Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? What 3rd world country has enacted the policies espoused by Reagan--limited government, decemtralization of power, decreased national spending, and economic liberty for the individual? None. Reagan presided over a slight (.1%) decline in domestic federal spending. Not much of a radical conservative record, but he was the only one of the past 9 presidents (going back to LBJ) not to have increased federal domestic spending.
That perception of the US "regressing" that you have has come amid a wave of almost non-stop liberalism. Maybe you need to adjust your theory according to the data.
What little spending discipline we have seen came only after 2010 when R's took over the US House. And Pres. Obama was dragged kicking and screaming to said discipline. Read Woodward's The Price of Politics The admin argued for more spending at every turn, and also argued for more 'revenue' (tax increases) to limit deficit damage.
Glenn Kessler? Sounds like he's not that well respected as "fact checker."
Ehm - that is in fact pretty much what happened. Once the Very Rich realized they could pretty much buy the government they wanted and declare their own holdings private little fiefdoms - tax-exempt fiefdoms, of course - it fell on the middle class to carry the burden of keeping the Empire going. And as the middle class dwindled, the Empire crumbled. Didn't help that the military moved from being a force of citizens (with civic pride) to a bunch of hired professionals who fought for the highest bidder.
There was a Roman Senator named Quintus Aurelius Symmachus who lived during the later years of the Roman Empire. He lived between 345 to 402 AD and was reputedly among the richest Romans of his era. He is not well-known but his limited fame rests in the letters he wrote during that time thus giving us some insight in to what is like in the years before the fall of Rome.
What is interesting in some of his letters as well as other records from wealthy Romans was the time they spent discussing taxes. Roman society like today's society gave sgnificant tax breaks to its wealthy citizens and also, according to some records, reimbursed these wealthy Romans if their property was destroyed by the barbarians.
Now, as in todays USA, the greatest portion of the budget was for military expenditures. As the Empire came under increasing stress, taxes needed to be raised to support the armed forces. Symmachus as well as some other wealthy Romans, mused whether it was worthwhile to pay the taxes and whether it would be more profitable for them to support the barbarians. He reasoned as well as others rich Romans that barbarians may give them a better tax deal.
The sad fact is that there were some, if not many wealthy, Romans who did support the invaders surreptiously or did all in their power to avoid paying their taxes.
I often wondered if some descendent of theirs who saw their riches gone or who lost everything would have said to their forebears. They may have screamed: "Why didn't you just pay the damn Roman taxes! Now we have nothing!"
I am not implying that Rome fell because of tax policy, far from it, but it is an interesting factoid and one worth pondering.
The lesson is that the grass is always greener on the other side. Just like these corporations today that have their offices overseas to avoid paying US taxes, should the US ever have a fiscal collapse, they may well rue the day they did that all for their short term profit at the expense of their long term prosperity.
Last edited by TreeBeard; 09-21-2014 at 03:37 PM..
Then again, at least after Claudius, they offered Roman citizenship as well. Not seeing the equivalent of that happening...
Well, not all of the conquered citizens, lets be honest. Many they simply enslaved.
One of the reasons our founding fathers didn't want to be involved in empire building and foreign occupation was because of lessons learned from Rome and Britain.
Where do you specifically disagree with his analysis on spending growth? In any case there were other sources that debunked the Nutting numbers. '
It flies in the face of all reason to argue that Pres. Obama has been a fiscal conservative. Ken Hamblin used to say that a liberal will hold you under water, and insist that those bubbles you see escaping from your lips are headed towards the ocean floor.
... Just like these corporations today that have their offices overseas to avoid paying US taxes, should the US ever have a fiscal collapse, they may well rue the day they did that all for their short term profit at the expense of their long term prosperity.
Sadly, too many people, businesses, and corporations are focused only on their immediate profits and this year's and next year's 'bottom line' ... without regard for the big picture and the fiscal well being of the next decade or the next generation. It's about greed.
Whaaa!.. That's a matter of opinion now! You might be great currently (China will overtake, though I rather hate that idea as they are still communists!), but never greater than Great Britain!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
