930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Bags on February 02, 2004, 06:45:00 pm
-
Information to Remember
From the Democratic response to the State of the Union Address. These are the numbers that killed me, and they're just the tip of the iceberg. The costs caused by budget cuts need to be quantified. I believed then and believe now that the $150 tax rebate I got back in 2000 will cost me over $7000 in essential services and benefits from the states, localities, social security, etc.
Fun facts
"The massive tax cuts that were supposed to spark an economic expansion have instead led to an economic exodus. To make up for the three million private-sector jobs that have been lost on President Bush's watch, the economy would have to create 226,000 jobs a month through the end of his term. Last month, the economy created only 1,000 new jobs."
"At the same time, the President's tax cuts have put states in such a bind that they're being forced to raise the cost of college. Since President Bush took office, the average tuition at a four-year public college has increased by nearly $600."
"Today, 43.6 million Americans -- almost all of them from working families -- have no health insurance. That's over 3.8 million more than when President Bush took office. Those Americans lucky enough to have health insurance have seen their premiums go up each of the last three years. The increase in premiums that middle- income families have seen over the past three years is larger than the four-year tax cut they've been promised. This is an invisible tax increase on middle class families."
-
why dont you just say bush fucked us all in the eye and came in our nose.
and then fired and robbed us.
-
Bush this, Bush that, Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :roll:
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I believed then and believe now that the $150 tax rebate I got back in 2000 will cost me over $7000 in essential services and benefits from the states, localities, social security, etc.
You could have refused the refund, or sent it back to the treasury.
-
I donated it to Hands on DC. It's still gonna cost me $7000. Refusing it just would have cost me $7150. At least there will be some scholarship money out there...
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I donated it to Hands on DC. It's still gonna cost me $7000. Refusing it just would have cost me $7150. At least there will be some scholarship money out there...
Do you have a breakdown on that $7K? Or should I just look for it on the Michael Moore website?
-
Of course I can't break it down, and I admitted that I pulled that figure out of the air (or out of my ass, whichever image you prefer), but I'll bet it's pretty close, if not too small.
The costs will come in increased local, county and state taxes for almost every service that gets some federal funding which is being cut (yes, even police and emergency services, which seems so antithetical to the terrorist threat, but money's being diverted to pay for the tax cuts and surveillance -- oh yeah, and all that good intelligence). Education costs through tuition and subsidies; infrastructure costs through fees or simply less development; the cost of borrowing from social security to try to pay down a $600 billion deficiting that's growing virtually exponentially. Health costs go up because fewer citizens have insurance coverage so we all have to subsidize the system. The list goes on and on. This money is not free, and while Bush is not a Tax and Spend Liberal, he's a No Tax and Spend Republican, which is a much bigger lie. If you're a conservative, I don't know how you can stomach what he's doing. And it's not all the cost of the war. Another lie -- just the costs, I'm not even getting into the war itself. 'Cuz we were talkin' about money.
Haven't read any Michael Moore. Should I pick it up?
-
Bags' typically overly animated use of the English language leads me to one of my typically overly sophmoric uses of the English language....
I'll choose the air. With the air, they'll be a lot less space and shit to pull things from.
harhar
Originally posted by Bags:
Of course I can't break it down, and I admitted that I pulled that figure out of the air (or out of my ass, whichever image you prefer), but I'll bet it's pretty close, if not too small.
-
With my $150 I bought a couple of shirts for work and took my wife out to dinner. I have a job and health insurance so I don't give a crap about anyone else....OH MY GOD! I am an American.
-
The more I hear about the proposed budget the more sick I feel. Fact learned today: As part of Bush's proposed plan, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be opened to oil drilling. Sigh. They just will not let that go.
-
Well Kurosawa, you know there is enough oil up there to supply California for three entire weeks! This could be a real boon to the American economy...
[Actually, there is a lot of natural gas, but there's a lot of natural gas all through western Canada, and that involves an entirely separate pipeline.]
-
I don't feel like I'm getting $7000 less in goverment services. Doesn't seem like anything has really changed in my life.
-
Check this (http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html) out, it's great, and sorry if this link's been posted somewhere here in the past.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Well Kurosawa, you know there is enough oil up there to supply California for three entire weeks! This could be a real boon to the American economy...
[Actually, there is a lot of natural gas, but there's a lot of natural gas all through western Canada, and that involves an entirely separate pipeline.]
oh come on bags, you know that's not true. there's already drilling near the anwr, and the legislation initially authorizing anwr said that it could be opened for drilling. it's not like it's taking over the entire area. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
btw, we just finished a 40 page report on lng. . .i now know way more than i ever wanted to know about lng. alaska is trying to figure out a way to make money on lng, which involves building another long pipeline from prudhoe down to valdez. . .hopefully exxon won't be in charge of shipping the lng down to california. :)
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Check this (http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html) out, it's great, and sorry if this link's been posted somewhere here in the past.
Very nice, but the US stopped being a democracy the day they introduced the electoral college.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
:) [/b]
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
:) [/b]
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted? [/b]
Probably not. We are, after all, at the top of the food chain. :p
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted?
The caribou heart the pipeline. They snuggle up against it to keep warm on those chilly arctic nights.
-
clearly these are all things that are mike moore or janet jackson's boob's fault. or not enough people getting married to the opposite sex. but seriously, i don't see how economic conservatives aren't freaking out. some members of congress are starting to say stuff in the papers, i guess...
-
Stop driving big gas guzzling SUV's a mile to your local art movie theater instead of walking or taking metro, and maybe they won't need to drill there.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted?
i do not believe they have the ability to answer questions such as that. . .despite what pet pyschics might say. . .i wonder if we could send john edward up there and he could communicate with the moose dead father and find out from him though.
course, god put man above the beasts on the land, sea and air. . .again, i do not think that the small area of land involved in this project is gonna cause the displacement of that many moose.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
clearly these are all things that are mike moore or janet jackson's boob's fault. or not enough people getting married to the opposite sex. but seriously, i don't see how economic conservatives aren't freaking out. some members of congress are starting to say stuff in the papers, i guess...
Because economic conservatives are more afraid of democrats and their class-warfare, wealth-confiscation, scare-mongering than they are of Bush.
-
But the point, to me, Bede, is that the area and possible reserves are relatively small and will not assuage our dependence on foreign oil sources to any worthwhile degree. Not a 'fall on my sword' issue with the Bushies. There's so much more they're f*cking up in much bigger ways. ;)
-
I think it is HYSTERICAL that you think it's the Dems who engage in class warfare.
Well, now that I think about it, Reps don't even acknowledge through their policies or actions that there are any classes below 'wealthy.' So if there is any class warfare, it has to be the Dems as they acknowledge that there are different classes.
-
This same agruement has been going on between the Democrats and the Republicans for decades now. I'm not saying who's better or worse, but I do know that this old saying is true....figures lie and liars figure.
The rise in the price of education is universal. Tony Blair just went through a nail biting time over here in Parliment to raise the price of top up fees for university students. I'm not sure but I thought it was about £2000 per year. I'm sure that Markie, Lulu and Mankie know more about that than me.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
:) [/b]
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted? [/b]
I did....bangers and mash!
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
This same agruement has been going on between the Democrats and the Republicans for decades now. I'm not saying who's better or worse, but I do know that this old saying is true....figures lie and liars figure.
The rise in the price of education is universal. Tony Blair just went through a nail biting time over here in Parliment to raise the price of top up fees for university students. I'm not sure but I thought it was about £2000 per year. I'm sure that Markie, Lulu and Mankie know more about that than me.
Now what the hell would I know about University?
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I think it is HYSTERICAL that you think it's the Dems who engage in class warfare.
Well, now that I think about it, Reps don't even acknowledge through their policies or actions that there are any classes below 'wealthy.' So if there is any class warfare, it has to be the Dems as they acknowledge that there are different classes.
Oh please. Have you ever bothered to listen to Daschle? He's a bigger class warrior than Bush or Dean.
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
:) [/b]
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted? [/b]
I did....bangers and mash! [/b]
Because someone ate all the pies.
And for those on the Wirral it's cumberland sausage and scalloped potatoes.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
This same agruement has been going on between the Democrats and the Republicans for decades now. I'm not saying who's better or worse, but I do know that this old saying is true....figures lie and liars figure.
The rise in the price of education is universal. Tony Blair just went through a nail biting time over here in Parliment to raise the price of top up fees for university students. I'm not sure but I thought it was about £2000 per year. I'm sure that Markie, Lulu and Mankie know more about that than me.
Now what the hell would I know about University? [/b]
Not a damned thing, but I do know that you keep abreast of the events over in this part of the world.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Of course I can't break it down, and I admitted that I pulled that figure out of the air (or out of my ass, whichever image you prefer), but I'll bet it's pretty close, if not too small.
And, if you are going to make up a number, why not $10,000 or $100,000? It's rounder.
-
I'm enoying reading the doodles have their little class war all their own.....something they deny exists.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
. . .anyway, the eskimos want it and the alaskans want it, why shouldn't it be allowed? how often have you visited anwr?
:) [/b]
Did anyone ask the wildlife what they wanted? [/b]
I did....bangers and mash! [/b]
Because someone ate all the pies.
And for those on the Wirral it's cumberland sausage and scalloped potatoes. [/b]
Oh, I thought we were talking Boston Creme (or is that cream?). Where would I be without you Mankie?
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Where would I be without you Mankie? [/b]
You don't really want me to answer that do you?
;)
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
I don't feel like I'm getting $7000 less in goverment services. Doesn't seem like anything has really changed in my life.
For once i agree.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
I'm enoying reading the doodles have their little class war all their own.....something they deny exists.
How can we deny it exists? The multi-millionaire personal injury lawyer and the multi-millionaire spouse of an heiress tell us about the class wars everyday.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Where would I be without you Mankie? [/b]
You don't really want me to answer that do you?
;) [/b]
Not really! Let's talk about Jordon and her plastic surgeon. Pretty good, huh?
-
Originally posted by Bags:
But the point, to me, Bede, is that the area and possible reserves are relatively small and will not assuage our dependence on foreign oil sources to any worthwhile degree. Not a 'fall on my sword' issue with the Bushies. There's so much more they're f*cking up in much bigger ways. ;)
that's a fair point. . .however, other than conservation and cafe standards (which, i might add, the unions are against), we have to find new sources of oil and/or natural gas. lng will help for electricity, but until electric or natural gas cars are economically viable, it'll take another 1970s gas crisis for people to buy their ford fiestas.
-
Well guiny, I didn't think you would experience your $7000 in one day, one week or even one year. That would happen over matter of years. But I'll bet you have lost twice your rebate by this time in fees, costs, etc.
Believe me or not, I don't care -- it's your money. Hope you really enjoyed the $150.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
-- it's your money.
ding Ding DING
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Where would I be without you Mankie? [/b]
You don't really want me to answer that do you?
;) [/b]
Not really! Let's talk about Jordon and her plastic surgeon. Pretty good, huh? [/b]
If I may interject, Jordan's surgeon is top notch - she's really hot. I've got to get to reading Heat again...
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Well guiny, I didn't think you would experience your $7000 in one day, one week or even one year. That would happen over matter of years. But I'll bet you have lost twice your rebate by this time in fees, costs, etc.
Believe me or not, I don't care -- it's your money. Hope you really enjoyed the $150.
When I was a youngster, they used to call that inflation. I've really got to start keeping up with the times.
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Where would I be without you Mankie? [/b]
You don't really want me to answer that do you?
;) [/b]
Not really! Let's talk about Jordon and her plastic surgeon. Pretty good, huh? [/b]
Please tell, I'm not up to speed on that, I read the BBC website not The Sun. Is she still with that knobhead Dwight Yorke?
-
200% inflation in a year. Wow, things were rough when you were a kid, twat. Wonder why my cost of living salary increase was only 3%?
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
we have to find new sources of oil and/or natural gas.
How much of the oil used in the US is actually produced domestically?
I thought Iraq was the new Alaska? Sand vs Snow....
The last oil crisis destroyed American car companies, I mean who wanted a 4-cylinder Mustang, that still had crap fuel economy? When the next energy crisis comes along Ford and GM are going to be so well prepared and they will take over the world....... Or maybe not. Toyota is making a hybrid SUV for sale this year. Toyata are now worth more that Ford, GM and Daimler Chrysler put together........
-
Originally posted by Bags:
200% inflation in a year. Wow, things were rough when you were a kid, twat. Wonder why my cost of living salary increase was only 3%?
Bags, I think the numbers that you're throwing about are probably inflated too. The truth will more than likely be less...but what do I know?
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Where would I be without you Mankie? [/b]
You don't really want me to answer that do you?
;) [/b]
Not really! Let's talk about Jordon and her plastic surgeon. Pretty good, huh? [/b]
Please tell, I'm not up to speed on that, I read the BBC website not The Sun. Is she still with that knobhead Dwight Yorke? [/b]
I don't know who she's dating, but I do know that he's very angry with that one guy (Peter) who's always got his hands on her. The boyfriend is threatening to go to Australia to beat the you know what out of him.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
we have to find new sources of oil and/or natural gas.
How much of the oil used in the US is actually produced domestically?
I thought Iraq was the new Alaska? Sand vs Snow....
The last oil crisis destroyed American car companies, I mean who wanted a 4-cylinder Mustang, that still had crap fuel economy? When the next energy crisis comes along Ford and GM are going to be so well prepared and they will take over the world....... Or maybe not. Toyota is making a hybrid SUV for sale this year. Toyata are now worth more that Ford, GM and Daimler Chrysler put together........ [/b]
according to eia, we imported around 53% of oil for domestic use, but that's expected to increase every year. . .the lower 48 states will produce around 5 million barrels per day for the next 4 years, after that it's a decline. from existing wells, alaska will produce nearly 1 million barrels per day through 2016. also, when the price of oil fell in the late 90s, a lot of wells in texas and oklahoma closed because of the high cost of extracting oil - in other words, it wasn't profitable.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Well guiny, I didn't think you would experience your $7000 in one day, one week or even one year. That would happen over matter of years. But I'll bet you have lost twice your rebate by this time in fees, costs, etc.
Believe me or not, I don't care -- it's your money. Hope you really enjoyed the $150.
Think, bet, probably... Seriously, some semblance of real numbers, or even an educated guess would help whatever point it is your making. Sorry to sound overly Rhett...
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
according to eia, we imported around 53% of oil for domestic use, but that's expected to increase every year
So the reality is, if the mpg of vehicles was doubled, America woild not have to import oil, well for now at least. So the people with SUV's should probably take the save Alaska bumper stickers off of their Escalades and Hummer's.
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
Think, bet, probably... Seriously, some semblance of real numbers, or even an educated guess would help whatever point it is your making. Sorry to sound overly Rhett...
Why let silly things like facts and reality get in the way of a good emotional outburst?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
clearly these are all things that are mike moore or janet jackson's boob's fault. or not enough people getting married to the opposite sex. but seriously, i don't see how economic conservatives aren't freaking out. some members of congress are starting to say stuff in the papers, i guess...
Because economic conservatives are more afraid of democrats and their class-warfare, wealth-confiscation, scare-mongering than they are of Bush. [/b]
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.
and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
So the reality is, if the mpg of vehicles was doubled, America woild not have to import oil, well for now at least. So the people with SUV's should probably take the save Alaska bumper stickers off of their Escalades and Hummer's.
as far as the automobile industry is concerned, they say that in order to increase mpg on suv's, they would have to make them lighter. that is, in order to meet highway safety standards, certain safety equipment has to stay, but to meet proposed mpg regulations, an suv that contains all the necessary equipment as currently built would not be able to meet the proposed mpg regulations. . .they would have to skimp on other areas of the vehicle to make the car lighter, and would result in making that vehicle less safe.
-
How about making a law to qualify for SUV ownership. You would have to have at least one of these qualifications:
1. Head of Household of a household larger than 4.
2. Proof that the SUV is used for occupational purposes.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
as far as the automobile industry is concerned, they say that in order to increase mpg on suv's, they would have to make them lighter. that is, in order to meet highway safety standards, certain safety equipment has to stay, but to meet proposed mpg regulations, an suv that contains all the necessary equipment as currently built would not be able to meet the proposed mpg regulations. . .they would have to skimp on other areas of the vehicle to make the car lighter, and would result in making that vehicle less safe. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Well its true and also false. Light cars take much less energy to accelerate. Cars with a small frontal area take much less energy to maintain at a particular speed...... So it does not look good for SUVs.
But, they can be made lighter... The ones based on old fashined pick ups are woefully out of date, in terms of construction. You dont get many aluminium chassied SUVs....
Also the Toyota hybrid SUV was getting something like 30mpg and good acceleration figures by storing energy from braking and coasting to later be used by an electric motor.... The same technology as their prius or the honda insight.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
So the reality is, if the mpg of vehicles was doubled, America woild not have to import oil, well for now at least. So the people with SUV's should probably take the save Alaska bumper stickers off of their Escalades and Hummer's.
as far as the automobile industry is concerned, they say that in order to increase mpg on suv's, they would have to make them lighter. that is, in order to meet highway safety standards, certain safety equipment has to stay, but to meet proposed mpg regulations, an suv that contains all the necessary equipment as currently built would not be able to meet the proposed mpg regulations. . .they would have to skimp on other areas of the vehicle to make the car lighter, and would result in making that vehicle less safe. [/b]
What an absolute load of bollocks.
If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
Oil and auto companies are right up each others arseholes and we all know it.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
[/b]
If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
[/b]
I'm in favor of that as well...our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.
and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?
I never said Bush was perfect. In fact, my point was that he is merely better than the alternative.
Taxes are not the greatest evil in the world. But the political tactic of using them as a ploy to divide society into the haves and the have-nots is. The haves already pay more taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. But the democratic candidates would have you believe that there are a whole host of special tax breaks that "the rich" receive that everybody else doesn't. What are those tax breaks? Anyone? Anyone?
I can't deduct my first two years of college from my taxes, although most can. I can't contribute to my IRA anymore. I could name a dozen other tax credits that I am unable to take advantage of. And it's not like I'm pulling down $500k/year or anything.
Now these "caring" liberals stand up and bemoan that there are "essential services" that are missing. And they know just how to pay for them -- more taxes on other people who are already paying more taxes than them in the first place. All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.
bah.......
-
Originally posted by Bags:
I'm in favor of that as well...our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Somehow I find that argument disappointing. Like going into the liquor store....... If prices were doubled would people drink half as much?
I think the government has to raise the minimum mpg bar, or at least categorise all passenger vehicles as, erm, well passenger vehicles. Not light trucks. The American car industry will die if the government does this, or no.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
bah.......
GGW had a rant!!!
Cant we increase taxes for the mega wealthy, say the top 1% of earners? Cant we make companies pay a low level of tax on foreign earnings? Another 20 cents on gas and $1 on cancer sticks would get my thumbs up, too.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by mankie:
If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
I'm in favor of that as well...our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going. [/b]
No way. The liberals would then bitch about the "rich" being the only ones able to afford gas. So then President (Hillary) Clinton would have to enact some sort of gasoline tax credit for the middle class, which would just negate the whole thing. Except it would have the politically advantageous effect of shifting the taxes to those evil, dastardly bastards who had the temerity to work hard and make money.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
[/b]
If we taxed gas by $1 per gallon I can guarantee you they'd find a way to make SUV's more efficient. I'm in favor of that by the way, put a huge tax on it and watch the SUV's disappear.
[/b]
I'm in favor of that as well...our gasoline is way too cheap. May be the only way to get some conservation and "new" technology going. [/b]
Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Oil and auto companies are right up each others arseholes and we all know it.
don't forget the unions. . they are as adamant against the cafe standards as the auto companies. . coincidentally enough, most unions also support drilling in anwr, at least nominally (guess who would get the jobs??).
-
Originally posted by chaz:
Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
i don't think that's true. . .taxes on gasoline are used (supposedly) to pay for highway maintenance. so, in your example, granny would be paying more simply because she is driving an inefficient automobile. although, the car tax is based on the value of the car, right? well, if granny is still driving her 1978 delta, i'm pretty sure her car tax isn't too much.
-
It's funny that there are more conservatives on this rock and roll chatboard than there are the country chatboard I also occasionally post on.
So much for the notion that all rockers were liberals.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.
bah....... [/b]
I was at least following your argument until the end.
Read "Nickel and Dimed." Don't know what you do, but unless you work two blue collar jobs, I'll bet you don't work harder than most people making $10,712 a year. You know, minimum wage. Over $20K if you work two full time jobs.
FYI, it's "worked harder than they ."
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Well guiny, I didn't think you would experience your $7000 in one day, one week or even one year. That would happen over matter of years. But I'll bet you have lost twice your rebate by this time in fees, costs, etc.
Believe me or not, I don't care -- it's your money. Hope you really enjoyed the $150.
Its not my money if i never actually recieve it, or at least that makes me feel a little better about it :D
Like i keep saying, i have a high school diploma, no college, a military background a good paying job so i'm happy, until someone takes that away from me i'm not gonna bitch and moan about everything. Even if they do take it away from me i'll move to a tropical island with my savings and start a beach hot dog vending business and get a tan while i'm at it.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
It's funny that there are more conservatives on this rock and roll chatboard than there are the country chatboard I also occasionally post on.
So much for the notion that all rockers were liberals.
Rockers are aging. Que Winston Churchill quote.
-
...tax gas by $1 per gallon
yeah, that's brilliant, so all the poor working class losers who have to live in far flung suburbs and probably DON'T work in offices downtown to which they can take public transportation will have to pay more just to get to work?
I say more stringent mpg rules (like markie). Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
Rockers are aging. Que Winston Churchill quote.
If youâ??re twenty years old and are not a liberalâ??you donâ??t have a heart. If youâ??re forty years old and are not a conservativeâ??you donâ??t have a brain.
-
Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
Originally posted by chaz:
Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system.
i don't think that's true. . .taxes on gasoline are used (supposedly) to pay for highway maintenance. so, in your example, granny would be paying more simply because she is driving an inefficient automobile. although, the car tax is based on the value of the car, right? well, if granny is still driving her 1978 delta, i'm pretty sure her car tax isn't too much. [/b]
You've missed my point here. The amount we pay for the roads should be based on how much we use them. Under the current system, Granny drives 20 mile a week to church and grocery. But since her Caddy is worth so much more than Mr.Commuter's (who drives 500 miles/week) Camry she puts more $$ into the highway fund, even though she does 1/20th the driving of Mr. Commuter.
Perhaps the gas-guzzling Caddy part confused the issue...I was just trying to use an expensive car as a part of the example but it raises an even better point mentioned earlier. Raising gas taxes will will encourage us wasteful Americans to drive cars that are more enviro-friendly, therefore encouraging auto makers to design and build more enviro-friendly cars etc....
-
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll:
-
Originally posted by chaz:
[Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system. [/QB]
not really...a 40K Caddy is a luxury item, that 500 mile/week corrolla driver is driving a reasonable vehicle, probably to WORK
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll: [/b]
that's not them deciding what's best for us, that's just a small bit of government regulation in the right place...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll: [/b]
that's not them deciding what's best for us, that's just a small bit of government regulation in the right place... [/b]
OK.
So let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll:
-
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
...tax gas by $1 per gallon
yeah, that's brilliant, so all the poor working class losers who have to live in far flung suburbs and probably DON'T work in offices downtown to which they can take public transportation will have to pay more just to get to work?
I say more stringent mpg rules (like markie). Put the burden on the corporations, not the people. [/b]
Rasing the gas tax will trickle down and encourage auto makers to make more economical cars. Remember the late 70's/early 80's? If I'm 70 and drive 10 miles a week why should I pay the same amount as someone who drives 100 miles a week? Perhaps if some of that gas tax $$ was invested in transit those guys could take pub. transportattion to work. But most folks just think that building more roads is the answer to congestion.
-
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Originally posted by chaz:
[Raise the gas tax and abolish the car tax. That way, those of us the use the roads the most pay the most for them. Under the current system a little Granny in a $40k Cadilac who drive to church once a week and grocery once a week pays much more for the road/highway system than a 500 mile/week corrolla driving commuter. It's a flawed system. [/b]
not really...a 40K Caddy is a luxury item, that 500 mile/week corrolla driver is driving a reasonable vehicle, probably to WORK [/QB]
Allright forget the caddy part....it was a bad example. But even if they both drive the same car why should granny pay the same amount for the roads when she does a fraction of the driving?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll:
nobody cares what's "best" for "us" anyway...aren't matters like this basically shaped by the lowest common denominator of what government regulations and industry can agree to a "deal" on?
-
State Fiscal Relief: Essential to Economic Stimulus Plans
The current state budget deficit crisis has been widely characterized as the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Almost all states are required by state law to balance their budgets every year. The economic slow down which puts additional demands on state benefit programs and declining state revenues due to federal tax cuts contribute to mounting state budget deficits. Current (state FY 2003) deficits are estimated at $50 billion and are expected to increase to $60-80 billion in state FY 2004 (which starts on July 1 in most states).
The Natioanl League of Cities report (http://www.nlc.org/nlc_org/site/files/pdf/statelocfisc.pdf):
Overview
A federal and state fiscal crisis that is the largest the nation has experienced in decades is trickling down
to city governments, making it increasingly difficult for city officials to balance their own budgets.1
Faced with $110 billion in state budget shortfalls in 2003 and 2004, state governments cut aid to cities for
the first time in more than a decade. 2 3 At the federal level, the budget deficit is fast approaching $500
billion dollars due to tax cuts and increased spending. Yet, the federal government passed a fiscal relief
package that failed to address the needs of cities and their residents, or provide funding for No Child Left
Behind and homeland security mandates.
Cuts in state revenues can take many forms, given the realities and complexities of 50 different systems in
50 states. These cuts came in a variety of forms: in revenue sharing programs where the state provides
general purpose aid to cities or shares a percentage of a state-collected revenue source with cities; in tax
reimbursement programs where the state backfills city revenues repealed, decreased or transferred by
other state actions; in funds for designated purposes such as highway maintenance and construction; and,
in funds to offset the costs of state-mandated programs.
In some instances, states have cut revenues for cities, but are also passing along the authority for local
governments to raise taxes. In North Carolina, the elimination of local tax reimbursements was coupled
with the authority for counties to levy a sales tax, with an additional provision that the distribution of the
sales tax revenue should hold cities harmless. Similarly, when the state of Minnesota recently cut state
aid to cities it authorized the cities to raise up to 60 percent of the lost revenues through local property tax
increases. While the extension of local tax authority is a positive development, it should also be
recognized that state officials are passing along the political difficulty of raising taxes at the local level,
often in lieu of raising taxes at the state level.
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
let's make it so that the government dictates to the corporations what to dictate is best for us.
That's double-roll-eyes-worthy.
:roll: :roll:
nobody cares what's "best" for "us" anyway...aren't matters like this basically shaped by the lowest common denominator of what government regulations and industry can agree to a "deal" on? [/b]
And you're in favor of that?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.
and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?
I never said Bush was perfect. In fact, my point was that he is merely better than the alternative.
Taxes are not the greatest evil in the world. But the political tactic of using them as a ploy to divide society into the haves and the have-nots is. The haves already pay more taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. But the democratic candidates would have you believe that there are a whole host of special tax breaks that "the rich" receive that everybody else doesn't. What are those tax breaks? Anyone? Anyone?
I can't deduct my first two years of college from my taxes, although most can. I can't contribute to my IRA anymore. I could name a dozen other tax credits that I am unable to take advantage of. And it's not like I'm pulling down $500k/year or anything.
Now these "caring" liberals stand up and bemoan that there are "essential services" that are missing. And they know just how to pay for them -- more taxes on other people who are already paying more taxes than them in the first place. All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.
bah....... [/b]
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?
-
SUVs need to get larger, not smaller. Have you tried driving over the ruts in downtown Charm City? I need a tracked vehicle.
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage41/4.gif" alt=" - " />
Close the border to Canada. We need to open the border with Mexico. Let all of the central Americanos in and tax each and every one until they can't stand it anymore and miss good, old Tegucigalpa.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And you're in favor of that?
I doesn't matter what I'm in favor of...I was describing how it is...
I don't quite get your comments...your criticism of my argument against a gas tax seemed to leap out of context into a much grander scale...though it could just be that my attention is too divided...
-
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic...it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.
I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie...
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic...it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.
I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie...
I can fix it, Dupek.
"Wilco SUCKS" ;)
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic...it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.
I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie...
I feel that way sometimes!
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?
No. I'd rather the government spend less.
But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.
And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).
Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments -- U.S. government bonds -- would disappear.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?
No. I'd rather the government spend less.
But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.
And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).
Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments -- U.S. government bonds -- would disappear. [/b]
ok, i see your point, but mine (like 2 pages ago) was the conservatives should be pulling their hair out because not only are we now taxing less but spending more. and intruding on things that the government is foolish to put their hands in, like promoting marriage.
-
I'm sure we can all agree that the Bush plan is just brilliant. Decrease taxes. Increase spending. Worry about it later.
-
Isn't it great Bush wants to rid sports of steroids?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
ok, i see your point, but mine (like 2 pages ago) was the conservatives should be pulling their hair out because not only are we now taxing less but spending more. and intruding on things that the government is foolish to put their hands in, like promoting marriage.
I agree. And many conservatives are pulling their hair out. But, like I said, they look at the alternative -- democrats who will likely spend more and increase taxes -- and they are more put off by that.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
but wouldn't you rather pay slightly higher taxes for a more stable economy? as in a balanced budget?
No. I'd rather the government spend less.
But my point was broader than that. My point was that some segments of the political spectrum keep trying to expand the state into unnecessary areas by putting more taxes on another segment of society who is already paying more.
And a balanced budget doesn't necessarily lead to a more stable economy. In fact, many economists recommend deficit spending as a way of smoothing out the effects of the business cycle (i.e., when the private sector can't make expenditures due to an economic downturn, the government should step in and pick up the slack through running deficits, which would be offset by running surpluses during boom times).
Moreover, when it looked like the government was going to pay off most or all of its debt, many people claimed that this would exacerbate volatility, as the most secure market instruments -- U.S. government bonds -- would disappear. [/b]
Yes, see Keynes.
-
Originally posted by chaz:
I'm sure we can all agree that the Bush plan is just brilliant. Decrease taxes. Increase spending. Worry about it later.
The best I can figure, the administration looked at the two traditional methods of economic stimulus -- cutting taxes or increasing government spending -- and believed that if they combined the two, they would create some sort of synergistic boom.
Sounds like a great topic for an MBA thesis, but perhaps not so great in practice.
-
I've been playing Simpsons: Hit & Run all week long, and all I can say is, "Vote Quimby." (http://www.thesimpsons.com/quimby2000/intro.htm).
<img src="http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/games/coverg/82/649282.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Every time I logon to a hot bboard topic...it suddenly withers on the vine, and dies.
I know! I must be a 'cooler'. Just like in that movie...
I feel that way sometimes! [/b]
hello, story of my life. i can think of like 5 or 6 recent threads that i have destroyed. ahhhh :(
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Ms. Lipps:
Put the burden on the corporations, not the people.
Yes please. Let's make it so that corporations dictate what is best for us. :roll: [/b]
If you put a burden on a corporation it'll just be passed on to the consumer anyway. Higher taxes on gasoline won't limit the use of automobiles either. The UK has an extremely high tax on petrol and the roads are still chocker...and there ARE SUV's over here too!
Do you really trust the politican's to put any new gas tax to where it's needed or promised? They've done an outstanding job with social security. It was never intended to use the money to fund every other project that came along.
-
Oh cry me a river.
Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.
And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
scaremongering? republicans can't play that card after the wmd fiasco. just because your party nominated and elected a guy doesn't make him perfect. people vote for republicans because they are supposed to be good with money. and jesus.
and why are taxes the greatest evil in the world? when clinton raised taxes, i couldn't tell, when bush lowered them i couldn't tell either. if deficit spending is ok, why not cut taxes to 0 and borrow the whole $1.3 trillion budget?
I never said Bush was perfect. In fact, my point was that he is merely better than the alternative.
Taxes are not the greatest evil in the world. But the political tactic of using them as a ploy to divide society into the haves and the have-nots is. The haves already pay more taxes both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their income. But the democratic candidates would have you believe that there are a whole host of special tax breaks that "the rich" receive that everybody else doesn't. What are those tax breaks? Anyone? Anyone?
I can't deduct my first two years of college from my taxes, although most can. I can't contribute to my IRA anymore. I could name a dozen other tax credits that I am unable to take advantage of. And it's not like I'm pulling down $500k/year or anything.
Now these "caring" liberals stand up and bemoan that there are "essential services" that are missing. And they know just how to pay for them -- more taxes on other people who are already paying more taxes than them in the first place. All of which is just a further abdication of personal and communal responsibility in favor of some glorious welfare state in which nobody has to do anything except sit on their fat ass and point fingers at those who have worked harder than them.
bah....... [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Oh cry me a river.
Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.
And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.
Way to miss the point, Einstein.
-
Sorry, I didn't have time to read through the miles of posting and catch the point.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Oh cry me a river.
Despite being so heavily taxed, you still managed to afford a hiking trip to the Grand Canyon and a ski trip to Colorado in the same year, and are now considering a concert trip to California.
And in spite of your working soooooo hard, you still manage to have the work time to bang out long rants on this board and research all kinds of music news for us. I'll bet the person cleaning your office floors doesn't have the work time to do all that.
Way to miss the point, Einstein. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Sorry, I didn't have time to read through the miles of posting and catch the point.
Then why post?
-
Who dictates what "the point" is? Seems to me he made his own point there...
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
Who dictates what "the point" is? Seems to me he made his own point there...
What was his point?
That I should shut up and be happy that all my money isn't taxed away?
That I make more money than the cleaning person?
-
Only he can really say what his point was, but I interpreted it to be something like your #2 guess...but maybe not quite to that extent...
He may be getting at the point that money earned over what is judged to be adequate for meeting basic needs should be taxed at a higher rate, maybe (which it is)...
-
Be happy and grateful you make enough money (even after being taxed) to take multiple vacations, buy all of the cd's you want, go to all of the shows you want, and still have a job that affords you enough leisure time at work to post on this board and do non-work research.
I know I'm grateful.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Who dictates what "the point" is? Seems to me he made his own point there...
What was his point?
That I should shut up and be happy that all my money isn't taxed away?
That I make more money than the cleaning person? [/b]
-
Originally posted by Celeste:
He may be getting at the point that money earned over what is judged to be adequate for meeting basic needs should be taxed at a higher rate, maybe (which it is)...
In other words, people should be disincentivized from working more than is minimally necessary to cover basic food, shelter and clothing?
ha ha.....
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need"
I never pegged you as a Marxist.
-
maybe the point is he wouldn't be able to afford all of these trips without the tax cut. life is tough when you make too much to contribute to an i.r.a..
saw this today. here are some of the budget cuts the white house wants:
â?¢ Advanced Technology Program, which supports high-risk technology development with the private sector. 2004: $171 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ School Alcohol Abuse Reduction. 2004: $30 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Arts in Education grants. 2004: $35 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Comprehensive School Reform grants for low-income schools. 2004: $234 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Eisenhower Math and Science Education Programs. 2004: $20 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Even Start family literacy. 2004:$247 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Education Department Parental Information and Resource Centers. 2004: $42 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Community Development Block Grants. 2004: $334 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ HOPE VI public housing revitalization. 2004: $149 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Tax-favored Empowerment Zones. 2004: $15 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Brownfields Redevelopment. 2004: $25 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Rural Housing and Economic Development. 2004: $25 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Local Law Enforcement Grants. 2004: $1.58 billion; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Juvenile crime prevention block grants. 2004: $59 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training. 2004: $77 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Smaller Learning Communities to divide large high schools into smaller ones. 2004: $174 million; 2005: 0.
â?¢ Health Professional Training Grants. 2004: $409 million; 2005: $126 million.
â?¢ Rural Health Aid. 2004: $147 million; 2005: $56 million.
â?¢ Homeland Security first responders. 2004: $4.37 billion; 2005: $3.56 billion.
â?¢ Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Program. 2004: $78 million; 2005: $44 million.
â?¢ Election Reform. 2004: $1.49 billion; 2005: $65 million.
SOURCE: White House's Office of Management and Budget
who needs election reform homeland security first responders and local law enforcement anyway.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Celeste:
Who dictates what "the point" is? Seems to me he made his own point there...
What was his point?
That I should shut up and be happy that all my money isn't taxed away?
That I make more money than the cleaning person? [/b]
shutting up would be very UNamerican of you, ggw.
-
all of those zeroes are just budget ploys to make the numbers come out how the white house wants it. none of those programs are gonna go unfunded, the white house knows this and the approprations committee knows this.
as bags cut and pasted yesterday from the national league of cities, the statement about no child left behind act is misleading. . .the act is gonna be funded, but not fully. for this year, the act will be around 2/3% funded. most legislation that is to be funded contains provisions that the allow congress to vary the amount of money that funds the program each year - very few programs are automatically fully funded each and every year.
-
you know, if all of these things the government does are really good things, and nothing dishonest or unfair about them, they sure do make them look bad.
it seems to me that the no child left behind thing is trying to give everybody an equal education. which is really an impossibility isnt it?
this whole "equality" thing is a little ridiculous no?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
it seems to me that the no child left behind thing is trying to give everybody an equal education. which is really an impossibility isnt it?
this whole "equality" thing is a little ridiculous no?
Amen.
The problem with public schools is not underfunding. It's this delusion that all students are equal, which leads schools to teach to the lowest common denominator, which, by definition, is low.
Many of the other programs in that list of cuts deserve to be cut.
Why is the government subsidizing high-risk technology research when venture capitalists are swimming in uncomitted capital?
There are plenty of private organizations that work with the poor and with drunks and junkies.
etc...
-
even fully funded the no child left behind act doesn't allocate enough funds to do what it really needs to do. and i understand all of those 0's won't be there at the end of the budgetary process, which begs the question, "where will the cuts come from?"
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
maybe the point is he wouldn't be able to afford all of these trips without the tax cut. life is tough when you make too much to contribute to an i.r.a..
Life could still be tough if you make too much to contribute to a traditional IRA (granted, probably not nickel and dimed tough, but tough nontheless).
The thresholds for contributing to a traditional IRA are absurdly low, and can be waived altogether if your employer has a retirement plan. One could of course contribute to a Roth IRA which has a ceiling of 5k a year, and is post-tax.
-
When I think of the problems with public schools, I start by thinking of ugly black ladies stealing millions from the teachers union funds.
But seriously, when I taught, my salary was 28K per year, and if I took a sick day, I had to pay for the substitute teachers compensation out of my own pocket. My math classroom had one computer with no software. My requests for purchase of teaching materials beyond textbooks were denied, and if I used more than a certain amount of paper (for making worksheets, etc) I had to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Tell me my school wasn't underfunded.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
it seems to me that the no child left behind thing is trying to give everybody an equal education. which is really an impossibility isnt it?
this whole "equality" thing is a little ridiculous no?
Amen.
The problem with public schools is not underfunding. It's this delusion that all students are equal, which leads schools to teach to the lowest common denominator, which, by definition, is low.
Many of the other programs in that list of cuts deserve to be cut.
Why is the government subsidizing high-risk technology research when venture capitalists are swimming in uncomitted capital?
There are plenty of private organizations that work with the poor and with drunks and junkies.
etc... [/b]
-
oh forget it. i forgot what i was going to say
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
maybe the point is he wouldn't be able to afford all of these trips without the tax cut. life is tough when you make too much to contribute to an i.r.a..
Life could still be tough if you make too much to contribute to a traditional IRA (granted, probably not nickel and dimed tough, but tough nontheless).
The thresholds for contributing to a traditional IRA are absurdly low, and can be waived altogether if your employer has a retirement plan. One could of course contribute to a Roth IRA which has a ceiling of 5k a year, and is post-tax. [/b]
not that it has anything to do with anything, but i always was partial to the roth anyway from back in the mutual fund company employment days. that's what i use in addition to a 401k.
-
Originally posted by keithstg:
The thresholds for contributing to a traditional IRA are absurdly low, and can be waived altogether if your employer has a retirement plan. One could of course contribute to a Roth IRA which has a ceiling of 5k a year, and is post-tax.
Roth IRAs are limited to incomes under $110,000.
You only get a waiver for traditional IRAs if your employer doesn't have a retirement plan (or your income is less than $40,000).
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] When I think of the problems with public schools, I start by thinking of ugly black ladies stealing millions from the teachers union funds.
But seriously, when I taught, my salary was 28K per year, and if I took a sick day, I had to pay for the substitute teachers compensation out of my own pocket. My math classroom had one computer with no software. My requests for purchase of teaching materials beyond textbooks were denied, and if I used more than a certain amount of paper (for making worksheets, etc) I had to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Tell me my school wasn't underfunded.
Cry me a river.... teachers only work 9 months of the year for crying out loud.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
When I think of the problems with public schools, I start by thinking of ugly black ladies stealing millions from the teachers union funds.
But seriously, when I taught, my salary was 28K per year, and if I took a sick day, I had to pay for the substitute teachers compensation out of my own pocket. My math classroom had one computer with no software. My requests for purchase of teaching materials beyond textbooks were denied, and if I used more than a certain amount of paper (for making worksheets, etc) I had to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Tell me my school wasn't underfunded.
Cry me a fucking river.
You were still able to go to all those Whiskeytown shows. And I bet you made a lot more than the janitor who had to clean up your shit.
-
True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months. Given that my free periods were taken up by team meetings and meetings with parents, and my lunch consisted of being a lunch monitor five days a week, it was expected of me that I use my evenings for lesson planning and correcting homework, tests, and quizzes.
And my paycheck was always so small I was forced to take The same was usually true for other teachers who didn't happen to have wealthy spouses.
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] When I think of the problems with public schools, I start by thinking of ugly black ladies stealing millions from the teachers union funds.
But seriously, when I taught, my salary was 28K per year, and if I took a sick day, I had to pay for the substitute teachers compensation out of my own pocket. My math classroom had one computer with no software. My requests for purchase of teaching materials beyond textbooks were denied, and if I used more than a certain amount of paper (for making worksheets, etc) I had to pay for it out of my own pocket.
Tell me my school wasn't underfunded.
Cry me a river.... teachers only work 9 months of the year for crying out loud. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You only get a waiver for traditional IRAs if your employer doesn't have a retirement plan (or your income is less than $40,000).
Yeah, exactly.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months.
did your students beat you up? did you make them listen to Wilco?
-
I think Jaguar is the ex-teacher to talk to if you want stories of being assaulted by students. The worst that happened to me was getting hit in the back of the head with hard candies.
I did have one out of control sixth grade boy student threw a chair at a girl, and tried to molest the same girl on another occasion. He was sent back to class by the principals office, with no punishment. On another occasion, I did grab him by the neck to restrain him from doing some more damage...consequently almost got myself fired.
Never corrupted any of their music tastes. Actually, prior to that, when I lived and taught in the catholic school systems (where students were much better behaved) in baltimore, I did talk music sometimes afterschool with some of my kids. And I remember one group of kids getting me some Country's Greatest Hits cd or something like that for my birthday, which was nice.
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months.
did your students beat you up? did you make them listen to Wilco? [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by keithstg:
The thresholds for contributing to a traditional IRA are absurdly low, and can be waived altogether if your employer has a retirement plan. One could of course contribute to a Roth IRA which has a ceiling of 5k a year, and is post-tax.
Roth IRAs are limited to incomes under $110,000.
You only get a waiver for traditional IRAs if your employer doesn't have a retirement plan (or your income is less than $40,000). [/b]
if you are making over $110k then you are either paranoid or investing in the stock market. tax breaks are given to encourage people to do things like invest in the market. if you make over $110k, you can afford investment vehicles that will make you alot more than securities allowed in roth iras + the tax break. trade options or invest in real estate
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
I think Jaguar is the ex-teacher to talk to if you want stories of being assaulted by students. The worst that happened to me was getting hit in the back of the head with hard candies.
I did have one out of control sixth grade boy student threw a chair at a girl, and tried to molest the same girl on another occasion. He was sent back to class by the principals office, with no punishment. On another occasion, I did grab him by the neck to restrain him from doing some more damage...consequently almost got myself fired.
Clearly, if you had some more software for your computer, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Never corrupted any of their music tastes. Actually, prior to that, when I lived and taught in the catholic school systems (where students were much better behaved) in baltimore, I did talk music sometimes afterschool with some of my kids. And I remember one group of kids getting me some Country's Greatest Hits cd or something like that for my birthday, which was nice.
Catholic schools -- far superior results with far less funding.
-
<img src="http://pages.prodigy.net/indianahawkeye/newpage34/5.gif" alt=" - " />
I like this thread.
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by keithstg:
The thresholds for contributing to a traditional IRA are absurdly low, and can be waived altogether if your employer has a retirement plan. One could of course contribute to a Roth IRA which has a ceiling of 5k a year, and is post-tax.
Roth IRAs are limited to incomes under $110,000.
You only get a waiver for traditional IRAs if your employer doesn't have a retirement plan (or your income is less than $40,000). [/b]
if you are making over $110k then you are either paranoid or investing in the stock market. tax breaks are given to encourage people to do things like invest in the market. if you make over $110k, you can afford investment vehicles that will make you alot more than securities allowed in roth iras + the tax break. trade options or invest in real estate [/b]
I'm not aware of any restrictions governing trading in Roth IRA accounts, with the exception of not being able to margin. Are there others?
-
Actually, I never had any violence in my classroom when I was a COMPUTER teacher, and the students ALL had computers with software in front of them. Only when I tried to teach classes of 30 with nothing but a math textbook did I ever see students get really antsy.
And you're comparing apples with oranges in comparing public and catholic schools. Part of the reason they could do more with less funds was because part of the teachers salary was paid in tuition for their kids. The teachers were all making 20K or less (this was 7-8 years ago).
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
I think Jaguar is the ex-teacher to talk to if you want stories of being assaulted by students. The worst that happened to me was getting hit in the back of the head with hard candies.
I did have one out of control sixth grade boy student threw a chair at a girl, and tried to molest the same girl on another occasion. He was sent back to class by the principals office, with no punishment. On another occasion, I did grab him by the neck to restrain him from doing some more damage...consequently almost got myself fired.
Clearly, if you had some more software for your computer, this wouldn't have been a problem.
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Never corrupted any of their music tastes. Actually, prior to that, when I lived and taught in the catholic school systems (where students were much better behaved) in baltimore, I did talk music sometimes afterschool with some of my kids. And I remember one group of kids getting me some Country's Greatest Hits cd or something like that for my birthday, which was nice.
Catholic schools -- far superior results with far less funding. [/b]
-
to do alot of options trades you need to trade on margin. investing in precious metals gets tricky sometimes as not all brokers will do the tax reporting for you. there are vehicles out there that will invest in precious metals that are closer to mutal funds. i want to say (but i'm not 100% certain) that you can't buy things off of overseas markets (like the canadian energy trusts that were all the rage 5 months ago). could be wrong on that.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
Actually, I never had any violence in my classroom when I was a COMPUTER teacher, and the students ALL had computers with software in front of them. Only when I tried to teach classes of 30 with nothing but a math textbook did I ever see students get really antsy.
Sounds like the problem was the teacher.
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
And you're comparing apples with oranges in comparing public and catholic schools. Part of the reason they could do more with less funds was because part of the teachers salary was paid in tuition for their kids. The teachers were all making 20K or less (this was 7-8 years ago).
What are you saying?
That the students of teachers get $8k or more in free tuition and that negates the huge funding disparity between Catholic and public schools?
Studies of inner city Catholic schools have shown huge achievement differences with the same populations in public schools.
-
42
-
I really don't know the specifics of funding for schools, nor is it really a debate that I'm all that interested in at this point in my life. Sorry.
We really are comparing apples with oranges, because I taught in catholic schools in maryland, whereas I taught in a public school in North Carolina, which at the time spent much lower than the national average.
If you or anyone has any input as to the quality of various schools/school districts in the area, please feel free to share, as such input might be helpful in our house shopping experience.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
If you or anyone has any input as to the quality of various schools/school districts in the area, please feel free to share, as such input might be helpful in our house shopping experience.
I saw a ranking of public high schools a few months ago, and I think Fairfax and Montgomery Counties both had more schools in the top 100 than any other counties in the nation.
-
Not surprised.
In New York State, where I grew up, each town had a separate school system, so the quality of schools within a county could potentially vary a great deal.
I wonder if one could expect a major variation in quality between schools across a county wide school system. Probably much less so than where I grew up.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
If you or anyone has any input as to the quality of various schools/school districts in the area, please feel free to share, as such input might be helpful in our house shopping experience.
I saw a ranking of public high schools a few months ago, and I think Fairfax and Montgomery Counties both had more schools in the top 100 than any other counties in the nation. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months.
60 hours a week isn't too off the norm in the private sector. I know GS'ers do about 37.5 hours a week so you have no clue of the real world.
For example, my average week is 55 hours. Mutliply that by 52 weeks and you get 2,860 hours a year.
A teachers average week is 60 (so you say) multiply that by 9 months and you get 2,322 hours a year. Not to mentiobn all the little bullshit days off, "Professional Day" for example, whatever the hell that crap is, and every friggin holiday that has been invented.
Still cry that Potomac my friend...no sympathy for teachers from me. (Sorry Jag) I think they're a bunch of spoiled, leftist, bone-idle union brats who think the kids are in school for the benefit of them, and not the other way round which is reality.
-
this just in: GGW knows everything! and makes more money than all of us too. we should be lucky to have him along!
-
not that i know about this, but when children go to Catholic school, they pay for it right? and when they go to public schools its free?
souds like Catholic schools dont NEED as much government funding because they have tuition.
and besides, churhes and shit always have loads of cash, right?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
this just in: GGW knows everything! and makes more money than all of us too. we should be lucky to have him along!
About time I started getting the respect I deserve around here.
-
Yes, but you're at work playing on the computer and watching satellite tv. How many of those 55 hours a week are actually spent doing WORK? You don't see any teachers posting on the 9:30 chatboard during their workday, do you?
And selling luxary cars to wealthy folk strikes me as a hell of an easier sell than convincing a middle schooler whose parents either dropped out of school or didn't attend college (as was the case in the rural school district I taught in, and no doubt the inner city school that Jag taught in) that he needs to learn pre-algebra.
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months.
60 hours a week isn't too off the norm in the private sector. I know GS'ers do about 37.5 hours a week so you have no clue of the real world.
For example, my average week is 55 hours. Mutliply that by 52 weeks and you get 2,860 hours a year.
A teachers average week is 60 (so you say) multiply that by 9 months and you get 2,322 hours a year. Not to mentiobn all the little bullshit days off, "Professional Day" for example, whatever the hell that crap is, and every friggin holiday that has been invented.
Still cry that Potomac my friend...no sympathy for teachers from me. (Sorry Jag) I think they're a bunch of spoiled, leftist, bone-idle union brats who think the kids are in school for the benefit of them, and not the other way round which is reality. [/b]
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
not that i know about this, but when children go to Catholic school, they pay for it right? and when they go to public schools its free?
souds like Catholic schools dont NEED as much government funding because they have tuition.
Not always. Some are free, some are subsidized by private groups, some are subsidized by public groups. Also, instead of "funding" let's say "per-student spending" which includes tuition (if any), private donations, etc... Catholic schools still spend much less than public schools.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
And selling luxary cars to wealthy folk strikes me as a hell of an easier sell than convincing a middle schooler ..........
[/b]
[/QB]
But isnt teaching much more rewarding other ways, imparting your knowledge and wisdom on the young and impressionable? It is a bit more of a vocation than selling cars, isn't it? Why did you pick that profession in the first place?
-
So if not increased funding, what is the GGW solution to improving our public schools?
What lessons can public schools learn from catholic school to improve their performance?
Decrease the salary of teachers by 30%?
Convince them that they are going to burn in hell if their behavior is inappropriate?
Only allow students to enroll whose parents give a shit enough about their kids education that they would actually PAY for it?
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
not that i know about this, but when children go to Catholic school, they pay for it right? and when they go to public schools its free?
souds like Catholic schools dont NEED as much government funding because they have tuition.
Not always. Some are free, some are subsidized by private groups, some are subsidized by public groups. Also, instead of "funding" let's say "per-student spending" which includes tuition (if any), private donations, etc... Catholic schools still spend much less than public schools. [/b]
-
Your attitude toward teachers isn't atypical.
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] True, but they put in 60 hours a week during those nine months.
Still cry that Potomac my friend...no sympathy for teachers from me. (Sorry Jag) I think they're a bunch of spoiled, leftist, bone-idle union brats who think the kids are in school for the benefit of them, and not the other way round which is reality. [/b]
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
not that i know about this, but when children go to Catholic school, they pay for it right? and when they go to public schools its free?
souds like Catholic schools dont NEED as much government funding because they have tuition.
and besides, churhes and shit always have loads of cash, right?
i went to catholic high school, and it was pretty cheap. our text books were from the 60's (during the early 90's), and it was run by nuns. the ones that still wear the habits. catholic schools didn't get any funding back then, and i am pretty sure they don't now. also, the kids in the public school i would have attended went to much better colleges than the catholic school kids i graduated with.
-
Good point. I went into teaching for basically the same ideology you cite.
However, there is a world of difference in terms of desire to learn between the advanced level classes that I was part of as a student and the desire of non-advanced level students.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
And selling luxary cars to wealthy folk strikes me as a hell of an easier sell than convincing a middle schooler ..........
[/b]
[/b]
But isnt teaching much more rewarding other ways, imparting your knowledge and wisdom on the young and impressionable? It is a bit more of a vocation than selling cars, isn't it? Why did you pick that profession in the first place? [/QB]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
So if not increased funding, what is the GGW solution to improving our public schools?
What lessons can public schools learn from catholic school to improve their performance?
Decrease the salary of teachers by 30%?
Convince them that they are going to burn in hell if their behavior is inappropriate?
Only allow students to enroll whose parents give a shit enough about their kids education that they would actually PAY for it?
Too many problems to solve here. Most of it has to do with parents abdicating their responsibilities than with schools not doing enough. Which is why throwing more money at the problem won't work.
The simple reason that Catholic school kids do better is that they are the children of parents who care enough about their kids to put education as the main priority.
-
also catholic schools can kick out kids for less of a reason, kids that don't care or don't like 10000 rules leave and go to public schools.
-
I agree with your points here.
I only wish that the public school I taught in had had enough money to pay for classroom materials.
But having the proper materials would have only been a start. Without parental and adminstrator support, they wouldn't have been enough.
North Carolina was a nightmare. Pretty much all of the rental housing in the county I worked in was apartment complexes, which had minimum salary requirements, which of course my teacher salary didn't make. Finally, I found one that I barely qualified for. I almost wasn't able to get housing in the very county i taught in because they paid their teachers so poorly.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
So if not increased funding, what is the GGW solution to improving our public schools?
What lessons can public schools learn from catholic school to improve their performance?
Decrease the salary of teachers by 30%?
Convince them that they are going to burn in hell if their behavior is inappropriate?
Only allow students to enroll whose parents give a shit enough about their kids education that they would actually PAY for it?
Too many problems to solve here. Most of it has to do with parents abdicating their responsibilities than with schools not doing enough. Which is why throwing more money at the problem won't work.
The simple reason that Catholic school kids do better is that they are the children of parents who care enough about their kids to put education as the main priority. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
[QB] Yes, but you're at work playing on the computer and watching satellite tv. How many of those 55 hours a week are actually spent doing WORK? You don't see any teachers posting on the 9:30 chatboard during their workday, do you?
And selling luxary cars to wealthy folk strikes me as a hell of an easier sell than convincing a middle schooler whose parents either dropped out of school or didn't attend college (as was the case in the rural school district I taught in, and no doubt the inner city school that Jag taught in) that he needs to learn pre-algebra.
I don't see our point...but we aren't told what we have to do for a living but these teachers do nothing but bitch about it all the time so why don't they do what you and Jag did and get out. That's why I have zilch-zippo-nada sympathy for them.
And you're on message board all day and I'm paying your wages..GET BACK TO WORK!
-
I am working, damnit. I just made a big discovery that is going to make a certain program office very happy. There is not a problem where it appeared there was one. Of course, that's not going to be helpful to me in writing my conference paper...essentially now I have no problems to write about.
-
But isnt teaching much more rewarding other ways
yeah baby! (http://www.usanetwork.com/movies/marykay/)
-
Reminds me of the female student teacher who invited some of us guys on the track team over to her apartment to drink with her afterschool.
I never did partake, and she was soon fired and kicked out of her teacher ed program. Last I heard of her she was making a very good living selling cars at a Mercedes dealership.
Originally posted by brennser:
But isnt teaching much more rewarding other ways
yeah baby! (http://www.usanetwork.com/movies/marykay/) [/b]
-
Originally posted by brennser:
But isnt teaching much more rewarding other ways
yeah baby! (http://www.usanetwork.com/movies/marykay/) [/b]
That lucky kid got live out every school boy fantasy!
I was totally in love with my English teacher when I was 14...Ms. Gaunt.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The simple reason that Catholic school kids do better is that ...
The Catholic girls start much too late. Sooner or later it comes down to fate.
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The simple reason that Catholic school kids do better is that ...
The Catholic girls start much too late. Sooner or later it comes down to fate. [/b]
We had a Catholic school just up the road from our school...the Catholic girls were definately bigger slapppers than our girls so we all tried to score with them, much to the chagrin of the lasses in our school.
-
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
The Catholic girls start much too late. Sooner or later it comes down to fate.
Further confirmation that Dupek is "The Stranger."
-
:)
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by Dupek Chopra:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
The simple reason that Catholic school kids do better is that ...
The Catholic girls start much too late. Sooner or later it comes down to fate. [/b]
We had a Catholic school just up the road from our school...the Catholic girls were definately bigger slapppers than our girls so we all tried to score with them, much to the chagrin of the lasses in our school. [/b]
paige, any comment?
-
what is a slapper?
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
what is a slapper?
slapper n. British equivalents of American "ho"s, Slappers are people who are on the pull for anything they can get. Anything. The word is applied more often to females (arguably because it is a built-in function of blokes and doesn't deserve a separate word). Slappers wander around the dance floor looking for the drunkest blokes and then, when they've found them, woo them by dancing backwards into them "accidentally". The are invariably spotted at the end of an evening telling the bouncer how lonely they are and trying to sit on his knee.
-
Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
what is a slapper?
You haven't seen a slapper until you've been out on the town in Liverpool. Even in the dead of winter these girls are out clubbing, wearing next to nothing. God I love this city! :p
Nothing like a good old political debate to polarize people. Continue please!