If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   American cities require billions in infrastructure investment to avoid becoming awash in raw sewage and santorum   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 287
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

8350 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2012 at 12:36 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-03 03:03:21 PM

rewind2846: Try these:
Link one
Link two
Link three
Link four
Link five


Just so you know, every one of these are based upon the same 2005 Tax Foundation Study (new window). This study does not differentiate money given to the state and federal obligations located in said state

Also, a few economic things have change since 2005. This study is in serious need of updating.
 
2012-01-03 03:08:43 PM

rewind2846: What is a joke is that in your warped mind someone working for the people by being employed by their federal, state, county or city government is some sort of "assistance", as if they should be doing the job for free or they aren't really "working" for a living. You would actually see public service as a form of welfare... sick.


I am not going to speak for Jack Black, but this conservative does not view paying government workers as welfare. However, government should always stride for being small and efficient. However, we are bombarded with stories that show us just how far away from this goal.

Government has a role. Being every thing to everybody is not one of them.
 
2012-01-03 03:11:42 PM

rewind2846: hasty ambush:
[img706.imageshack.us image 640x132]

[img835.imageshack.us image 533x800]

All the money the red states get and you choose to focus on... WELFARE? Money that actually, y'know, FEEDS and CLOTHES and HOUSES people? With all the other tax money these states get?
I hate to say typical republican but... TYPICAL REPUBLICAN.

Try these:
Link one
Link two
Link three
Link four
Link five

From the last link: "The top 10 recipients of federal money are New Mexico, Mississippi, Alaska, Louisiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, Alabama, South Dakota, Kentucky, and Virginia. The top 10 payers are New Jersey, Nevada, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Illinois, Delaware, California, New York, and Colorado. Rhode Island breaks even."

/cry moar


And what is the money used for? Miiltary bases and operations? Where in New York would you place live fire training ranges like they have in Arizona and Nevada? National Parks ? Space program? or is it used for -Welfare?.

Even Federal land onwership plays into it. Are you wiling to hand over 85% of New York land and its resources the Federal govenment the way it is in Alaska?
States like Alaska, Utah and Wyoming have court cases over their inability to develope and get tax revenue from resources the Federal government controls in their states.

www.strangecosmos.com

www.humanevents.com
 
2012-01-03 03:17:44 PM

HeadLever:
Also, a few economic things have change since 2005. This study is in serious need of updating.


You're probably right. With the economic downturn red states are probably even further in the ditch than they were in 2005, and suck even more tax money from "blue states" now.

Jack Black 62:
Are government employees paid with voluntary donations, or are the net taxpayers paying them?

What happens when there are no more or not enough net taxpayers?


If this is going to be yet another "TAXUES IZ ROBBERRRRY AT THE POINTZ UV GUNZ!!!" rant, I'm going to have to let it go right here. You pay taxes so you can live among the rest of us in at least a semblance of civilization. That's how civilizations work. Plenty of places you could go if you don't like that system.
 
2012-01-03 03:26:42 PM

hasty ambush: States like Alaska, Utah and Wyoming have court cases over their inability to develope and get tax revenue from resources the Federal government controls in their states.


There is also PILT - Payment in Lieu of Taxes. (new window).

Not only is the federal government locking up resources that would be gained by the private sector, but taxpayers are paying the counties for this loss of income. Kind of a double whammy when you are talking about money spent vs money recieved.
 
2012-01-03 03:30:20 PM

Jack Black 62: rewind2846: Jack Black 62: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Jack Black 62: LouDobbsAwaaaay: hasty ambush: We, the minority of Americans who actually pay taxes,

[eyeroll]

Why the eye roll? Only about 45% of Americans are net taxpayers. The rest get assistance from the taxpayers (government employees, welfare recipients, etc)

[eyeroll]

Typical. The truth is a joke to you.

What is a joke is that in your warped mind someone working for the people by being employed by their federal, state, county or city government is some sort of "assistance", as if they should be doing the job for free or they aren't really "working" for a living. You would actually see public service as a form of welfare... sick.

People like you are why we don't have nice things.
/troll feeding over

Are government employees paid with voluntary donations, or are the net taxpayers paying them?

What happens when there are no more or not enough net taxpayers?


Were this to happen there would be far greater issues facing the nation economically. This isn't a realistic scenario.

As laughable as the OWS movement has become, they are spot on in that pay hasn't been commiserate for work done for most Americans for decades; CEOs aren't as valuable to a company (especially at the expense of the people actually doing the real work of putting out a quality product) as they would have you believe.
 
2012-01-03 03:36:19 PM

HeadLever:
Government has a role. Being every thing to everybody is not one of them.


Government's role is whatever the people whom that government serves wishes it to be. Just because you don't need a particular government function doesn't mean someone else should be deprived of that function.

I'm single with no kids. I have no direct need of the public primary or secondary education system. However in the larger picture not only do other people need that system, but I benefit from its existence by having a population with at least a passing ability to read and write. There are thousands of miles of highway I will never see, much less drive on, yet I pay for their maintenance and upkeep.... and so on.

In essence, a government does need to be "everything to everybody", because everybody needs something different from that government. What you need is not what I need is not what she needs is not what they need... yet the governments we pay for should meet all those needs because we all ask it to.

I don't want a government that is everything to me, but for what I do need I have no problem paying for, and realizing that part of that money will go to pay for someone elses needs as they pay for mine.
 
2012-01-03 03:40:48 PM

Arthur Jumbles: It will only cost billions to fix..... since we spent trillions on a voluntary war in Iraq I'm sure we can spend a few billions on something that's actually of importance to the American public and its way of life.


THIS!
 
2012-01-03 03:43:33 PM

HeadLever:
Not only is the federal government locking up resources that would be gained by the private sector, but taxpayers are paying the counties for this loss of income. Kind of a double whammy when you are talking about money spent vs money recieved.


Ever heard the song which contains the line "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"? There are reasons (see "Teddy Roosevelt") that the federal government put land off limits to development by private industry, and they had that figured out way back at the turn of the last century. Think people are really any smarter now?

I'm sure you can look up the reasons why, so I won't post them here. Suffice to say that concrete, strip mines, chopped off mountaintops and tree stubble over everything won't work. You really want the whole country to look like New Jersey?
 
2012-01-03 03:48:32 PM

rewind2846: Ever heard the song which contains the line "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"?


This is why I left Orange County, that bastion of SoCal conservatism. The county supes were not satisfied until every square inch of space was covered in development because "that's business and progress."

Now it's a homogenized unlivable shiathole of bland consumerist crap houses and drudgery...unless you live around KSNA and paid off the right officials to mandate a risky noise-abatement tack-off procedure to "reduce noise".

Dear morans, next time, don't buy property near a pre-existing airport.
 
2012-01-03 03:51:42 PM

HeadLever: hasty ambush: States like Alaska, Utah and Wyoming have court cases over their inability to develope and get tax revenue from resources the Federal government controls in their states.

There is also PILT - Payment in Lieu of Taxes. (new window).

Not only is the federal government locking up resources that would be gained by the private sector, but taxpayers are paying the counties for this loss of income. Kind of a double whammy when you are talking about money spent vs money recieved.


The states figured they are not getting compensated enough.

Utah lawmakers propose using eminent domain to take federal land (new window)

"The goal is to incite a court battle that they believe they can win at the Supreme Court giving Utah the right to develop the disputed land and generate some $50 billion for the state's public schools. "

"Sumsion and Rep. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, argue the federal government has an obligation through the U.S. Constitution and Utah's statehood act, to sell off federal land and provide 5 percent of the money to the state, but hasn't followed through. "

Wyoming trying to get Feds to trade land (new window)

Wyoming gets just $3,000 a year from the land by leasing it for cattle grazing. Sold with the proceeds invested at 3 percent, the land easily could bring in $3.75 million a year.
 
2012-01-03 03:57:38 PM

rewind2846: You're probably right. With the economic downturn red states are probably even further in the ditch than they were in 2005, and suck even more tax money from "blue states" now.


Actually, the red states seem to be recovering pretty well compared to the blue counterparts. North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana are booming, states like Texas and Idaho are seeing a rebound in tax revenue. Many states that that had rapid growth in the housing and public pensions - like California, New York and Nevada - are still struggling.

Most of the states that have larger state debts (Nevada, Illinois, New York, Conneticut, Massachussetts and Rhode Island) will likely lag somewhat before they can get back on track. Those that are obligated to huge public pensions and strong public unionized workforces are also going to have a tougher time digging out.

A pretty good resource for this information is located here (new window)
 
2012-01-03 04:01:58 PM

rewind2846: Government's role is whatever the people whom that government serves wishes it to be. Just because you don't need a particular government function doesn't mean someone else should be deprived of that function.


Not according to the founding fathers. If you want a government that preserves Freedom and Liberty, you need to first limit it in many regards. As the saying goes, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".
 
2012-01-03 04:04:42 PM

HeadLever: rewind2846: Government's role is whatever the people whom that government serves wishes it to be. Just because you don't need a particular government function doesn't mean someone else should be deprived of that function.

Not according to the founding fathers. If you want a government that preserves Freedom and Liberty, you need to first limit it in many regards. As the saying goes, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".


African Americans are 3/5ths of a person. Can't change that, it's what the Founding Fathers believed!

Seriously, while they were ahead of their times in many ways, the Fathers are not to be worshiped as gods. The world is a far different place than it was in the 18th century.
 
2012-01-03 04:14:05 PM

HeadLever: Not according to the founding fathers.


To the "founding fathers" white landowning males were regarded as fully capable citizens, women were empty-headed baby factories, and people of color weren't even human beings.
I don't think I would rely on these people for guidance on how to deal with the issues of 2012.
 
2012-01-03 04:17:39 PM

rewind2846: Ever heard the song which contains the line "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"? There are reasons (see "Teddy Roosevelt") that the federal government put land off limits to development by private industry,


The issue here is not so much development of federal lands, it is multiple use and the elimination of histoical natural resource use. Logging, grazing and minerals are pretty much on the way out, mostly thanks to government policy.
 
2012-01-03 04:23:46 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Seriously, while they were ahead of their times in many ways, the Fathers are not to be worshiped as gods. The world is a far different place than it was in the 18th century.


And privacy and freedom are being eroded everyday in the name of security. I perfer to have the choice on how I live within a number of simple moral boundaries.
 
2012-01-03 04:27:23 PM

rewind2846: To the "founding fathers" white landowning males were regarded as fully capable citizens, women were empty-headed baby factories, and people of color weren't even human beings.


And don't forget, they wore white wigs. These combined mean that we must mock everything they have ever said, amirite? Lol, those goalposts must be pretty heavy.

I don't think I would rely on these people for guidance on how to deal with the issues of 2012.

Yep, because human nature has changed so much in 250 years.
 
2012-01-03 04:36:34 PM

HeadLever: Delay: The deficit is bad folks should agree that this was a good thing because intragovernmental holdings provide a safety cushion for future spending when recessions decrease tax revenue or well understood causes increase spending.

No it does not. The Social Security trust fund is not a pot of money, but another lockbox of IOUs. When these bonds are redeemed (as now is the case with SS since it is currently in a deficit), it directly contributes to our public debt. Deficit hawks know that this is just another method that the goverment uses to kick the can down the road.

Problem is that the road is nearing a dead end if we stay on this path.


No. The problem is confusing federal government accounting.

Suppose for all of fiscal 2012 (which began Oct 1, 2011) the US spends nothing. Really nothing, spending is cut to zero. No military spending, no foreign aid, no Social Security. Nothing. Now also suppose all income taxes goes to nothing. No corporate, no individual and no AMT receipts. What's the 2012 deficit? $0.00. That's right. It's a balanced budget.

But, suppose during 2012 Anna May Wong buys $5,000 of EE savings bonds. Here, you can do it too. Link (new window)

What happens? Both the total public debt outstanding and debt held by the public increase by $5,000. Hey, how come? There was no deficit.

Now, suppose too during 2012 HeadLever pays $5,000 in payroll taxes (FICA). It's just you and Anna together, (that would be a nice year if you ask me) who have paid anything into the US Treasury during 2012.

What happens? The total public debt outstanding increases by $10,000. The debt held by the public increases only by $5,000. Got it? There's no dead end.
 
2012-01-03 04:39:25 PM
Obviously the way to fix this issue is to deregulate the paving industry and let the free market process decide what roads to fix and what roads to let crumble.
 
2012-01-03 04:40:43 PM

hasty ambush: The states figured they are not getting compensated enough.


Most of that is due to the policies that are enacted by the Federal Government basically takes the 'multiple use' concept and removes all natural resouce extraction. For many of the rural areas (especially the ones in the intermountain west), that really hurst these economies. PILT is not a real replacement for these economies.
 
2012-01-03 04:41:17 PM

HeadLever: rewind2846: Ever heard the song which contains the line "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot"? There are reasons (see "Teddy Roosevelt") that the federal government put land off limits to development by private industry,

The issue here is not so much development of federal lands, it is multiple use and the elimination of histoical natural resource use. Logging, grazing and minerals are pretty much on the way out, mostly thanks to government policy.


Maybe it's because, as I mentioned before, that we do not want the whole country to look like New Jersey. We've had hundreds of years of taking stuff from the earth to figure out what works and what doesn't. Places like China are now learning what we already know, with air you can't see through in their major cities and deserts that are growing by thousands of acres every year.

You can't just keep taking and expect things to continue the way they have been. Trees take time to grow. Grass takes time to grow. Minerals take millions of years to form.
We cut down trees faster than they grow back. Pastures and grazing land that formerly sustained millions of bison without a problem cannot support the many more millions of our cows, sheep, horses and goats. And even though humans have been using earth's minerals for thousands of years we still haven't (or won't) figure out ways to get them without farking entire chunks of the planet up.

They knew this was going to happen 100 years ago, and we have seen it come to pass in the here and now. If we want to prevent what few places we have left (like Alaska and the west) from becoming steaming industrial sh*tholes, then the only folks that can do that is the federal government.

Your great grand-children thank you.
 
2012-01-03 04:52:36 PM

HeadLever: rewind2846: To the "founding fathers" white landowning males were regarded as fully capable citizens, women were empty-headed baby factories, and people of color weren't even human beings.

And don't forget, they wore white wigs. These combined mean that we must mock everything they have ever said, amirite? Lol, those goalposts must be pretty heavy.

I don't think I would rely on these people for guidance on how to deal with the issues of 2012.

Yep, because human nature has changed so much in 250 years.


Human nature has not changed, but human civilization has. I think we've figured a few things out about society and government since the time of your "founding fathers". Goalposts not necessary.
They were not gods, they were not prophets, they were not sages, they were not time travelers, and they were not wizards. They were a product of their times, and while some of their ideas were worthwhile, they are not gospel and as any history are subject to interpretation.

Instead of simply following what someone said 250 years ago, why not think for yourself?
 
2012-01-03 05:07:22 PM

Delay: Suppose for all of fiscal 2012 (which began Oct 1, 2011) the US spends nothing. Really nothing, spending is cut to zero. No military spending, no foreign aid, no Social Security. Nothing. Now also suppose all income taxes goes to nothing. No corporate, no individual and no AMT receipts. What's the 2012 deficit? $0.00. That's right. It's a balanced budget.


Nope. Since Government Debt is interest bearing, there will be the interest payment at a minimum. As a note, that interest payment currrrently totals about $450 Billion per year. The portion that is associated with the public debt would go directly to the deficit in your hypothetical and debt would go up. The part that is intragovernmental debt would be used to buy more interest-bearing bonds and the trust fund would grow by that amount. However, that cash used to buy the bonds would be used to offset the public debt. It would basically add to the intragovernmental debt while reducing the public debt by that same amount.

That is the way the SS trust fund works. When SS in in surplus, we add to the governmental debt and reduce the public debt. When SS is in deficit (as it is now), we are reducing the governmental debt and adding to the public debt. Since they are linked in this manner, most often combined them when discussing the US debt.
 
2012-01-03 05:13:08 PM

HeadLever: Since they are linked in this manner, most often combined them when discussing the US debt.


The devil is in the details.
 
2012-01-03 05:22:06 PM

rewind2846: Maybe it's because, as I mentioned before, that we do not want the whole country to look like New Jersey.


It does not have to. There are ways to manage both recreation/environment and natural resources. As I mentioned before, the concept is defined in the term 'multiplie use'.

You can't just keep taking and expect things to continue the way they have been.

Never said we should.

We cut down trees faster than they grow back.

Nope (new window)



Pastures and grazing land that formerly sustained millions of bison without a problem cannot support the many more millions of our cows, sheep, horses and goats.

Sure they can (new window)

And even though humans have been using earth's minerals for thousands of years we still haven't (or won't) figure out ways to get them without farking entire chunks of the planet up.

Sure we have (new window)

Quite a number of left wing kool-aid talking points going on here. Let's attempt to stick to some facts when we discuss things, mmmmmkay?
 
2012-01-03 05:26:54 PM

Delay: The devil is in the details.


The basics of what everyone needs to know about the SS trust fund is that it IS NOT not a pot of money. It is a pot of IOUs that represent a real (and interest bearing)taxpayer liablity.
 
2012-01-03 05:34:53 PM

Jack Black 62: Were the people allowed to get their land if they did not want to sell, or were they forced at gun point off of it?


There is no land ownership in China so your argument is a non-sequitur. Have a nice day.
 
2012-01-03 05:44:23 PM

rewind2846: To the "founding fathers" white landowning males were regarded as fully capable citizens, women were empty-headed baby factories, and people of color weren't even human beings.
I don't think I would rely on these people for guidance on how to deal with the issues of 2012.


There were provisions in the constitution to change the way the Government was allowed to operate and it has been done. The 3/5ths argument still comes up even though it was lawfully changed via the amendment process.

The impossibly rigid constitution has been changed

rewind2846: Government has a role. Being every thing to everybody is not one of them.

Government's role is whatever the people whom that government serves wishes it to be. Just because you don't need a particular government function doesn't mean someone else should be deprived of that function.

I'm single with no kids. I have no direct need of the public primary or secondary education system. However in the larger picture not only do other people need that system, but I benefit from its existence by having a population with at least a passing ability to read and write. There are thousands of miles of highway I will never see, much less drive on, yet I pay for their maintenance and upkeep.... and so on.

In essence, a government does need to be "everything to everybody", because everybody needs something different from that government. What you need is not what I need is not what she needs is not what they need... yet the governments we pay for should meet all those needs because we all ask it to.

I don't want a government that is everything to me, but for what I do need I have no problem paying for, and realizing that part of that money will go to pay for someone elses needs as they pay for mine.


You pay local taxes for a school so your neighbor's kids arent running around breaking windows all day. You pay for police so that in the even that someone else needs to be thrown in jail. My community benefits from these things. Hell, even a food bank, shelter or jobs-education program might be a good idea in case someone lost their job they wouldn't be thrown on the street.

Whatever programs you like most, are best run at a local or state level with some level of accountability to the citizens that support it. The federal government is only supposed to do a handfull of things, leaving the rest to the states. I am astounded by the notion that if the Federal Government isn't involved in something that it cannot possibly be done and that society as we know it will collapse. As it is now, it all goes to one big kitty and the representatives and lobbyists that beg the hardest get to see it returned.
 
2012-01-03 07:06:38 PM
HeadLever:

We cut down trees faster than they grow back.

Nope (new window)


Tree farms are not forests. Forests are ecosystems, tree farms are just... farms.
From your link: "The average age of forests in the United States is younger than it was before European settlement. The greatest diversity is found in the oldest forests, so there may be more forest now, but because it is so young, it is home for fewer animals, plants, insects and other organisms than a fully developed, mature forest ecosystem. It also means that protecting old growth forests is imperative. "

Older growth forests... as in undeveloped land. Tree farms are developed land. How about using the land we've taken already instead of grabbing more? Thanks for the Rush Limbaugh meme, btw.

Pastures and grazing land that formerly sustained millions of bison without a problem cannot support the many more millions of our cows, sheep, horses and goats.

Sure they can (new window)


No, they can't. The Mortenson family in your link is just one of a relative handful of farmers who choose to raise their livestock through more natural means, which is all well and good until you multiply what they are doing by the 92.6 million head of beef cattle that were in the US inventory Link in 2011. That's when we get into some serious issues. The fact that most of these cattle are raised in feedlots and on farms instead of being allowed to roam freely throughout the country is one of the reasons we still have grasslands left.

And even though humans have been using earth's minerals for thousands of years we still haven't (or won't) figure out ways to get them without farking entire chunks of the planet up.

Sure we have (new window)


A mining company PR website? Well, as long as you're going to mining companies for your info let's counter with a few of mine, with pictures and data and stuff...

EPA
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Earthjustice
Mountainjustice

If we've figured it out, why is this happening? And we won't even go near this past summer's BP fiasco in the gulf...

Quite a number of left wing kool-aid talking points going on here. Let's attempt to stick to some facts when we discuss things, mmmmmkay?

Now who's drinking the Kool-Aid? I prefer lemonade myself...

Look, not using up all the sh*t you have is a GOOD THINGtm. Not paving over everything is a GOOD THINGtm. Letting some areas of the planet alone is a GOOD THINGtm. We should put our tax money toward fixing what we have where we are (the subject of this thread) instead of being concerned about taking more from where we're not.
If you can't make money any other way than raping the only home we have, then maybe you should find another line of work.
 
2012-01-03 07:19:06 PM

o5iiawah:

You pay local taxes for a school so your neighbor's kids arent running around breaking windows all day....


Then I suppose that you wouldn't have any problem with states only getting back from the feds in services the exact amount they put in... right? Being from California if I were a selfish fark I could get behind this, but I realize that would leave entire chunks of red states in very poor condition.
Therefore, since it's not all about me, I don't mind paying for their upkeep, as long as they don't keep b*tching about it. I don't just live in a house, or a city, or a county, or a state, I live in a country, and we would all do to remember that more often.

When someone gives you free soup don't ask if it's chicken noodle or chicken with rice. Just eat the damn soup.
 
2012-01-03 08:05:22 PM

rewind2846: Then I suppose that you wouldn't have any problem with states only getting back from the feds in services the exact amount they put in... right?


The whole notion of states "getting back what they put in" is crap to begin with.

Go to Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. These are things which the federal government is supposed to collect taxes in order to do. if there's a stretch of federal highway in Arkansas that needs re-paving, then Federal Funds, collected via the Federal gas tax should be used to contract a road crew to re-pave it.
Other than that, if a state needs a project done and it is not the authority of the federal government to do, then the state should levy taxes or pay for it on its own.

States should't have to run their money through the federal bureaucracy and then beg for it back. The Federal Government should tax according to what it needs to carry out its essential functions and leave the rest of the things to the states.

The fact that Texas (no income tax) might not have as good of schools as NY (10% income tax) does not trigger a new authority of the federal government to collect money for school redistribution regardless of how good of an idea you might think it be. There's a common misconception that without federal funding for education that the states would just decide they dont need schools.

I could see the welcome sign: Texas! Great for business, just dont have kids here"
 
2012-01-03 11:46:39 PM

rewind2846: Tree farms are not forests. Forests are ecosystems,


Moving the goalpost again, I see. Bouncing from trees then to forest then way out in left field to ecosystems. Even with that, you screw it up. A forest is a bunch of trees. An ecosystem is an ecosystem. Sometimes they cohabitate, sometimes they don't.

Older growth forests... as in undeveloped land. Tree farms are developed land. How about using the land we've taken already instead of grabbing more?

Sounds good to me. When can we open those areas up? Many of the areas that have already been logged 100 or even 50 years ago are now off-limits, but yet with some pretty good stands of timber. Oh, btw, tree farms are on private land are not part of this discussion. We are discussing public lands, remember?

well and good until you multiply what they arich again, has nothing e doing by the 92.6 million head of beef cattle that were in the US inventory Link in 2011.

And no one in their right mind would be trying to raise every cow in pasture this way. Pasturing like this is for growing cattle. Feedlots are for fattening cattle. Again, you are confused as to how our food is raised. Not every cow needs to be at pasture at one time.

A mining company PR website? Well, as long as you're going to mining companies for your info let's counter with a few of mine, with pictures and data and stuff...


Moving the goalpost again? Color me shocked. Can you keep on track for just one point or is that too difficult? My point is that mines can, in fact, operate without undue impacts. I provided an example. Your retarded 'counterpoints' offer nothing to refute my point.

Look, not using up all the sh*t you have is a GOOD THINGtm. Not paving over everything is a GOOD THINGtm.

With that, I'll agree. However, that is not what is happening right now. Instead we are farming out all of our natural resource extraction to those countries that have no environmental or labor safeguards. Go look at the USGS Commodity Summaries sometime. You just might learn something. Those that stop at nothing to shut down all natural resource extraction, regardless of impact or benefit, are nothing but NIMBYs. George Carlin nailed it for these folks. It is too bad that folks like you get caught up in the propaganda that is spewed from these watermelons.
 
2012-01-03 11:56:09 PM

rewind2846: Then I suppose that you wouldn't have any problem with states only getting back from the feds in services the exact amount they put in... right?


If you could level the impacts that the federal goverment policy, mandates, and regulations had on the population of each state, I don't think that many would mind at all. However, the government has their hand in so much of everyday life this would be virtually impossible.
 
2012-01-04 09:28:10 AM

Delay: Tellingthem: Clinton never paid anything thing down. The debt grew every single year he was in office. It did not increase as much as in other years, but it never went down. Link (new window)

09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

What you are showing is the total public debt outstanding. You are not showing debt held by the public.
The debt held by the public is all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments, and banks outside the United States. The debt held by the public is money the federal government needs to pay someone else. That's the concern of the deficit is bad folks. Debt held by the public went down under Clinton. The deficit is bad folks should agree that this was a good thing, but like yourself they don't, typically because the deficit is bad folks are currently Republicans.

The numbers you show, the total public debt outstanding, includes intragovernmental holdings as the highway trust fund and the social security trust fund. That debt is is money the federal government owes itself. That went up under Clinton. The deficit is bad folks should agree that this was a good thing because intragovernmental holdings provide a safety cushion for future spending when recessions decrease tax revenue or well understood causes increase spending. But like yourself they don't, typically because the deficit is bad folks are currently Republicans. The total public debt outstanding includes savings funds.

Statements such as yours are modern versions of the old John Birch crap that buying US savings bonds contributes to the national debt and is un-American.


Intergovernmental debt is still debt that must be paid by taxing the taxpayer. To say that it shouldn't be counted, or is "a safety cushion for future spending when recessions decrease tax revenue" is idiotic.
 
2012-01-04 09:39:07 AM

rewind2846: HeadLever:
Also, a few economic things have change since 2005. This study is in serious need of updating.

You're probably right. With the economic downturn red states are probably even further in the ditch than they were in 2005, and suck even more tax money from "blue states" now.

Jack Black 62:
Are government employees paid with voluntary donations, or are the net taxpayers paying them?

What happens when there are no more or not enough net taxpayers?

If this is going to be yet another "TAXUES IZ ROBBERRRRY AT THE POINTZ UV GUNZ!!!" rant, I'm going to have to let it go right here. You pay taxes so you can live among the rest of us in at least a semblance of civilization. That's how civilizations work. Plenty of places you could go if you don't like that system.


What happens when there are no more or not enough net taxpayers?
 
2012-01-04 09:41:28 AM

o5iiawah: Jack Black 62: Were the people allowed to get their land if they did not want to sell, or were they forced at gun point off of it?

There is no land ownership in China so your argument is a non-sequitur. Have a nice day.


There is none in the United States either. Stop paying your rent (property taxes) and see what happens.
 
Displayed 37 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report