Moderator: Community Team
whoops, got my threads mixed up -- i thought this was the dadt threadrockfist wrote:
Yep, and dadt has nothing to do with the economy which is the number one issue to a large plurality of the people. The Democrat party controls congress and this is what they are spending the time on...smooth, really smooth...
You've said something I agree with. And there is no free services, even if its "free" to the recipient someone winds up paying for it.PLAYER57832 wrote:The REAL bottom line is that people want services, but don't want to have to pay for them.
The details don't really matter except to those who live there. It's the same basic story everywhere.
I don't live there, so I can't answer that question. However, your statement that people would leave because taxes were raised makes the same amount of sense as saying that people would leave because they didn't have police or fire protection, never mind protection on the streets created by well-lit areas.Phatscotty wrote:Ya know, that is about the oldest, easiest.......oh well what the hell OK.Woodruff wrote:While I understand your point, don't you think that having excruciatingly limited police and fire departments as well as having a third of your streetlights out might not ALSO cause people to move to other locales?Phatscotty wrote:when you raise taxes, people move to places with lower taxesPhatscotty wrote:most outrageous? you really gonna take a stand against my statement that
IF you are saying that the police force is "excrucuatingly" limited, and the fire dept as well as street lights.....THEN we must assume, every single thing that the gov't spends it's money on of lesser importance (everything) has been considered and addressed......
Is this the case??? (everything else has been looked at)
Phatscotty wrote:if they want it, they will choose to pay for it.
Cuts in what else then?thegreekdog wrote:Alternatively, they could make cuts in things other than watering their parks or picking up their fucking trash; that's just poor governance (or else some kind of blackmail).
Wow you have incredibly low sales taxes.In terms of sales tax, Colorado Springs is a home-rule city (meaning it collects its own sales tax; the state would collect the local sales tax for a non home-rule city). The rate is 2.6%... somewhere in the middle. So, the combined sales tax rate for someone in Colorado Springs is 5.5% (Philadelphia is 8%). In any event, where there are less sales, sales tax revenues obviously go down.
Why is it not waht the tea party advocates?Finally, this is not something that is advocated by the Tea Party people. This is something that happens when you spend too much money and the economy goes in the shitter. Sultan is fishing for the sorts of responses he's received so far.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
(1) Yeah, so?pimpdave wrote:(1) The Tea Party People advocate making homeless people eat trash.
(2) The Tea Party People think government is paid for with air and patriotic feelings.
(3) The Tea Party People think that Obama is a super villain from a Batman movie.
Then what do they advocate? All I've heard is that they are against too much spending and for keeping taxes low.thegreekdog wrote: (3) The Tea Party people do not advocate the removal of all taxes or the cutting of things like trash pickup.
Yes. Let's compare.Snorri1234 wrote:Then what do they advocate? All I've heard is that they are against too much spending and for keeping taxes low.thegreekdog wrote: (3) The Tea Party people do not advocate the removal of all taxes or the cutting of things like trash pickup.
I think you and I disagree on what the definition of wasteful spending is. I don't think it's wasteful spending for tax dollars to go to making jobs. That's good for the country, it's good for employment, etc. I tend to think that huge tax cuts for the wealthy indeed is wasteful spending, if that money isn't going to make jobs (and you can't prove it does -- the intangible argument that people always make for trickle-down is that it makes jobs, but the real data conflicts with that assertion).thegreekdog wrote:No taxes vs. keeping taxes low
Cutting trash pickup vs. cutting wasteful spending
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.thegreekdog wrote:I agree on the spending to make jobs thing. I liked President Obama's economic discussion during the State of the Union. I have no problem with that. I still think tax cuts would create more jobs than spending, but that's a philosophical difference (although I think there should be some discussion on why it costs $300K to create a $35K job... I saw a study on that somewhere regarding the economic stimulus bill).
targetman377 wrote:notice how the mayor did not cut his salory!and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.
Yeah, if not for that son of a bitch mayor and his exorbitant 6 grand salary Colorado Springs would be just fine. And they didn't lose their money. They don't have any money outside of taxes. If you don't pay taxes the government doesn't have any money.Mayor and council are part-time jobs in Colorado Springs, points out Mayor Rivera, that pay $6,250 a year ($250 extra for the mayor).
0.4% appears to be appropriate and reasonable for Colorado.PLAYER57832 wrote:0.4%
My taxes are about 4% of the appraised value of my house. And, because the tax appraiser has a personal issue with my family (true, but cannot get into it in detail here), our appraised value is above the market value whereas most people's is well below market value. (in part, I was too new here to realize there was a problem when it was appraised .... and did not have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it anyway).
I sort of agree. It has to be the right taxpayers and the right tax. I think creating jobs by spending is contradicted by evidence as well, if one looks at the average cost to create a job based on the economic stimulus bill.Snorri1234 wrote:The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.
gov't spends money unproductively. every dollar the gov't spends is at the expense of taking a dollar out of something productive. It is, as always, just a matter of time before it catches up.thegreekdog wrote:Yeah, the mayor makes like $6,000.
0.4% appears to be appropriate and reasonable for Colorado.PLAYER57832 wrote:0.4%
My taxes are about 4% of the appraised value of my house. And, because the tax appraiser has a personal issue with my family (true, but cannot get into it in detail here), our appraised value is above the market value whereas most people's is well below market value. (in part, I was too new here to realize there was a problem when it was appraised .... and did not have the money to hire a lawyer to fight it anyway).
My property tax rate is also about 4% and there is a higher assessed value where I live in New Jersey than in most places. For example, if one put my townhouse in Colorado, the assessed value would like be cut in half.
I sort of agree. It has to be the right taxpayers and the right tax. I think creating jobs by spending is contradicted by evidence as well, if one looks at the average cost to create a job based on the economic stimulus bill.Snorri1234 wrote:The problem I have with tax cuts is that claiming they create jobs overall is contradicted by the evidence. It may be that a particular taxcut increases jobs somewhere, but it's always tossed around as a general rule. Much like "taxes are always worse". Some taxes are effective, and some aren't.
Corporations are wasteful, too. The problem is that when people will only elect those who will BOTH provide the benefits they want AND reduce taxes .. you get nothing in return.Phatscotty wrote: gov't spends money unproductively. every dollar the gov't spends is at the expense of taking a dollar out of something productive. It is, as always, just a matter of time before it catches up.
i propose that the word i've bolded here become the name of a new superhero, who saves the day by eating the villaintargetman377 wrote:notice how the mayor did not cut his salory!and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.