "dictator in perpetuity" (dictator perpetuo), and heavily centralised the bureaucracy of the Republic. A group of senators, led by Marcus Junius Brutus, assassinated the dictator on the Ides of March (March 15) in 44 BC, hoping to restore the normal running of the Republic. However, the result was another Roman civil war, which ultimately led to the establishment of a permanent autocracy by Caesar's adopted heir, Gaius Octavianus. In 42 BC, two years after his assassination, the Senate officially sanctified Caesar as one of the Roman deities.

Much of Caesar's life is known from his own Commentaries (Commentarii) on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo.

Snif read a few of the reference materials.. you can GOOGLE anything and get a million different results which you love to pick and choose.. I have read the "Commentarii's" and I can bet.. you have not by reading your inane posting above. In Gaius's own words he stated and I am paraphrasing here.. That the elite read: Wealthy must support Rome.. and that Rome will not conquer the known world without it.. Support=taxes.. (First real Socialist) He Confiscated works of Art, Gold and any precious Jewels and Metals to fund his Armies.. Conquest alone did not fund every adventure.. Many Romans also lived off the fat of others.. (Welfare Receipiants) and did not produce..

Snif as long as you trust GOOGLE to educate yourself you will always be an idiot..

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.

sniffles5's picture
Submitted by sniffles5 on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 8:35am.

Let's try and stay on topic here, Li'l Snipey, Mmmkay?

Now then, your first ignorant post lamented the end of the Roman Empire due to "high taxes".

This was simply not true, as I pointed out.

Rather than show class and honor and admit you were wrong, you attempted to change the subject. (I suppose this should have been expected, given your support of the so-called FairTax).

You changed the subject to a basic cut-and-paste regarding Julius Caesar, who predated the collapse of the Roman Empire by 500 years. How is this germane to your original post? It isn't.

You take a single quote "Wealth must support Rome" and infer that this somehow "must" mean ruinous taxation. Your conclusion doesn't support your supporting facts. You claimed to have read the "Commentarii's" (sic) but their meaning obviously escapes your pathetically limited intellect. I suggest reading Toynbee for a basic understanding of Rome. Ask your mother to help with the big words.

In fact, why not stick to commentary, Li'l Snipey, facts just seem to confuse you.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Wed, 02/11/2009 - 8:44am.

Please go to a library and educate yourself.. you can read I am sure..
If you want to look at context.. this was an A-B conversation between Baroom and myself and C you were not in it.. You inserted yourself with your "GOOGLE" goofball references.. There was no single cause of the collapse.. Taxes, morally Bankrupt Politicians et..all caused it..
Snif it is apparent you like to argue for arguments sake.. Please come armed better next time.. if you can not counter the arguments please try better then uh.. "You changed the subject " I was on subject.. you are like a lot of students I used to know.. Most Sophmores.. a Greek and Latin term derived from Sophisticated and Moron meaning a wise fool..
It is better to be silent and thought a fool then to type it and prove it..

dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Mon, 03/02/2009 - 2:51am.

Are you a history teacher? I ask because I share your love of history.

And...while Rome was not built in a day, nor did it fall in a day. The fall of Rome, it could be argued, began centuries before the sack of the city of Rome in 410 by the Goths. The old Empire had long been gone, divided, and transformed into the Holy Empire. This Holy Empire later breaks into the Eastern and Western Empires. The Eastern becomes Byzantium while the Western breaks into something resembling modern Europe.

The point is that, often, civilizations don't really die, they morph into something different.

Case in point: Did Egypt fall to Octavian, becoming absorbed into the Roman empire, after the deaths of Cleopatra and Marc Antony? Hadn't Egypt already fallen to the Greeks under Ptolemy and Alexander the Great? Hadn't Egypt fallen at one point in time to the Nubian Empire? After Rome, did Egypt not succumb to the Muslim Crusaders? Egypt still exists, only in an altered state from what it once was.

The Egypt of Akhethotep was a very different Egypt than that of Cleopatra (a Greek). Just as Constantine's Rome would have been unrecognizable to Julius Caesar.

If we could see ahead three hundred years, would we recognize the America that has succeeded us? Will America fall or will we morph into something unrecognizable to what we now know?

If we are not careful enough to protect our borders or wise enough in our foreign affairs - the native tongue, three hundred years from now, may be Arabic.

S. Lindsey's picture
Submitted by S. Lindsey on Mon, 03/02/2009 - 8:14am.

We have to learn from History or we are destined to repeat it.. Too many dismiss history for being well in the past.. however we can not continue to make the same mistakes over and over and expect different results.. that is the height of lunacy.
For an example.. look at today.. Some of the same mistakes that occured before the "Great Depression" are being made today.. and we just go on expecting a different result.. History for most people begins at their birth.. so if it did not happen after then.. well so what?

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS.. Evil

Submitted by baroombrawl on Mon, 03/02/2009 - 9:19am.

Yeah, Hoover said "do nothing," and it will blow over.

It took Roosevelt then several years to salvage his mess.

People ignore workers and let them do without jobs if they can. No, not people---conservatives.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.