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.

(Chattanooga Times Free Press)   GOP governors for the last few years: lets slash taxes on businesses and the wealthy to show how "business friendly" we are" GOP governors now: We're broke and businesses are complaining our roads are crap-so let's double the gas tax   (timesfreepress.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, GOP, gasoline taxes, Republican governors, Michigan, third rail, Rick Snyder, vehicle registrations, sales taxes  
•       •       •

2839 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Mar 2013 at 12:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-21 11:19:13 AM
But gasoline taxes, some Republican officials say, are a lesser evil because the money traditionally doesn't wind up in general spending, but rather in building infrastructure, which helps boost economic development.

Long as the gas tax money stays out of the general fund and really does go to the roads, I'm okay with this.

And envious. New York's gas tax money goes into the general fund, and if you don't pay appropriate homage to the bosses you don't get jack shiat done in your district - and even then, the NYC Democratic machine gets first dibs.
 
2013-03-21 11:45:16 AM
But job creators!
 
2013-03-21 11:45:53 AM
Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?
 
2013-03-21 11:49:32 AM
There aren't OTHER things you could tax that wouldn't have such a dramatic impact on the lower to middle class?

Oh, wait, that's right. You're a "Republican."

GFY, Snyder!
 
2013-03-21 11:52:59 AM
They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.
 
2013-03-21 11:56:19 AM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


Let's get rid of this for all taxes! Let's pay for all securities laws with an equity tax. Let's pay for the military by a wealth tax (since the military protects your wealth). DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!
 
2013-03-21 11:56:57 AM
b-b-b-but gays wanna marry and recruit my children!  And atheists want to outlaw Christmas!  And Obama wants to bring 100,000,000 Muslims to America!  And the UN wants to confiscate my land, guns, and children!!1!

Seriously, sensible Republicans (if any are left) wake/grow the f*ck up.
 
2013-03-21 12:01:44 PM
Yeah because gas tax totally won't hit OTR trucking and raise prices on anything transported in a truck.
 
2013-03-21 12:03:00 PM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


Actually, I'm pretty sure it does take into account the working poor. In fact, levying a tax hike on the people who can least afford it is probably the general idea.
 
2013-03-21 12:03:15 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


They could always raise taxes.  that'd fix the problem!  oh, wait - no, they can't.  Republicans can't raise taxes, they can only CUT taxes.  And they can only cut taxes on corporations and the rich.  that's why it kinda sucks to be them.
 
2013-03-21 12:07:09 PM
No reasoning with a tea bagger.
 
2013-03-21 12:09:37 PM
Michigan roads have been crap for forever. I know when I cross into the UP by the way my vehicle handles.
 
2013-03-21 12:15:49 PM
Elected on the downside of the recession, he was among a crop of new Republican leaders eager to show they could boost their states' ailing economies with lower taxes.

I'll just assume the Michigan economy is now roaring, but if it isn't, it's because of Obama (or because Michigan didn't cut taxes enough).
 
2013-03-21 12:16:54 PM

Weaver95: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

They could always raise taxes.  that'd fix the problem!  oh, wait - no, they can't.  Republicans can't raise taxes, they can only CUT taxes.  And they can only cut taxes on corporations and the rich.  that's why it kinda sucks to be them.


They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes
 
2013-03-21 12:17:51 PM
They've also been selling off state assets to make the bottom line look better, crapping on abortion rights and gerrymandering the fark out of states.

A lot of damage has been done since the derpers got control in 2010 and much of it at the state level gets overlooked.
 
2013-03-21 12:20:01 PM
I use close to a 100 gallons of gas a week in a large truck driving to and back from work, the extra 14 bucks a week in tax would probably be fair considering how I use the roads, also I would just bring lunch all week instead of eating out a few times and basically call it even
 
2013-03-21 12:22:35 PM
In other news, GOPers are America hating scumbag morons, who should be rounded up by the state and publicly executed as an example to others.
 
2013-03-21 12:24:32 PM

King Something: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does take into account the working poor. In fact, levying a tax hike on the people who can least afford it is probably the general idea.


well really, what are the odds that a member of the working poor contributed to his campaign?  So it's their own fault, now isn't it?
 
2013-03-21 12:28:59 PM
In other words, investing in a gas station in one of the northern suburbs of Toledo might be really clever really soon
 
2013-03-21 12:37:05 PM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


Yep. I'm in that situation and I'd LOVE to work closer to home (or from home, where I get more done, anyway) but instead, I waste 2 hours a day at least going back and forth.
 
2013-03-21 12:46:19 PM

Magorn: Weaver95: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

They could always raise taxes.  that'd fix the problem!  oh, wait - no, they can't.  Republicans can't raise taxes, they can only CUT taxes.  And they can only cut taxes on corporations and the rich.  that's why it kinda sucks to be them.

They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


So you went from single occupancy in a vehicle to commuter bus.  When liberals recommend that its social engineering.
 
2013-03-21 01:06:18 PM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


It does increase fuel costs for business owners though. The rich are rich partially because they use so much of our infrastructure and resources, and have earned the most reward from them. So a gas tax increase does affect them too. Trucking company costs are going to be higher, same with any UPS and FedEx branches, or any company with its own fleet.
 
2013-03-21 01:06:57 PM
Yay, more taxes for the poor and the middle class. You know, the 47% who pay no taxes.
 
2013-03-21 01:07:21 PM

serpent_sky: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

Yep. I'm in that situation and I'd LOVE to work closer to home (or from home, where I get more done, anyway) but instead, I waste 2 hours a day at least going back and forth.


And now you'll get to pay even more for gas to do so.

I understand the logic behind it, but it doesn't seem very practical, considering who it'd impact the most.  IIRC, in this state, they made a higher gas tax for diesel, since only busses/trucks/etc would use it and not your average commuter.
 
2013-03-21 01:07:25 PM

Magorn: //// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


If there's any place that needs more mass transit and less PMV's, it's the beltway.
 
2013-03-21 01:08:58 PM
Lower taxes on the wealthy and increase them items that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class.  It's the American way.
 
2013-03-21 01:09:36 PM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


It's practically the definition of a regressive tax.  There's nothing wrong with supporting regressive taxation--you just have to live with the economy, government and social structure that results.
 
2013-03-21 01:09:45 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.
 
2013-03-21 01:10:43 PM

King Something: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does take into account the working poor. In fact, levying a tax hike on the people who can least afford it is probably the general idea.


well they cant fight back... cept for all those guns we scared them into buying
 
2013-03-21 01:11:14 PM

TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.


who told you that?
 
2013-03-21 01:12:06 PM
I'm all for lower taxes. But you don't lower taxes without lowering the financial burden on the government. It's like taking a job with lower pay and not adjusting your lifestyle to accommodate the dropped income.  So, here's the brakes: either you A) work out a tax system where everyone pays their fair share for the services that are provided to the community (you live here? use the fire/police/medical/whatever service? you get to pay for it), and you put your dollars into the programs and areas that need to be done to repay the people that are paying for it all, since they're collectively paying for you to provide a commonly organized service, or B) you stop taking people's money and cut cash flow to shiat that isn't necessary to the core operation of the community.

Kinda simple.  Of course, some people fail at basic economics and expect a gallon of milk from a cow they only fed enough to produce a quart, but hey, what do I know?
 
2013-03-21 01:12:51 PM
more toll roads is probably a better solution
 
2013-03-21 01:13:14 PM

skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-21 01:14:15 PM
Trust us, guys... we're going to use those fees to fix the roads!

Aaannnd it's gone.
 
2013-03-21 01:15:27 PM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]


heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians
 
2013-03-21 01:15:44 PM

verbaltoxin: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

It does increase fuel costs for business owners though. The rich are rich partially because they use so much of our infrastructure and resources, and have earned the most reward from them. So a gas tax increase does affect them too. Trucking company costs are going to be higher, same with any UPS and FedEx branches, or any company with its own fleet.


Yes but oine contributing factor of the rich being rich is that they pass the extra cost of the infrastructure tax onto the customers.
 
2013-03-21 01:16:40 PM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians


I'm pretty sure he was going for the bolded part
 
2013-03-21 01:20:53 PM

CPennypacker: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

I'm pretty sure he was going for the bolded part


well, we both know that their point was to purposefully misinterpret what Obama said and not make the insinuation that business doesn't need infrastructure
 
2013-03-21 01:21:47 PM
So, Snyder has to fix 8 yrs. of Ganholm's ineptitude.  Or does 0bama own exclusive rights to that excuse?
 
2013-03-21 01:21:58 PM

verbaltoxin: Magorn: //// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes

If there's any place that needs more mass transit and less PMV's, it's the beltway.


which is why I am a big fan of the Silver Line metro expansion that McDonnell has done his level best to kill- and why I'm pretty bitter about his creation of privaely-owned "HOT" lanes on the Beltway where you get to use the special lanes so long as you are willing to pony up a toll that varies by how bad the traffic is in the plebian lanes (and the fact that contract has a 'non-compete clause that forbid the state from adding any more free lanes to the beltway to ease congestion)
 
2013-03-21 01:23:13 PM
Atlanta is getting pretty bad, can't see the lines in half the places I drive, potholes everywhere. Of course, I live in a modest neighborhood, up the road in the land of McMansions, they get new traffic lights to cut ten minutes off their commute and we can't even get the cops to stop the 70mph speeders that use our street as a cut-through.
 
2013-03-21 01:23:29 PM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians


You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.
 
2013-03-21 01:23:57 PM

Magorn: /Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll, $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


I believe trying to push a plan like that in California would end in a good ol' fashioned lynching
 
2013-03-21 01:24:02 PM

DamnYankees: Let's get rid of this for all taxes! Let's pay for all securities laws with an equity tax. Let's pay for the military by a wealth tax (since the military protects your wealth). DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!


I know your joking, but that's pretty much impossible. Its much easier to determine what people make in income in a year. Its ridiculously hard to determine someones "wealth" and its easy to hide wealth as well.
 
2013-03-21 01:27:30 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: So, Snyder has to fix 8 yrs. of Ganholm's ineptitude.  Or does 0bama own exclusive rights to that excuse?


Hmm. here's an exercise for you:

Bush inherited a surplus, and promptly cut taxes by the entire amount of the tax surplus ($1.2 TRILLION) in a "temporary" tax cut.  He then extended those tax cuts while racking up record budget deficits and spending an additional Trillion dollars on a war in Iraq that didn;t even show up on the budget because it was emmergency supplemental spending for 7 years. Meanwhile his  economic regulators were so bad at their job that the precipitated the worst finacial crisis since the Great Depression, causing, among other things, the stock market to lose HALF of its value.

What did Granholm do that was equivalent?  Be very specific please, and explain how, as a sidebar, if Synder was the one who cut the taxes, how his curent lack of money could be her fault.

or were you just talking out of your ass because you have no actual rational defense of Synder's ineptitude
 
2013-03-21 01:28:13 PM
Wait, wait, wait a socialist second here!

They said that money into infrastructure was good because it helped spur economic development...but I could have sworn that the GOP was against large scale infrastructure spending because it didn't spur economic development OR create jobs.

What the fark is going on here?
 
2013-03-21 01:28:30 PM

Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.


but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?
 
2013-03-21 01:30:01 PM
skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB
 
2013-03-21 01:30:20 PM
Fun part is the news that came out showing ALL of Wisconsin's counties have budget issues now and their unemployment went UP. How's life for all of you Koch suckers?
 
2013-03-21 01:31:21 PM

xanadian: There aren't OTHER things you could tax that wouldn't have such a dramatic impact on the lower to middle class?

Oh, wait, that's right. You're a "Republican."

GFY, Snyder!


He's already raised income taxes on individuals.  It was the first thing he did after he took office.
 
2013-03-21 01:31:22 PM

Gulper Eel: But gasoline taxes, some Republican officials say, are a lesser evil because the money traditionally doesn't wind up in general spending, but rather in building infrastructure, which helps boost economic development.

Long as the gas tax money stays out of the general fund and really does go to the roads, I'm okay with this.

And envious. New York's gas tax money goes into the general fund, and if you don't pay appropriate homage to the bosses you don't get jack shiat done in your district - and even then, the NYC Democratic machine gets first dibs.


Cripes are you a one track mind whiner.
 
2013-03-21 01:31:28 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB


your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.
 
2013-03-21 01:32:52 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: But gasoline taxes, some Republican officials say, are a lesser evil because the money traditionally doesn't wind up in general spending, but rather in building infrastructure, which helps boost economic development.

Long as the gas tax money stays out of the general fund and really does go to the roads, I'm okay with this.

And envious. New York's gas tax money goes into the general fund, and if you don't pay appropriate homage to the bosses you don't get jack shiat done in your district - and even then, the NYC Democratic machine gets first dibs.

Cripes are you a one track mind whiner.


NYC DEMONCRATIC MACHINE APPEASER!
 
2013-03-21 01:33:30 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


I wish someone would tell the Governor of NC this. Alas he seems to believe that the way forward is to copy the ideas of the broke states. After all who needs infrastructures when your buddies who paid for the campaign can get a nice pay rise right now.
 
2013-03-21 01:34:48 PM
So once again the tax burden has been shifted to the middle/low income people that are trying to eek out a living by going to and from their 9-5 jobs?  Why am I not surprised?
 
2013-03-21 01:35:16 PM

skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.

but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?


Sure, they do need to use some of the money for upkeep and operational costs, but it is still privately owned and operating to make a personal profit for the company that owns it.

It's also operated horribly with, oftentimes, no toll attendants on duty and really shoddy maintenance.
 
2013-03-21 01:35:37 PM
Time for the Republicans to fark the poor and middle class again.  It must be a Thursday.
 
2013-03-21 01:35:52 PM
Or they can take the IL approach and increase taxes, have crumbling infrastructure, have employers run away like that girl you have been stalking and still not come close to a ballanced budget.
 
2013-03-21 01:36:03 PM

PsyLord: So once again the tax burden has been shifted to the middle/low income people that are trying to eek out a living by going to and from their 9-5 jobs?  Why am I not surprised?


Because you still won't respect your betters, plebe!
 
2013-03-21 01:37:24 PM
Turn 696 and I-75 in Wayne County into a speed-limit-free toll road - everyone is driving 90+ anyway and the city can't afford patrols there as it is.

Charge a "user fee" for bullets, lighters and matches in Wayne County.
Lower Murder rate
Lower Arson rate
Profit

Sell Ambassador Bridge
*ducks*

Leave the UP and Onaway the hell alone.
 
2013-03-21 01:37:31 PM

skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.


You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.
 
2013-03-21 01:37:55 PM

Magorn: What did Granholm do that was equivalent?


She had a mole on her face
 
2013-03-21 01:38:35 PM
As a mid Michigan resident I'd like to know one thing:  Will that be enough money?  Cause some of these roads are bad.  Like, really, really bad.  I've lived in a number of states and I think MI has the worse roads I've ever been in.
 
2013-03-21 01:39:29 PM
The important thing is that a Pledge isn't broken.
 
2013-03-21 01:39:44 PM

Lumpmoose: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

It's practically the definition of a regressive tax.  There's nothing wrong with supporting regressive taxation--you just have to live with the economy, government and social structure that results.


Sort of.  If you are so poor you don't have a car, you don't pay it.  That is, it hurts the "upper lower class" the most, but the very, very poor are spared.
 
2013-03-21 01:40:31 PM

G. Gordon Libbie: Sell Ambassador Bridge
*ducks*


Ummm....  Isn't that bridge already privately owned?
 
2013-03-21 01:41:05 PM

Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.

but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?

Sure, they do need to use some of the money for upkeep and operational costs, but it is still privately owned and operating to make a personal profit for the company that owns it.

It's also operated horribly with, oftentimes, no toll attendants on duty and really shoddy maintenance.


I don't have much of an issue with major roads being run as utilities by private entities as long there are sensible restrictions in place and enforced. If it can make fiscal sense for a state to do it, then do it. Purely private major roads would be a terrible, terrible idea.
 
2013-03-21 01:43:43 PM

Saiga410: Or they can take the IL approach and increase taxes, have crumbling infrastructure, have employers run away like that girl you have been stalking and still not come close to a ballanced budget.


No joke. I tell my wife they should charge a tax to move out, they'd make millions.

/and then promptly embezzle it
//or prioritize some other stupid think they can find like that parking meter fiasco
///amazed the state is blue honestly
 
2013-03-21 01:44:04 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


That might be true on occasion  and might have been true years ago, but your average business today will move a company because of the massive tax breaks and those tax breaks typically end up in the hands of a few.

"Big Business" these days is more about finding creative ways to line the pockets of a few with money from the 98% than it is about running a company well.
 
2013-03-21 01:45:28 PM

Magorn: verbaltoxin: Magorn: //// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes

If there's any place that needs more mass transit and less PMV's, it's the beltway.

which is why I am a big fan of the Silver Line metro expansion that McDonnell has done his level best to kill- and why I'm pretty bitter about his creation of privaely-owned "HOT" lanes on the Beltway where you get to use the special lanes so long as you are willing to pony up a toll that varies by how bad the traffic is in the plebian lanes (and the fact that contract has a 'non-compete clause that forbid the state from adding any more free lanes to the beltway to ease congestion)


Whoa, deja vu.  Same exact thing happened in Southern California along the 91 freeway in Orange County (heading from Riverside County) about a decade ago, complete with the non-compete clause.  Eventually some government agency took over the lanes when the private company went out of business, although they still have a toll.
 
2013-03-21 01:51:26 PM
Republicans raise regressive taxes to pay for breaks on the wealthy? I'm shocked.
 
2013-03-21 01:52:38 PM

skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution


Which would then basically be a mileage tax.  You'd have to go beyond the freeways to make that a solution.
 
2013-03-21 01:52:56 PM

PsyLord: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.

You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.


I read about a couple that did that from the canadian border to the mexican border, using no paved roads. Took them more than 3 weeks. Your friend has no clue what he'd be up against...
 
2013-03-21 01:57:27 PM

12349876: skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution

Which would then basically be a mileage tax.  You'd have to go beyond the freeways to make that a solution.


mileage tax based on vehicle size makes more sense than a fuel tax anyway
 
2013-03-21 01:57:31 PM

Psylence: PsyLord: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.

You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.

I read about a couple that did that from the canadian border to the mexican border, using no paved roads. Took them more than 3 weeks. Your friend has no clue what he'd be up against...


If Horatio Jackson can do it why not that guy?
 
2013-03-21 02:00:35 PM
"They also like the simple idea behind it."

That is the crux of every GOP motive!

When does life begin?  "Conception" keeps it simple.
When does rape occur? "Only when it leaves obvious wounds" keeps it simple.
What should government do? "As little as possible" keeps it simple.
Where is moral authority? "In one book" keeps it simple.
 
2013-03-21 02:00:59 PM

skullkrusher: 12349876: skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution

Which would then basically be a mileage tax.  You'd have to go beyond the freeways to make that a solution.

mileage tax based on vehicle size makes more sense than a fuel tax anyway


Would we all end up getting "taxed" for that because truck transportation expenses would go up?
 
2013-03-21 02:02:46 PM
G. Gordon Libbie:
Sell Ambassador Bridge
*ducks*



Somehow I doubt Matty Moroun would be interested.
 
2013-03-21 02:05:00 PM
"A hundred and twenty bucks is a lot, especially for minimum-wage people," said April Steen, 28, a Lansing nurse who said potholes had bent her rims three times.

Seems to me $10 a month would be a pretty good investment to not have the road destroy your car.  That is if you can actually trust the State to properly use the funds, but that is a different argument.
 
2013-03-21 02:05:07 PM

Mr_H: As a mid Michigan resident I'd like to know one thing:  Will that be enough money?  Cause some of these roads are bad.  Like, really, really bad.  I've lived in a number of states and I think MI has the worse roads I've ever been in.


I would agree that Michigan has the worst roads in the nation... Possibly world.
 
2013-03-21 02:06:15 PM
Republican ideas always end up costing more in the long run, ask Rick Parry.

On the other end of the spectrum, the increased unplanned births resulting from Texas' cuts are expected to cost taxpayers an estimated additional $273 million in medical expenses and Medicaid coverage. Link
 
2013-03-21 02:07:06 PM

zarberg: skullkrusher: 12349876: skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution

Which would then basically be a mileage tax.  You'd have to go beyond the freeways to make that a solution.

mileage tax based on vehicle size makes more sense than a fuel tax anyway

Would we all end up getting "taxed" for that because truck transportation expenses would go up?


possibly but trucks do more damage to roads so it makes sense for them to pay more
 
2013-03-21 02:07:38 PM
How are the jobs going in WI Mr. Walker........farking potato.
 
2013-03-21 02:08:15 PM

skullkrusher: 12349876: skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution

Which would then basically be a mileage tax.  You'd have to go beyond the freeways to make that a solution.

mileage tax based on vehicle size makes more sense than a fuel tax anyway


Yup, use the gross weight of the vehicle as some sort of multiplier on the mileage.  Heavier vehicles cause more road wear.  Would not be very popular with the I need a Caddy Escalade EXT for soccer practice pick up folks.
 
2013-03-21 02:08:44 PM
"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.
 
2013-03-21 02:09:00 PM

wingnut396: "A hundred and twenty bucks is a lot, especially for minimum-wage people," said April Steen, 28, a Lansing nurse who said potholes had bent her rims three times.

Seems to me $10 a month would be a pretty good investment to not have the road destroy your car.  That is if you can actually trust the State to properly use the funds, but that is a different argument.


At this point in time I would trust the state - even having worked for state government - to actually use the funds more than I would trust a private company to not find every which way to bilk the taxpayers and funnel the funds as efficiently as possible to the few that run said private company.
 
2013-03-21 02:10:32 PM
Now if people/companies  paid for the CO2 they are releasing into the atmosphere instead of having the general tax payer pay for it.
 
2013-03-21 02:12:43 PM
This is just a liberal plot from Kenyan mathematics
 
2013-03-21 02:13:00 PM

Mr_H: As a mid Michigan resident I'd like to know one thing:  Will that be enough money?  Cause some of these roads are bad.  Like, really, really bad.  I've lived in a number of states and I think MI has the worse roads I've ever been in.


You have clearly never visited WV.

Farking overloaded coal trucks farking up the roads and bridges.
 
2013-03-21 02:14:40 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Fun part is the news that came out showing ALL of Wisconsin's counties have budget issues now and their unemployment went UP. How's life for all of you Koch suckers?



3.bp.blogspot.com

Job Growth, Wisconsin (red) and nationwide (blue).

Walker's planning lots of road building projects. Walker's planning on paying for road building projects by not raising taxes but selling a few things the State currently owns, instead.

The assets he wants to sell? Those power plants that he was going to sell to the Kochs a year or two ago, plus a few $billion in unspecified "other assets" since the power plants aren't quite worth $6,400,000,000.00 by themselves. I'm not aware of anything else the State owns that would fetch a big pile of cash on the open market right now, unless he's thinking of selling half the Southern Kettle Moraine to home builders. Or maybe office buildings which we'll then have to lease from a landlord henceforth, which strikes me as making absolutely no financial sense.

/the Kettle Moraine theory is purely speculation on my part
 
2013-03-21 02:15:06 PM

zarberg: wingnut396: "A hundred and twenty bucks is a lot, especially for minimum-wage people," said April Steen, 28, a Lansing nurse who said potholes had bent her rims three times.

Seems to me $10 a month would be a pretty good investment to not have the road destroy your car.  That is if you can actually trust the State to properly use the funds, but that is a different argument.

At this point in time I would trust the state - even having worked for state government - to actually use the funds more than I would trust a private company to not find every which way to bilk the taxpayers and funnel the funds as efficiently as possible to the few that run said private company.


I don't disagree with that.
 
2013-03-21 02:17:22 PM

Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.


I think the point is that the fuel tax is specifically earmarked for infrastructure development which has a direct impact on economic development. You invest the money in a tangible asset which boosts commerce while getting the benefit of the expenditure on the economy in general.
Please, do try to remain calm.
 
2013-03-21 02:18:26 PM

Citrate1007: How are the jobs going in WI Mr. Walker........farking potato.


Jobs?? We're number 44! Six states are lousier than we are! Yay!
 
2013-03-21 02:20:34 PM

skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.

but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?

Sure, they do need to use some of the money for upkeep and operational costs, but it is still privately owned and operating to make a personal profit for the company that owns it.

It's also operated horribly with, oftentimes, no toll attendants on duty and really shoddy maintenance.

I don't have much of an issue with major roads being run as utilities by private entities as long there are sensible restrictions in place and enforced. If it can make fiscal sense for a state to do it, then do it. Purely private major roads would be a terrible, terrible idea.


The way we did it in Illinois, we took a lump sum payment in return for a 99 year lease.  It's the equivalent of taking the lump sum lottery payment instead of the installments.  But it sure looked great for the politicians who balanced the budget that one year.  It's not about making fiscal sense, it's about making political sense.  It's politicians who want a huge wad of cash to lower taxes and put up pretty buildings now and who cares what happens 50 years from now when the state has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars less in revenue.  Let those politicians deal with it.
 
2013-03-21 02:21:46 PM

lennavan: skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.

but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?

Sure, they do need to use some of the money for upkeep and operational costs, but it is still privately owned and operating to make a personal profit for the company that owns it.

It's also operated horribly with, oftentimes, no toll attendants on duty and really shoddy maintenance.

I don't have much of an issue with major roads being run as utilities by private entities as long there are sensible restrictions in place and enforced. If it can make fiscal sense for a state to do it, then do it. Purely private major roads would be a terrible, terrible idea.

The way we did it in Illinois, we took a lump sum payment in return for a 99 year lease.  It's the equivalent of taking the lump sum lottery payment instead of the installments.  But it sure looked great for the politicians who balanced the budget that one year.  It's not about making fiscal sense, it's about making political sense.  It's politicians who want a huge wad of cash to lower taxes and put up pretty buildings now and who cares what happens 50 years from now when the state has tens or hu ...


the hazards of having a government run by people I suppose
 
2013-03-21 02:22:06 PM
Quick summary; Tax cuts enacted to spur job growth, job growth did not happen instead massive job losses mostly due to an over-leveraged housing market that collapsed, tax revenues decreased leaving less money for infrastructure projects and maint. now they want to raise taxes on gas which will primarily impact the folks who can least afford it. Seems like a series of bad ideas coming together as one big gang-bang on the middle class.
 
2013-03-21 02:22:21 PM

Corvus: Now if people/companies  paid for the CO2 they are releasing into the atmosphere instead of having the general tax payer pay for it.


A flat tax on a unit of carbon based fuel should take care of that.
 
2013-03-21 02:22:51 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: So, Snyder has to fix 8 yrs. of Ganholm's ineptitude.  Or does 0bama own exclusive rights to that excuse?


Because John Engler left things in such great shape.

Vodka Zombie: G. Gordon Libbie: Sell Ambassador Bridge
*ducks*

Ummm....  Isn't that bridge already privately owned?


[thatsthejoke.jpg]
 
2013-03-21 02:27:19 PM
Also, from recent meetings I've had with the FHWA, seems that the upper weight limit for trucks is being moved to 100,000lbs from 80k. So if you think roads are taking a beating now, juuuust wait. Not sure who exactly is lobbying the FHWA to get this thru but its happening...
 
2013-03-21 02:29:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: "They also like the simple idea behind it."

That is the crux of every GOP motive!

When does life begin?  "Conception" keeps it simple.
When does rape occur? "Only when it leaves obvious wounds" keeps it simple.
What should government do? "As little as possible" keeps it simple.
Where is moral authority? "In one book" keeps it simple.


I think you're on to something
 
2013-03-21 02:32:52 PM

a_room_with_a_moose: Mr_H: As a mid Michigan resident I'd like to know one thing:  Will that be enough money?  Cause some of these roads are bad.  Like, really, really bad.  I've lived in a number of states and I think MI has the worse roads I've ever been in.

You have clearly never visited WV.

Farking overloaded coal trucks farking up the roads and bridges.


Never been in WV.  Lived in PA for several years though and drove on roads that lumber trucks constantly beat up.  MI is still worse then those.
 
2013-03-21 02:40:00 PM

Soup4Bonnie: A lot of damage has been done since the derpers got control in 2010 and much of it at the state level gets overlooked.


Too farking bad. Michigan Democrats spent 40 years covering for those corrupt shiatheels in Detroit. The damage done during THAT era, of course, goes unnoted.

PsyLord: So once again the tax burden has been shifted to the middle/low income people that are trying to eek out a living by going to and from their 9-5 jobs?


The tax was always on them. Taxes are simply another cost business passes along - either through paying their employees less or not hiring as many, through lower returns on investment, or through higher prices. The biggest businesses hear that leftist gibberish about "making corporations pay their fare share" and chuckle all the way to the bank because they bought breaks not available to their competition.

Sorry to have deflated your sticking-it-to-The-Man fantasies.

zarberg: "Big Business" these days is more about finding creative ways to line the pockets of a few with money from the 98% than it is about running a company well.


It is. And the only way to beat them is not to play their game. Blow up their taxes and subsidies (the trick is to do both) and they have far less standing to make threats.

All taxes are paid by individuals, sooner or later. May as well put that out in the open instead of hiding them in a business tax code that can be so easily corrupted.

HotWingConspiracy: Cripes are you a one track mind whiner.


So paying a tax and not getting the services you paid for with that tax is whining now?
 
2013-03-21 02:44:10 PM

Geotpf: Lumpmoose: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

...

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

It's practically the definition of a regressive tax.  There's nothing wrong with supporting regressive taxation--you just have to live with the economy, government and social structure that results.

Sort of.  If you are so poor you don't have a car, you don't pay it.  That is, it hurts the "upper lower class" the most, but the very, very poor are spared.


It would also encourage people to carpool or take public transportation, thus reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH PLANET!??
 
2013-03-21 02:44:52 PM
In Kansas, we'll just raise the Sales Tax and take the revenue from the toll roads (I-70, I-35) that's targeted for maintaining those roads and throw it in the General Fund.

/ Can't move to Colorado fast enough.
 
2013-03-21 02:46:03 PM

Mr_H: MI is still worse then those.


Michigan's problem is snow and ice.  They'll spend millions making a brand new road (and family in the business will confirm that it's a pretty good road, so it's not corruption), and 2 years later, it'll be a potholed mess.  And then they patch it every summer (Two seasons: snow and construction), and every decade or two they do a total rebuild and they still suck.

/Mind you, the roads I drove on in MI were still better than the roads I now drive on in CA, where there is no snow.
//Other than Livonia which has stopped doing road maintenance and snow removal for about 5 years now.   No seriously, whose bright idea was that?
 
2013-03-21 02:46:26 PM
The GOP isn't against taxes; they merely want to shift the tax burden from people who have money to those who don't. That's what the French did in the 18th century, and France still exists, therefore their plan must have worked brilliantly.
 
2013-03-21 02:54:26 PM
verbaltoxin:

It does increase fuel costs for business owners though. The rich are rich partially because they use so much of our infrastructure and resources, and have earned the most reward from them. So a gas tax increase does affect them too. Trucking company costs are going to be higher, same with any UPS and FedEx branches, or any company with its own fleet.

Are you nuts? There will be exemptions/subsidies to cover it for the big rich companies in some form or another, there always are.
 
2013-03-21 02:55:48 PM

room at the top: In Kansas, we'll just raise the Sales Tax and take the revenue from the toll roads (I-70, I-35) that's targeted for maintaining those roads and throw it in the General Fund.

/ Can't move to Colorado fast enough.


It is not far you just have to drive through the corn field
 
2013-03-21 02:58:10 PM

Saiga410: Psylence: PsyLord: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.

You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.

I read about a couple that did that from the canadian border to the mexican border, using no paved roads. Took them more than 3 weeks. Your friend has no clue what he'd be up against...

If Horatio Jackson can do it why not that guy?


Bah. Horatio used paved roads when he got across mountains (using logging trails, if I remember the documentary correctly).
 
2013-03-21 02:58:11 PM

Corvus: What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.


General spending is used as a bludgeon by political bosses. If you're a backbencher and you step out of line, the boss pulls the infrastructure funding for your district because fark you. Step out of line again and the state school aid formula is unexpectedly tweaked to fark over the schools in your district and the school officials will know it's your fault. Bye bye teachers union endorsement. Buck the party line a third time and you get a primary challenger.

That's why a lot of states use a dedicated fund for roads (and parks and lots of other stuff) - and you have to watch those like hawks too, because state legislators are notorious for sweeping unused dedicated money into the general fund if they can get away with it, or 'borrowing' from the dedicated fund with no intention of ever paying it back.

State legislators are some of the nastiest motherfarkers around and you trust them at your peril.
 
2013-03-21 03:02:24 PM
Not going to change until some blood flows. Power only responds to power.
 
2013-03-21 03:03:22 PM

Insatiable Jesus: Not going to change until some blood flows. Power only responds to power.


yeah, let's start the blood spigots over use taxes!
 
2013-03-21 03:03:47 PM

meyerkev: Mr_H: MI is still worse then those.

Michigan's problem is snow and ice.  They'll spend millions making a brand new road (and family in the business will confirm that it's a pretty good road, so it's not corruption), and 2 years later, it'll be a potholed mess.  And then they patch it every summer (Two seasons: snow and construction), and every decade or two they do a total rebuild and they still suck.

/Mind you, the roads I drove on in MI were still better than the roads I now drive on in CA, where there is no snow.
//Other than Livonia which has stopped doing road maintenance and snow removal for about 5 years now.   No seriously, whose bright idea was that?




Part of the problem is that Michigan doesn't build a road suited to the environment and the heavier loads they allow.

Look at the autobahn, much of it runs through climates very similar to michigan, but fares so much better than the average road here season to season. It's built with a deeper concrete depth, upwards of 33 inches, with concrete that has been designed specifically for the climate.

The usual depth for highways and roads in michigan is not enough to deal with the weather or weight, and stupidity keeps it that way.
 
2013-03-21 03:04:59 PM
The main difference is that Dems can figure this out without letting the state go to shiat first.
 
2013-03-21 03:08:12 PM

gaspode: verbaltoxin:

It does increase fuel costs for business owners though. The rich are rich partially because they use so much of our infrastructure and resources, and have earned the most reward from them. So a gas tax increase does affect them too. Trucking company costs are going to be higher, same with any UPS and FedEx branches, or any company with its own fleet.

Are you nuts? There will be exemptions/subsidies to cover it for the big rich companies in some form or another, there always are.


I realize this and was made aware of that earlier.
 
2013-03-21 03:08:26 PM

msupf: Part of the problem is that Michigan doesn't build a road suited to the environment and the heavier loads they allow.

Look at the autobahn, much of it runs through climates very similar to michigan, but fares so much better than the average road here season to season. It's built with a deeper concrete depth, upwards of 33 inches, with concrete that has been designed specifically for the climate.

The usual depth for highways and roads in michigan is not enough to deal with the weather or weight, and stupidity keeps it that way.


But to do it like that would cost more now, in the present.  Why would you want to do that when the root problem can wait until you are dead or you can blame the other party?
 
2013-03-21 03:09:08 PM

monoski: room at the top: In Kansas, we'll just raise the Sales Tax and take the revenue from the toll roads (I-70, I-35) that's targeted for maintaining those roads and throw it in the General Fund.

/ Can't move to Colorado fast enough.

It is not far you just have to drive through the corn wheat field


And don't get caught by the Children of the Wheat.
 
2013-03-21 03:13:27 PM

wingnut396: msupf: Part of the problem is that Michigan doesn't build a road suited to the environment and the heavier loads they allow.

Look at the autobahn, much of it runs through climates very similar to michigan, but fares so much better than the average road here season to season. It's built with a deeper concrete depth, upwards of 33 inches, with concrete that has been designed specifically for the climate.

The usual depth for highways and roads in michigan is not enough to deal with the weather or weight, and stupidity keeps it that way.

But to do it like that would cost more now, in the present.  Why would you want to do that when the root problem can wait until you are dead or you can blame the other party?


It's not even that it costs more in the near term.

It's that making a road that LASTS means you only get federal "road improvement" dollars every 15 or 20 years, instead of every year. Which means that you don't get as many chances to enrich the local construction companies. Which means they don't donate as much to your campaign. Which means you don't get re-elected. Which means you can't abuse your power to enrich yourself and your cronies.

I though that everybody knew that federal road/street/interstate dollars are a "use it or lose it" thing. NO city/state/county/whatever is motivated to make roads that last. That would just mean they'd get less money.
 
2013-03-21 03:19:01 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Gulper Eel: But gasoline taxes, some Republican officials say, are a lesser evil because the money traditionally doesn't wind up in general spending, but rather in building infrastructure, which helps boost economic development.

Long as the gas tax money stays out of the general fund and really does go to the roads, I'm okay with this.

And envious. New York's gas tax money goes into the general fund, and if you don't pay appropriate homage to the bosses you don't get jack shiat done in your district - and even then, the NYC Democratic machine gets first dibs.

Cripes are you a one track mind whiner.


Coincidentally, New York State just announced it's budget today.
http://www.budget.ny.gov/
1) Min Wage Hike
2) Business tax cuts that incentivise hiring
3) Middle class tax cut.
4) Continuation of a temporary tax hike on the rich.
 
2013-03-21 03:29:02 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


i think timing is the biggest issue with most state governments, can businesses shift resources quickly and cheaply? then you're golden regardless of the nature of how business is done

the problem with a lot of state governments - red or blue, poor or wealthy - is when they're bloated and slow to respond, stuff like when states think they're better of piecemealing together infrastructure over decades because they want to pay for it with cash is dumb... but so is spending too much money on an overcomplicated project that requires raising taxes later on to pay for it - regardless if it actually improved peoples' lives or not

a lot of GOP governors lately have also been offloading state spending to federal as well in attempts to skirt around state spending which opens a whole other can of worms
 
2013-03-21 03:29:50 PM
must of had some real lazy Libs who made that road originally, ya know, a real bootstrappy road would fix itself, next time, build Republican roads.
 
2013-03-21 03:31:42 PM

Gulper Eel: So paying a tax and not getting the services you paid for with that tax is whining now?


Yes and it always has been. You wouldn't be satisfied if they marked all of your gas tax money with your name and embedded it the blacktop to pave your street.
 
2013-03-21 03:33:08 PM

realmolo: It's not even that it costs more in the near term.

It's that making a road that LASTS means you only get federal "road improvement" dollars every 15 or 20 years, instead of every year. Which means that you don't get as many chances to enrich the local construction companies. Which means they don't donate as much to your campaign. Which means you don't get re-elected. Which means you can't abuse your power to enrich yourself and your cronies.

I though that everybody knew that federal road/street/interstate dollars are a "use it or lose it" thing. NO city/state/county/whatever is motivated to make roads that last. That would just mean they'd get less money.


Did heavy highway work (engineer).  Trust me, there's enough roads and bridges around to keep a lot of companies busy.

You're right but for the wrong reasons; the biggest "problem" with repeatable road construction is asphalt vs. concrete highways.   Asphalt is cheap, can be installed quicker, but has a crap life span and higher long term maintenance costs.  Concrete roads last forever, have low maintenance costs, but have a higher up front cost and take a lot longer to install, pissing off the jerk motorists for longer periods of time.
 
2013-03-21 03:38:04 PM

dslknowitall: Saiga410: Or they can take the IL approach and increase taxes, have crumbling infrastructure, have employers run away like that girl you have been stalking and still not come close to a ballanced budget.

No joke. I tell my wife they should charge a tax to move out, they'd make millions.

/and then promptly embezzle it
//or prioritize some other stupid think they can find like that parking meter fiasco
///amazed the state is blue honestly


Hey fark you! We like our corruption. We are so corrupt it is almost a straight operation. I know exactly who I have to bribe and how much to get a license, permits, or a road fixed. Let me tell you it is pretty cheap to compared to doing business in Texas, New York or Florida.
 
2013-03-21 03:38:22 PM

Satanic_Hamster: realmolo: It's not even that it costs more in the near term.

It's that making a road that LASTS means you only get federal "road improvement" dollars every 15 or 20 years, instead of every year. Which means that you don't get as many chances to enrich the local construction companies. Which means they don't donate as much to your campaign. Which means you don't get re-elected. Which means you can't abuse your power to enrich yourself and your cronies.

I though that everybody knew that federal road/street/interstate dollars are a "use it or lose it" thing. NO city/state/county/whatever is motivated to make roads that last. That would just mean they'd get less money.

Did heavy highway work (engineer).  Trust me, there's enough roads and bridges around to keep a lot of companies busy.

You're right but for the wrong reasons; the biggest "problem" with repeatable road construction is asphalt vs. concrete highways.   Asphalt is cheap, can be installed quicker, but has a crap life span and higher long term maintenance costs.  Concrete roads last forever, have low maintenance costs, but have a higher up front cost and take a lot longer to install, pissing off the jerk motorists for longer periods of time.


Is there a difference in traction between a properly laid asphalt roadway and a proper concrete roadway? My personal experiences indicate that concrete gets slicker faster in rain and poor weather... is this right? As an aside to that, how does concrete react to the conditions that frost heave the crap out of asphalt, i.e. everywhere in new england?

/more of a traffic data guy...
 
x23
2013-03-21 03:38:25 PM

Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.



the president of the Chamber of Commerce is named Rich Studley? you have got to be kidding me...
 
2013-03-21 03:44:51 PM
In other words we need to tax the general population to pay for the tax breaks for wealthy donors.
 
2013-03-21 03:45:38 PM

Psylence: Satanic_Hamster: realmolo: It's not even that it costs more in the near term.

It's that making a road that LASTS means you only get federal "road improvement" dollars every 15 or 20 years, instead of every year. Which means that you don't get as many chances to enrich the local construction companies. Which means they don't donate as much to your campaign. Which means you don't get re-elected. Which means you can't abuse your power to enrich yourself and your cronies.

I though that everybody knew that federal road/street/interstate dollars are a "use it or lose it" thing. NO city/state/county/whatever is motivated to make roads that last. That would just mean they'd get less money.

Did heavy highway work (engineer).  Trust me, there's enough roads and bridges around to keep a lot of companies busy.

You're right but for the wrong reasons; the biggest "problem" with repeatable road construction is asphalt vs. concrete highways.   Asphalt is cheap, can be installed quicker, but has a crap life span and higher long term maintenance costs.  Concrete roads last forever, have low maintenance costs, but have a higher up front cost and take a lot longer to install, pissing off the jerk motorists for longer periods of time.

Is there a difference in traction between a properly laid asphalt roadway and a proper concrete roadway? My personal experiences indicate that concrete gets slicker faster in rain and poor weather... is this right? As an aside to that, how does concrete react to the conditions that frost heave the crap out of asphalt, i.e. everywhere in new england?

/more of a traffic data guy...




There's a reason why what is considered the best highway in the world uses concrete. When laid properly for the environment, frost heave is unheard of. And from my experience, it doesn't get any worse that asphalt in bad conditions as far as traction goes.

Only negative is up front cost and time needed.

Asphalt is crap for road surfaces, but it is cheap and requires less effort and knowledge to throw down.
 
2013-03-21 03:45:41 PM

x23: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.


the president of the Chamber of Commerce is named Rich Studley? you have got to be kidding me...


Is that his porn name?
 
2013-03-21 03:45:57 PM
Anyone who thinks the roads on their state are bad should travel outside the US for a while.
 
2013-03-21 03:47:30 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.

I think the point is that the fuel tax is specifically earmarked for infrastructure development which has a direct impact on economic development. You invest the money in a tangible asset which boosts commerce while getting the benefit of the expenditure on the economy in general.
Please, do try to remain calm.


Schools, firefighters and police do not help the economy??
 
2013-03-21 03:48:44 PM

Saiga410: Corvus: Now if people/companies  paid for the CO2 they are releasing into the atmosphere instead of having the general tax payer pay for it.

A flat tax on a unit of carbon based fuel should take care of that.


Yep. But do you think these Republicans who are saying taxes are ok if the are fees for use are for it?
 
2013-03-21 03:48:49 PM
Weren't those tax cuts supposed to "trickle down" and build infrastructure? That's the theory right? Better yet, make the roads "toll roads" so the tax won't be hidden in a higher gas price they can conveniently blame President Obama.
 
2013-03-21 03:50:43 PM

heavymetal: Weren't those tax cuts supposed to "trickle down" and build infrastructure? That's the theory right? Better yet, make the roads "toll roads" so the tax won't be hidden in a higher gas price they can conveniently blame President Obama.


They were supposed to make everyone richer therefore providing more taxes. Which obviously didn't actually happen.
 
2013-03-21 03:51:07 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.

I think the point is that the fuel tax is specifically earmarked for infrastructure development which has a direct impact on economic development. You invest the money in a tangible asset which boosts commerce while getting the benefit of the expenditure on the economy in general.
Please, do try to remain calm.

Schools, firefighters and police do not help the economy??


Indirectly, yes. He didn't mention schools and firefighters, however. He talked about the tangible, immediate and direct impact that investing in infrastructure has. He said "general spending" with no specifics mentioned. I'd imagine that the Chamber of Commerce recognizes the important role that police and courts have in protecting private property.
 
2013-03-21 03:51:52 PM
Lives and works at Big Beaver and I-75 in the heart of Troy. The roads couldn't be nicer.
Used to work downtown near Mack and I-75, once hit a pot hole so big it bent my steal rim and messed up my suspension.
 
2013-03-21 03:52:05 PM
Standard Republican corporate welfare.  Shift the tax burden from corporations and the rich to people who actually work for a living.
 
2013-03-21 03:52:50 PM
Ha! A good portion of the gas tax subsidizes the subway systems, hiding the true cost of mass transit.
 
2013-03-21 03:53:32 PM

skullkrusher: Indirectly, yes. He didn't mention schools and firefighters, however. He talked about the tangible, immediate and direct impact that investing in infrastructure has. He said "general spending" with no specifics mentioned. I'd imagine that the Chamber of Commerce recognizes the important role that police and courts have in protecting private property.


But that is part of "general spending" which he says he is against. So which is it?

"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He obviously is saying he is against "general spending" which is what you just said he supports.

Does he support "general spending" or not?
 
2013-03-21 03:53:58 PM
It's a tax, but at least it's regressive, so it has that going for it.
 
2013-03-21 03:54:52 PM

HAMMERTOE: Ha! A good portion of the gas tax subsidizes the subway systems, hiding the true cost of mass transit.


Thats interesting, didnt know the gas tax went to subway systems, do you have cite for that, cant seem to find anything in Google.

Thanks in advance.
 
2013-03-21 03:56:45 PM

skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 03:57:49 PM

Psylence: Is there a difference in traction between a properly laid asphalt roadway and a proper concrete roadway? My personal experiences indicate that concrete gets slicker faster in rain and poor weather... is this right? As an aside to that, how does concrete react to the conditions that frost heave the crap out of asphalt, i.e. everywhere in new england?

/more of a traffic data guy...


You can finish the concrete any way you want; grind it up / mill it to give it grooves/rough spots.  Or just broom/brush finish it to make it rough.   Asphalt will be "naturally" rougher but you can really finish concrete a 1000 different ways.

msupf: Asphalt is crap for road surfaces, but it is cheap and requires less effort and knowledge to throw down.


That and it's a good give away politically to the local quarries / asphalt plant / paving company (usually owned by the same company) who then get to redo the same roads every few years.
 
2013-03-21 03:59:53 PM

Corvus: But that is part of "general spending" which he says he is against. So which is it?


I don't think he's opposed to "general spending" in general. As I said, I am certain he would recognize the importance of a system of courts and people to enforce the law, for example. I certainly don't think he is an anarchist. I believe that his point was that earmarking these tax funds for infrastructure projects guarantees that they are spent on an asset that has economic value and can help grow the economy (while having the stimulative side benefit, though I am ad libbing that in).

Corvus: He obviously is saying he is against "general spending" which is what you just said he supports.

Does he support "general spending" or not?


As I've said, I believe the rational assumption is to not think he believes that tax money should only be spent on roads. Do you have a reason to think that he thinks that the only worthwhile expenditure of tax money is on money earmarked for infrastructure?
 
2013-03-21 04:00:29 PM

skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


www.vanityfair.com
thinkprogress.org
i2.cdn.turner.com
pixel.nymag.com
 
2013-03-21 04:00:51 PM

Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]


hours too late
 
2013-03-21 04:02:37 PM

skullkrusher: As I've said, I believe the rational assumption is to not think he believes that tax money should only be spent on roads. Do you have a reason to think that he thinks that the only worthwhile expenditure of tax money is on money earmarked for infrastructure?


Because that is actually the statement he actually made.

You are making up things he never said because you believe he is not as stupid as the remarks he is making but that's you white knighting for him.

skullkrusher: I don't think he's opposed to "general spending" in general.


Fine then give me a citation where he says he supports general spending. I gave you one where he is implying he is against it.
 
2013-03-21 04:03:45 PM

skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


abcnews.go.com

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-21 04:04:41 PM

skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late


Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?
 
2013-03-21 04:06:33 PM
I feel someone is going to feel picked on and is about to throw a tantrum.
 
2013-03-21 04:07:57 PM

skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late


Yeah.  but Nate Grey kept me from being tail end charlie, :)
 
2013-03-21 04:08:02 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late

Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?


Do they double count if they are posted twice?
 
2013-03-21 04:08:41 PM

Gulper Eel: The tax was always on them. Taxes are simply another cost business passes along - either through paying their employees less or not hiring as many, through lower returns on investment, or through higher prices. The biggest businesses hear that leftist gibberish about "making corporations pay their fare share" and chuckle all the way to the bank because they bought breaks not available to their competition.


That old chestnut again!  How cute.

Prices for goods and services are not based on cost but what the market will bear.  How many employees got raises after taxes were cut?  How much did prices decrease?   Employees are hired based on demand, unless the person who makes that decision is stupid or has an agenda.  Anyone who says anything else is lying or does not understand.
 
2013-03-21 04:09:29 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: As I've said, I believe the rational assumption is to not think he believes that tax money should only be spent on roads. Do you have a reason to think that he thinks that the only worthwhile expenditure of tax money is on money earmarked for infrastructure?

Because that is actually the statement he actually made.

You are making up things he never said because you believe he is not as stupid as the remarks he is making but that's you white knighting for him.

skullkrusher: I don't think he's opposed to "general spending" in general.

Fine then give me a citation where he says he supports general spending. I gave you one where he is implying he is against it.


so you think that he believes that the only tax spending that we should engage in is tax dollars earmarked for roads?

it's really not a white-knight to exercise assumptions which are pretty common to human interactions. I don't think it is terribly likely that he thinks that spending on roads is the only spending that should be done. I don't think you think it is terribly likely either. However, you want to be quite literal with what he said for some reason. OK.

Corvus: Fine then give me a citation where he says he supports general spending. I gave you one where he is implying he is against it.


I can't believe you're serious, but ok: this is from the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, of which he is President, under their policies tab:

"Support efforts to have experts at the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan State University, and agriculture industry leaders help establish best scientific and economic practices for the proper care of animals. "

That sounds like it would cost money out of "general spending"
 
2013-03-21 04:09:49 PM
This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.
 
2013-03-21 04:11:01 PM

skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


Oops mine was already posted, edit --> redo

i.chzbgr.com
 
2013-03-21 04:11:40 PM

CPennypacker: Corvus: skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late

Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?

Do they double count if they are posted twice?


I do think people shown wrong should be shown wrong multiple times because people always believe the lie and usually miss the correction.
 
2013-03-21 04:11:41 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late

Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?


forgive me, I wasn't literal enough for you. CPennypacker already responded that way. That is what you are hours too late for. The response. Of course, as I said to him, we all know they were purposefully taking BO's comments out of context with that "We built it" thing. The point wasn't that private industry would build roads.
 
2013-03-21 04:12:04 PM

Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.


Aw cmon, he's not a white knight. He's a nit picking bastard who likes to get in e-arguments
 
2013-03-21 04:13:41 PM

Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.


Didn't we agree you were going to remain calm? Allow me to remind you that you think this guy only supports taxes specifically earmarked for roads. So convinced, in fact, that you're gonna spew the above sort of crap, smugly content that you've "won" when, as usual, no. Not even close.
 
2013-03-21 04:15:00 PM

CPennypacker: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Aw cmon, he's not a white knight. He's a nit picking bastard who likes to get in e-arguments


in this case, it's not even a nit. I really don't think the head of the MI Chamber of Commerce thinks the only legitimate expenditure of tax money is tax money specifically earmarked for roads. I don't think anyone does. Not even Corvie.
 
2013-03-21 04:15:28 PM

skullkrusher: "Support efforts to have experts at the Michigan Department of Agriculture, Michigan State University, and agriculture industry leaders help establish best scientific and economic practices for the proper care of animals. "

That sounds like it would cost money out of "general spending"


And he supports taxes for those? Also that doesn't mention any of the jobs you or I mentioned.

Show me where he says he supports taxes for the priorities we both mentioned. If you can't then you just made it up.

skullkrusher: so you think that he believes that the only tax spending that we should engage in is tax dollars earmarked for roads?


No I think he is making up a BS argument that "general spending" is evil, even though it supports things that businesses depend on.

You are pretending people can't possible make statements that are inconsistent, dishonest or stupid. People can and he did exactly that.
 
2013-03-21 04:16:20 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late

Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?

forgive me, I wasn't literal enough for you. CPennypacker already responded that way. That is what you are hours too late for. The response. Of course, as I said to him, we all know they were purposefully taking BO's comments out of context with that "We built it" thing. The point wasn't that private industry would build roads.


OK please only respond to any other people's post that no one else responds to. Right?

Or is this one of those rules that only apply to others not you?
 
2013-03-21 04:17:14 PM

Corvus: OK please only respond to any other people's post that no one else responds to. Right?


huh?
 
2013-03-21 04:17:56 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Didn't we agree you were going to remain calm? Allow me to remind you that you think this guy only supports taxes specifically earmarked for roads. So convinced, in fact, that you're gonna spew the above sort of crap, smugly content that you've "won" when, as usual, no. Not even close.


Sorry how did I not remain calm?

I never said that. I said he made the statement he is against "general spending " which is the statement he made and you still have not proved otherwise but you made that statement.
 
2013-03-21 04:18:42 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: OK please only respond to any other people's post that no one else responds to. Right?

huh?


You said people are only allowed to respond when no one else has to that post. So I am sure your are going to follow the same rule you have for everyone else?
 
2013-03-21 04:19:25 PM
What the hell is happening in this thread
 
2013-03-21 04:19:55 PM

Corvus: And he supports taxes for those? Also that doesn't mention any of the jobs you or I mentioned.


oddly, he didn't mention any of the jobs you mentioned either. Though he is the head of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and one of their initiatives is to have the Dept of Ag to work with farmers. The Dept of Ag is funded by tax dollars so...

Corvus: No I think he is making up a BS argument that "general spending" is evil, even though it supports things that businesses depend on.

You are pretending people can't possible make statements that are inconsistent, dishonest or stupid. People can and he did exactly that.


no, I just don't believe that was the point. Luckily, my position doesn't require strained leaps of overly pedantic logical parsing. Go me.
 
2013-03-21 04:20:30 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: OK please only respond to any other people's post that no one else responds to. Right?

huh?

You said people are only allowed to respond when no one else has to that post. So I am sure your are going to follow the same rule you have for everyone else?


no I didn't.
 
2013-03-21 04:20:45 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Vlad_the_Inaner: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[i.imgur.com image 640x360]

hours too late

Facts no longer count after a certain period of time now?

forgive me, I wasn't literal enough for you. CPennypacker already responded that way. That is what you are hours too late for. The response. Of course, as I said to him, we all know they were purposefully taking BO's comments out of context with that "We built it" thing. The point wasn't that private industry would build roads.


OK.  Just to make you happier.

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-21 04:20:50 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Didn't we agree you were going to remain calm? Allow me to remind you that you think this guy only supports taxes specifically earmarked for roads. So convinced, in fact, that you're gonna spew the above sort of crap, smugly content that you've "won" when, as usual, no. Not even close.


CPennypacker had already responded to this post of mine.

So, sorry but you are too late to respond.
 
2013-03-21 04:21:53 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Didn't we agree you were going to remain calm? Allow me to remind you that you think this guy only supports taxes specifically earmarked for roads. So convinced, in fact, that you're gonna spew the above sort of crap, smugly content that you've "won" when, as usual, no. Not even close.

Sorry how did I not remain calm?

I never said that. I said he made the statement he is against "general spending " which is the statement he made and you still have not proved otherwise but you made that statement.


so if you're NOT saying that he only supports spending specifically earmarked for roads then you ARE saying he supports "general spending" on things like roads.
 
2013-03-21 04:22:28 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Didn't we agree you were going to remain calm? Allow me to remind you that you think this guy only supports taxes specifically earmarked for roads. So convinced, in fact, that you're gonna spew the above sort of crap, smugly content that you've "won" when, as usual, no. Not even close.

CPennypacker had already responded to this post of mine.

So, sorry but you are too late to respond.


go for a walk, Corvie.
 
2013-03-21 04:23:21 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: And he supports taxes for those? Also that doesn't mention any of the jobs you or I mentioned.

oddly, he didn't mention any of the jobs you mentioned either. Though he is the head of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and one of their initiatives is to have the Dept of Ag to work with farmers. The Dept of Ag is funded by tax dollars so...


So you don't think teachers, police or firefighters are paid by  "general spending"?

You said he supports taxes for general spending. Now show me a citation where he says this or admit your statement was wrong.
 
2013-03-21 04:23:24 PM

Corvus: CPennypacker had already responded to this post of mine.

So, sorry but you are too late to respond.


But was it HOURs late?   I'm sure3 that's crucial.
 
2013-03-21 04:24:27 PM

skullkrusher: so if you're NOT saying that he only supports spending specifically earmarked for roads then you ARE saying he supports "general spending" on things like roads.


Nope I am saying he is being dishonest with his statement which I have already explained to you multiple times.

Please stop repeating the same incorrect statement over and over again.
 
2013-03-21 04:25:20 PM

skullkrusher: go for a walk, Corvie.


I thought we weren't getting upset?

we are in stage 4

Corvus: 4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

 
2013-03-21 04:25:55 PM

Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: Vodka Zombie: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: skullkrusher: TheGogmagog: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

I was told private industry would pay for the roads.  They don't need government help for anything.

who told you that?

[progressivemetrowestsouth.files.wordpress.com image 450x435]

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

You should look into who owns the I-90 toll road here in Indiana.  I'll give you a hint: It's not even an American operation.

but it's basically run as a utility, isn't it? Under lease from the state with restrictions on fees and requirements for condition?

Sure, they do need to use some of the money for upkeep and operational costs, but it is still privately owned and operating to make a personal profit for the company that owns it.

It's also operated horribly with, oftentimes, no toll attendants on duty and really shoddy maintenance.


Oh hell, I've driven on that thing. What's the deal with no exits or rest stops?
/Had to poop on the side of the road
 
2013-03-21 04:27:36 PM

skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Aw cmon, he's not a white knight. He's a nit picking bastard who likes to get in e-arguments

in this case, it's not even a nit. I really don't think the head of the MI Chamber of Commerce thinks the only legitimate expenditure of tax money is tax money specifically earmarked for roads. I don't think anyone does. Not even Corvie.


It is a nit.  In the quote, Dick Studley was being purposely obtuse.

"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Spending is bad, except for when he determines it is good.  That is why he understands the difference between investing in an asset as opposed to general spending but cannot share it with you.
 
2013-03-21 04:29:06 PM
"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.


He is making a dishonest statement. He is implying "General spending" does NOT support anything that "adds value to economic activity ".

His statement is dishonest. Does it make logical sense for him to make that statement? NO.

Does that mean that because it is illogical he didn't say it? NO.

People can and do make dishonest statements all the time.
 
2013-03-21 04:29:09 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: go for a walk, Corvie.

I thought we weren't getting upset?

we are in stage 4

Corvus: 4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.


Exactly. You seem upset. That's why you should go for a walk
 
2013-03-21 04:31:33 PM

lennavan: skullkrusher: CPennypacker: Corvus: This is the Skullkrusher formula to white Knighting:

1) Right Winger says something stupid.
2) People point out the stupid statement he made,
3) Skullkrusher  uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"
4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Aw cmon, he's not a white knight. He's a nit picking bastard who likes to get in e-arguments

in this case, it's not even a nit. I really don't think the head of the MI Chamber of Commerce thinks the only legitimate expenditure of tax money is tax money specifically earmarked for roads. I don't think anyone does. Not even Corvie.

It is a nit.  In the quote, Dick Studley was being purposely obtuse.

"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Spending is bad, except for when he determines it is good.  That is why he understands the difference between investing in an asset as opposed to general spending but cannot share it with you.


there's nothing obtuse about it. Government spending on assets which add value to economic activity is different than just spending in general (i.e. spending which does not invest in an asset of value). It's common sense, actually.

Building a bridge is investing in an asset of value which adds value to economic activity. Beautifying city hall does not have such an impact on economic activity as the beauty of city hall really isn't related to economic activity in a tangible sense.
 
2013-03-21 04:31:49 PM
Right wing White Knight circular logic:
"Right wingers are not dishonest, therefore if they make a dishonest statement it's not actually what they meant to say because that would mean they are being dishonest".
 
2013-03-21 04:32:22 PM
Skully and Lenny have entered the ring. Sorry Nate and Corvus, you need to tap out.

Hunker down everyone
 
2013-03-21 04:32:50 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: go for a walk, Corvie.

I thought we weren't getting upset?

we are in stage 4

Corvus: 4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Exactly. You seem upset. That's why you should go for a walk


You are name calling, which means I am upset.

Did I make you call me a name again. You told me last time the reason why you do things like that is I force you.
 
2013-03-21 04:33:55 PM

CPennypacker: Skully and Lenny have entered the ring. Sorry Nate and Corvus, you need to tap out.

Hunker down everyone


Hahhaha sounds good. Like I posted earlier I know his MO and his is proving it to a T.
 
2013-03-21 04:34:30 PM

Corvus: So you don't think teachers, police or firefighters are paid by "general spending"?


sure they are. Do you think he is opposed to all general spending? As I said, do you honestly think he doesn't think general spending on things such as police and firefighters is necessary or good? Perhaps he even considers them assets that add value to the economy. Does he even say he is opposed to general spending? No, he doesn't. He recognizes a difference between spending that grows the economy such as infrastructure and spending on things which do not (again, outside of the stimulative impact of the spending itself)
 
2013-03-21 04:35:08 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: go for a walk, Corvie.

I thought we weren't getting upset?

we are in stage 4

Corvus: 4) When asked for proof of that position skullkrusher attacks semantics or uses ad hominem attacks.

Exactly. You seem upset. That's why you should go for a walk

You are name calling, which means I am upset.

Did I make you call me a name again. You told me last time the reason why you do things like that is I force you.


I didn't call you a name.
 
2013-03-21 04:36:57 PM

skullkrusher: I didn't call you a name.


I prefer not to be called "corvie". So please don't call me that ever again then.
 
2013-03-21 04:37:24 PM

Corvus: Right wing White Knight circular logic:
"Right wingers are not dishonest, therefore if they make a dishonest statement it's not actually what they meant to say because that would mean they are being dishonest".


except this wasn't a dishonest statement. The difference between spending on assets which help grow the economy and spending on things which do not is readily apparent.
 
2013-03-21 04:37:45 PM

Corvus: He is making a dishonest statement. He is implying "General spending" does NOT support anything that "adds value to economic activity ".


He's not just implying, he actually said it.

Corvus: What the fark do they think general spending is? It goes to teachers, firemen, police and infrastructure. It's not just thrown into a farking ditch.


They think general spending is spending that spending on anything that not an asset with value and does not add value to economic activity.

Corvus: But that is part of "general spending" which he says he is against. So which is it?


He never said the police were a part of "general spending."  While skullkrusher is picking a nit, you're just plain wrong.
 
2013-03-21 04:38:11 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: I didn't call you a name.

I prefer not to be called "corvie". So please don't call me that ever again then.


hehe, ok. I didn't know you were so sensitive about the diminutive of your Fark screen handle.

That walk is a real good idea, I think.
 
2013-03-21 04:38:56 PM

skullkrusher: except this wasn't a dishonest statement. The difference between spending on assets which help grow the economy and spending on things which do not is readily apparent.


General Spending does grow the economy. You have already admitted it does.
 
2013-03-21 04:40:16 PM

lennavan: They think general spending is spending that spending on anything that not an asset with value and does not add value to economic activity.


that is what his quote says, yes. He also doesn't say that "general spending" should not happen. He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them. And there is. Quite clearly.
 
2013-03-21 04:41:03 PM

lennavan: He never said the police were a part of "general spending." While skullkrusher is picking a nit, you're just plain wrong.


Police, teaches, firefighters are not paid in the general budget?
 
2013-03-21 04:42:06 PM

skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.


Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?
 
2013-03-21 04:42:29 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: except this wasn't a dishonest statement. The difference between spending on assets which help grow the economy and spending on things which do not is readily apparent.

General Spending does grow the economy. You have already admitted it does.


maybe he doesn't believe that it does. He'd be wrong but that's possible. However, there is no way to tell from this single sentence and it doesn't matter to what we're talking about. He just says that there is a difference between spending on assets which add value to the economy and spending on other things.

It doesn't seem to me that he is referring to the impact of stimulative spending one way or the other.
 
2013-03-21 04:42:36 PM

CPennypacker: Skully and Lenny have entered the ring. Sorry Nate and Corvus, you need to tap out.

Hunker down everyone


loll Sounds good.
 
2013-03-21 04:43:12 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?


good Lord
 
2013-03-21 04:44:40 PM

skullkrusher: maybe he doesn't believe that it does. He'd be wrong but that's possible.


Based on his statement that is what he said. That is what my point is all along.

skullkrusher: However, there is no way to tell from this single sentence and it doesn't matter to what we're talking about.


Well one sentence is sure lots more proof than your 0 sentences that says otherwise.
 
2013-03-21 04:45:12 PM

Magorn: AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well


Don't forget a new $100 surcharge on hybrid or plug-in vehicles.

// because liberals
// or because smug, take your pick
 
2013-03-21 04:45:33 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?

good Lord


You keep saying he believes there is a difference. So why can't you put it in words?
 
2013-03-21 04:46:32 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?

good Lord


I forgot:

4a) When asked to clarify position start whining and attack
 
2013-03-21 04:49:06 PM
"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He is saying "general spending" does not "add value to economic activity".

That is the statement that he made.
 
2013-03-21 04:50:47 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?

good Lord

I forgot:

4a) When asked to clarify position start whining and attack


that was neither a whine nor an attack. That was an expression of incredulity.
 
2013-03-21 04:50:59 PM
FTFA:

In Virginia, GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell recently won approval for overhauling his state's highway maintenance system by raising diesel and retail sales taxes and creating a mechanism for a potential future gasoline tax hike.


Its the same thing Tim Pawlenty did in Minnesota. Raise every other tax and claim you didnt raise (income) taxes. Republicans are just so....Republican.
 
2013-03-21 04:52:49 PM

CPennypacker: What the hell is happening in this thread


it looks like someone is trying to white knight for the GOP by deploying weapons of mass distraction.
 
2013-03-21 04:55:36 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?

good Lord

I forgot:

4a) When asked to clarify position start whining and attack

that was neither a whine nor an attack. That was an expression of incredulity.


Whatever, it was dodging the question. I stated what I believe his statement implied, you refuse to.

I gave his statement that supported the position I said he made, you have given none.
 
2013-03-21 04:56:17 PM
I have not seen the most important question asked:  Fairlanes or Cruiseways?
 
2013-03-21 04:57:32 PM

Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He is saying "general spending" does not "add value to economic activity".

That is the statement that he made.


so this whole thing is basically about the phrase "adds value to economic activity"? I don't believe that is referring to the stimulative impact of the spending itself. I think "adds value to economic activity" means "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity".
 
2013-03-21 04:59:23 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them.

Which is what? What is the difference. What makes general spending different according to him?

good Lord

I forgot:

4a) When asked to clarify position start whining and attack

that was neither a whine nor an attack. That was an expression of incredulity.

Whatever, it was dodging the question. I stated what I believe his statement implied, you refuse to.

I gave his statement that supported the position I said he made, you have given none.


the whole conversation is about how he defines the two types of spending. Why would you need to ask?
 
2013-03-21 04:59:49 PM
This actually follows their belief in cutting taxes for the wealthy and then raising taxes on the poor and middle class.  And when the Governor of Michigan defends it as a user fee; people who use the roads more will pay more.  What about fuel efficiency, Governor stupid?  A person driving a hybrid may actually use the roads more while paying less in taxes.  Apparently, Snyder may be Governor but he's not too bright.
 
2013-03-21 05:02:13 PM

Weaver95: CPennypacker: What the hell is happening in this thread

it looks like someone is trying to white knight for the GOP by deploying weapons of mass distraction.


skullkrusher: well, we both know that their point was to purposefully misinterpret what Obama said and not make the insinuation that business doesn't need infrastructure


skullkrusher: more toll roads is probably a better solution


You were wrong when you were a Republican robot, you're wrong now that you're a robot on the other side. What's the common thread? Oh, yes, you're still you.
 
2013-03-21 05:03:59 PM

runwiz: This actually follows their belief in cutting taxes for the wealthy and then raising taxes on the poor and middle class.  And when the Governor of Michigan defends it as a user fee; people who use the roads more will pay more.  What about fuel efficiency, Governor stupid?  A person driving a hybrid may actually use the roads more while paying less in taxes.  Apparently, Snyder may be Governor but he's not too bright.


they've got that covered as well. He wants to end incentives for buying hybrids or electrics, and electric charge boxes/stations, and they want to add special taxes for them as well.
 
2013-03-21 05:09:09 PM
I think I just lost some braincells reading a back and forth about what a president of a state chamber of commerce thinks is the effacacy of general spending.
 
2013-03-21 05:12:18 PM

skullkrusher: Building a bridge is investing in an asset of value which adds value to economic activity. Beautifying city hall does not have such an impact on economic activity as the beauty of city hall really isn't related to economic activity in a tangible sense.


Tourism.

skullkrusher: He also doesn't say that "general spending" should not happen. He just says that there is a difference between the two types of spending as he defined them. And there is. Quite clearly.


Yes.  On the one hand you have things he personally finds value in and on the other hand you have things he personally finds no value in.  That's my point.  You're trying to make it about specifics or tangibles or dollars and whatnot.  It's not.  It's about what this guy and his group happen agree there is value in.

skullkrusher: Perhaps he even considers them assets that add value to the economy.


Exactly.  It's about what this guy considers.  It's not about whether or not it actually adds value, it's about what this guy's opinion is.  That's how he'll get to pick and choose what's worth spending on.
 
2013-03-21 05:14:11 PM

Corvus: lennavan: He never said the police were a part of "general spending." While skullkrusher is picking a nit, you're just plain wrong.

Police, teaches, firefighters are not paid in the general budget?


This is just a stupid comment.  You should feel bad about yourself.
 
2013-03-21 05:14:36 PM
According to a friend who works in the budget office, other things in the works include:

Eliminating the no fault insurance laws and eliminating the lifetime medical coverage for accident victims. They plan on tacking on appropriations so that they can avoid a public referendum (the reason: this change has failed 4-5 times on this very subject in the past 30+ years when made a public vote). They are looking at a hard lifetime cap for medical coverage of accident victims, which is of course suggested by and would be regulated by the insurance industry.

Another attempt at requiring drug testing for welfare benefits (either system wide or at the discretion of benefits workers). This despite the budget offices stating very clearly that either method would cost more in taxpayer dollars than it would save.
 
2013-03-21 05:20:11 PM
Wasn't this all covered under "You didn't build that?"  This is exactly what was being discussed that the GOP biatched about.  The business are using the resources the Gubmint built through the taxes of the individual.

Hmm....
 
2013-03-21 05:22:04 PM

lennavan: Corvus: lennavan: He never said the police were a part of "general spending." While skullkrusher is picking a nit, you're just plain wrong.

Police, teaches, firefighters are not paid in the general budget?

This is just a stupid comment.  You should feel bad about yourself.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-03-21 05:22:06 PM
GOP governors for the last few years: lets slash taxes on businesses and the wealthy to show how "business friendly" we are" GOP governors now: We're broke and businesses are complaining our roads are crap-so let's double the gas tax

Oh, you mean like that thing that didn't work in California a few decades back? Gee, whoda thunk it?
 
2013-03-21 05:22:56 PM

Saiga410: I think I just lost some braincells reading a back and forth about what a president of a state chamber of commerce thinks is the effacacy of general spending.


If Republicans don't nit pick how else would they win debates? On the merit of their ideology and facts? Ha!
 
2013-03-21 05:25:52 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He is saying "general spending" does not "add value to economic activity".

That is the statement that he made.

so this whole thing is basically about the phrase "adds value to economic activity"? I don't believe that is referring to the stimulative impact of the spending itself. I think "adds value to economic activity" means "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity".


Do police, schools, courts, firefighters "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity" in anyway?

Yes or No?

 
2013-03-21 05:27:41 PM

xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.


Who abuses the roads more? A shipping company with hundreds of multi-ton semi's that run almost 24/7/365 OR a poor guy who commutes to work a few miles half the week? Remember, the companies are the ones asking for it but it's the citizens who are paying for it.
 
2013-03-21 05:27:42 PM

lennavan: Tourism.


meh. Fine. Maybe that's not "general spending" as he defines it either

lennavan: Yes. On the one hand you have things he personally finds value in and on the other hand you have things he personally finds no value in. That's my point. You're trying to make it about specifics or tangibles or dollars and whatnot. It's not. It's about what this guy and his group happen agree there is value in.


not seeing that. The economic impact of improving roads is pretty objectively observable. I really don't think it is a matter of opinion to say that there is a difference between that sort of spending and other things which don't have such a direct impact.

lennavan: Exactly. It's about what this guy considers. It's not about whether or not it actually adds value, it's about what this guy's opinion is. That's how he'll get to pick and choose what's worth spending on.


I'm pretty sure we could list spending items and agree with whether they are both "assets" and whether they are assets which contribute to economic activity and there'd be rather little disagreement on them
 
2013-03-21 05:30:23 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: Tourism.

meh. Fine. Maybe that's not "general spending" as he defines it either



Corvus: Right wing White Knight circular logic:
"Right wingers are not dishonest, therefore if they make a dishonest statement it's not actually what they meant to say because that would mean they are being dishonest".

 
2013-03-21 05:30:48 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He is saying "general spending" does not "add value to economic activity".

That is the statement that he made.

so this whole thing is basically about the phrase "adds value to economic activity"? I don't believe that is referring to the stimulative impact of the spending itself. I think "adds value to economic activity" means "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity".

Do police, schools, courts, firefighters "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity" in anyway?

Yes or No?


well, they'd have to be both an asset of value AND an asset which facilitates economic activity. Human capital and physical capital are different so I don't know if people are really "assets" per se in this context, but sure, spending on a new courthouse or firehouse could fall under both categories.
 
2013-03-21 05:32:07 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: lennavan: Tourism.

meh. Fine. Maybe that's not "general spending" as he defines it either


Corvus: Right wing White Knight circular logic:
"Right wingers are not dishonest, therefore if they make a dishonest statement it's not actually what they meant to say because that would mean they are being dishonest".


heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.
 
2013-03-21 05:35:41 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

He is saying "general spending" does not "add value to economic activity".

That is the statement that he made.

so this whole thing is basically about the phrase "adds value to economic activity"? I don't believe that is referring to the stimulative impact of the spending itself. I think "adds value to economic activity" means "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity".

Do police, schools, courts, firefighters "facilitates economic activity" or "provides something of value which promotes economic activity" in anyway?

Yes or No?

well, they'd have to be both an asset of value AND an asset which facilitates economic activity. Human capital and physical capital are different so I don't know if people are really "assets" per se in this context, but sure, spending on a new courthouse or firehouse could fall under both categories.


So then that a yes?

So his statement was then wrong. Like I have been saying. General spending does "invest in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity ". The point how well it does this is moot but he is wrong saying it does not do it.
 
2013-03-21 05:36:53 PM

skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.


"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?
 
2013-03-21 05:37:34 PM

Corvus: So then that a yes?

So his statement was then wrong. Like I have been saying. General spending does "invest in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity ". The point how well it does this is moot but he is wrong saying it does not do it.


umm... saying that spending on police and fire services is not part of "general spending" doesn't make his statement wrong. As has been pointed out to you several times, you're the one who specifically mentioned them as "general spending". Not him.
 
2013-03-21 05:38:14 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.

"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?


wtf dude... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?
 
2013-03-21 05:51:13 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.

"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?

wtf dude... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?


Wow you don't know what the "general budget" is over a budget that is ear marked?
 
2013-03-21 05:52:43 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.

"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?

wtf dude... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Wow you don't know what the "general budget" is over a budget that is ear marked?


look who sneaked a new word in here hoping no one would notice. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a liar Corvus.

The phrase we're talking about is "general spending".
 
2013-03-21 05:53:06 PM
They insist there are actually some taxes that government should rely on more - and that even Republicans can embrace.

Yeah. Taxes that disproportionately affect the poor.
 
2013-03-21 05:54:05 PM

skullkrusher: umm... saying that spending on police and fire services is not part of "general spending" doesn't make his statement wrong.


If it is used spending from the general budget (which it is) yes, it does make that statement wrong.

Do you know what a "General budget" is?

He doesn't get to define what "general spending" is. That means spending of the general budget.
 
2013-03-21 05:55:09 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.

"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?

wtf dude... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Wow you don't know what the "general budget" is over a budget that is ear marked?

look who sneaked a new word in here hoping no one would notice. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a liar Corvus.

The phrase we're talking about is "general spending".


"General spending" means spending of the "general budget".
 
2013-03-21 05:56:08 PM

skullkrusher: look who sneaked a new word in here hoping no one would notice. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a liar Corvus.

The phrase we're talking about is "general spending".


Spending of the general budget is called...


Or are you really this clueless?
 
2013-03-21 05:56:52 PM
And, the right wing troll accounts:
Republicans claimed that the economic activity that would be spawned by lowering taxes on businesses and the wealthy would FAR FAR be outweighed by the loss of revenue.

Now that economic activity has failed to materialize, they're advocating replacing the money lost by taxing businesses and the rich by a tax that falls mainly on the poor and middle class.
 
2013-03-21 05:57:18 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: umm... saying that spending on police and fire services is not part of "general spending" doesn't make his statement wrong.

If it is used spending from the general budget (which it is) yes, it does make that statement wrong.

Do you know what a "General budget" is?

He doesn't get to define what "general spending" is. That means spending of the general budget.


hehe ok man, if you say so.
I mean, he made it pretty clear what he he was referring to when he said "general spending" by defining it in the negative and made no reference whatsoever to "general budget" and there's nothing in his comments to indicate that he thinks non-general spending CANNOT come out of the "general budget" but you insist that it means "general budget" and therefore he's a liar.
 
2013-03-21 05:59:59 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: umm... saying that spending on police and fire services is not part of "general spending" doesn't make his statement wrong.

If it is used spending from the general budget (which it is) yes, it does make that statement wrong.

Do you know what a "General budget" is?

He doesn't get to define what "general spending" is. That means spending of the general budget.

hehe ok man, if you say so.
I mean, he made it pretty clear what he he was referring to when he said "general spending" by defining it in the negative and made no reference whatsoever to "general budget" and there's nothing in his comments to indicate that he thinks non-general spending CANNOT come out of the "general budget" but you insist that it means "general budget" and therefore he's a liar.


Yes he meant it as "General fund spending" over spending that is a separate  "use-taxes" earmarked  budget like gas taxes.

Once again:

Corvus: 3) Skullkrusher uses the circular logic of "Hey that statement is stupid therefor he must of meant something else"

 
2013-03-21 06:00:02 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: Corvus: skullkrusher: heh you keep think you're making this great points but it's just not happening man. Use a little logic and you'll see there's nothing circular. Just like there's nothing circular with calling spending on police or fire services not "general spending" as he defined it.

"General spending" is not defined as the spending of the general budget?

wtf dude... seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Wow you don't know what the "general budget" is over a budget that is ear marked?

look who sneaked a new word in here hoping no one would notice. If I didn't know better, I'd call you a liar Corvus.

The phrase we're talking about is "general spending".

"General spending" means spending of the "general budget".


no, see, in this conversation, "general spending" means spending which is not "investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity"

Watching your gears spin in desperate attempt to salvage this clusterfark is fun to watch though, I must say.
 
2013-03-21 06:01:14 PM

skullkrusher: and made no reference whatsoever to "general budget"


So you are saying spending from the "general budget" is not "general spending"?
 
2013-03-21 06:01:25 PM

Corvus: Yes he meant it as "General fund spending" over spending that is a separate "use-taxes" earmarked budget like gas taxes.


you got that from this?

"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending,"

Either you're a wizard or just not sensible enough to tuck the tail and walk away.
 
2013-03-21 06:03:01 PM

skullkrusher: no, see, in this conversation, "general spending" means spending which is not "investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity"


No he meant spending from the general fund over spending like a gas tax which is specifically ear marked.

You are using circular logic. Saying his statement must be correct and then using his statement to prove that it is correct.
 
2013-03-21 06:04:37 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: and made no reference whatsoever to "general budget"

So you are saying spending from the "general budget" is not "general spending"?


sure, you could refer to general budget spending as "general spending" I suppose.

Are YOU saying that anything spent from the "general budget" cannot be on an asset of value that adds value to economic activity? See, cuz if I am to believe your dubious assumptions, that's what his statement means. That somehow the general budget is magical in that it cannot be spend on "investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity"? You understand, he is drawing the distinction. Maybe he's not referring to what you are so desperate to believe he is now?
 
2013-03-21 06:06:17 PM

skullkrusher: Corvus: Yes he meant it as "General fund spending" over spending that is a separate "use-taxes" earmarked budget like gas taxes.

you got that from this?

"We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending,"

Either you're a wizard or just not sensible enough to tuck the tail and walk away.



Right he is saying "general spending", spending that is from the general budget, not things like gas-tax which is earmarked and a separate budget does not "nvest in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending,"

General spending means "spending from the general fund". A gas tax does not do this, which is what he was contrasting.
 
2013-03-21 06:07:13 PM

skullkrusher: Are YOU saying that anything spent from the "general budget" cannot be on an asset of value that adds value to economic activity?


Nope. That's what he said. I am saying he is wrong for making that statement.

I don't know how you can be so obtuse and accuse me of saying something the opposite of what I have been saying this whole time.
 
2013-03-21 06:07:38 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: Tourism.

meh. Fine. Maybe that's not "general spending" as he defines it either


Yet somehow I highly doubt it.  Don't you?

skullkrusher: not seeing that. The economic impact of improving roads is pretty objectively observable. I really don't think it is a matter of opinion to say that there is a difference between that sort of spending and other things which don't have such a direct impact.


Yes, I understand what you're saying.  And I think that is exactly how he wants you to hear his quote.  I just don't buy it.  You have to consider the organization he's in charge of.  We have no idea what he actually considers "general spending" but I have no doubt under that big umbrella are all sorts of things that have positive economic impacts.  I just cannot imagine the guy in charge of the MI Chamber of Commerce agreeing with higher taxes and increasing funding for schools, yet there is also a direct impact on the economy with education.
 
2013-03-21 06:12:30 PM

Corvus: General spending means "spending from the general fund". A gas tax does not do this, which is what he was contrasting.


No he wasn't.  Corvus you idiot.  I told you this "general budget" crap was stupid and you should feel bad about yourself.  You should have dropped it.

Corvus: "We understand the difference between investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity as opposed to general spending," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.


You either "add value to economic activity" or you are "general spending."  There is nothing about a gas tax.  It was very amazingly clear how he was defining "general spending."  It had nothing to do with a "general budget."

Seriously dude, you've dug too far.
 
2013-03-21 06:12:41 PM

Corvus: skullkrusher: no, see, in this conversation, "general spending" means spending which is not "investing in an asset that has value and adds value to economic activity"

No he meant spending from the general fund over spending like a gas tax which is specifically ear marked.

You are using circular logic. Saying his statement must be correct and then using his statement to prove that it is correct.


wow... he doesn't even mention specifically earmarked funds.

His organization does mention this though:

"The Michigan Chamber supports Governor Snyder's proposal to build a New International Trade Crossing and supports as well a comprehensive, statewide transportation investment plan.  "

separately it says:

"The Michigan Chamber supports the development of a cost-effective, statewide plan to invest wisely in Michigan's transportation infrastructure. To accomplish this goal, the Chamber urges the Legislature and Administration to: retain a user fee-based system of financing where the cost of service relates to the benefit received; more vigorously pursue innovative public-private partnerships including toll roads; and the promotion of more open and competitive bidding for state contracts through repeal of the state's costly Prevailing Wage Act. "

The first example does not mention "earmarking". The second does. Weird for a guy who is talking about the "general budget" when he says "general spending" eh, Corvus?
 
2013-03-21 06:13:51 PM
 SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.
 
2013-03-21 06:14:23 PM

lennavan: Yet somehow I highly doubt it. Don't you?


yeah I doubt it too. I just didn't feel like arguing about the dubious economic benefits of beautifying city hall

lennavan: Yes, I understand what you're saying. And I think that is exactly how he wants you to hear his quote. I just don't buy it. You have to consider the organization he's in charge of. We have no idea what he actually considers "general spending" but I have no doubt under that big umbrella are all sorts of things that have positive economic impacts. I just cannot imagine the guy in charge of the MI Chamber of Commerce agreeing with higher taxes and increasing funding for schools, yet there is also a direct impact on the economy with education.


http://www.michamber.com/board-policies
 
2013-03-21 06:15:19 PM

Corvus: SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.


and now with the name calling. Have some self-respect and go away dude
 
2013-03-21 06:20:44 PM

skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies


While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.
 
2013-03-21 06:21:19 PM

Corvus: SkullKrusher, if you are going to be so dishonest to say spending of the general budget is not "general spending" (even though this distinction is made often in state government statements) then there is nothing more I can say.

You are either being dishonest, or you are so ignorant you don't even understand fairly simple budget terminology.


Corvus go sit in the corner and think about what you did today so it doesn't happen again.
 
2013-03-21 06:21:52 PM
Note: For some federations like Brazil and Mexico, only the federal budget is shown. For most other countries the total budget is shown. Although Germany is a federation the statistics for Germany represent total general government spending.[3]

...

Look at the Texas Legislature, which is on track to divert nearly $5 billion raised for specific programs to accounts where it balances spending in the two-year general budget. Legislators tell voters they are collecting taxes and fees to pay for pleasant-sounding programs like criminal justice planning, fugitive apprehension, clean air, artificial reefs, 911 emergency services and trauma care, to name a few.

Then they leave some or all of the money collected for those programs in account balances that, for accounting purposes, can be counted against general spending to balance the budget.


...


Va. budget plan would shrink general spending to 2006 levels
With Virginia facing what lawmakers say is the grimmest financial picture in memory, the House of Delegates and Senate adopted budgets last week that would shrink general spending to about $15 billion, or no more than was spent four years ago.


All of these are using the term "general spending" exactly how I am using it.
 
2013-03-21 06:23:07 PM

Corvus: All of these are using the term "general spending" exactly how I am using it.


GO BACK TO YOUR CORNER
 
2013-03-21 06:24:46 PM
Kentuky government using the term "General spending" just like I have been:


The Budget Reserve Trust Fund usually receives its deposits from surplus funds at the end of a fiscal year.  This represents either greater General Fund tax revenues than anticipated or unspent General Fund expenditures.  The Legislature may also direct funds to the Budget Reserve Trust Fund through the appropriation bills it passes.

The most common use of the Budget Reserve Trust Fund has been to help keep the state's budget balanced when tax revenues are less than anticipated.  There also have been times when the Legislature chooses to use the Budget Reserve Trust Fund to finance general spending through the budget bills it passes.
 
2013-03-21 06:27:57 PM
"General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"
 
2013-03-21 06:29:51 PM

lennavan: skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies

While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.


I never said the guy was smart.
 
2013-03-21 06:35:44 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Fun part is the news that came out showing ALL of Wisconsin's counties have budget issues now and their unemployment went UP. How's life for all of you Koch suckers?


As reprehensible as Walker has been... how would Barrett have been any better? The light rail connection from Chicago to the Cities? Might be handy in the long-run but in-state traffic (namely Madison to Milwaukee) won't sustain it day-to-day. Neither one can attract businesses because all keep pandering to the outdated notion that manufacturers want to come here.  So we were screwed either way really.
 
2013-03-21 06:35:50 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: http://www.michamber.com/board-policies

While there are arguments on that page against funding education I found a better one.  You can also find an argument against legalized marijuana.  We'd save tons in tax dollars from less imprisoned people, more in tax dollars from needing less cops to fight the war on drugs and we'd gain tax dollars from the legal sale of it.

This guy wants to spend tax dollars on something that hurts the economy.

I never said the guy was smart.


No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy.  Clearly he's not.  He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy.  That was my point.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:40 PM

lennavan: No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy. Clearly he's not. He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy. That was my point.


no, I said that he said that there's a difference. Which is what he said.
Never did I say that he said we should ONLY spend money on the "non-general spending" as he termed it. Opposition to MJ legalization provides support for that.
 
2013-03-21 06:37:46 PM

Corvus: "General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"


You should tell that to Google.  A google search for "general spending" pops up almost entirely articles about a four star general spending money inappropriately.

c.o0bc.com
 
2013-03-21 06:38:54 PM

lennavan: Corvus: "General spending" = spending of the general fund, it does not mean "some spending" or "other spending"

You should tell that to Google.  A google search for "general spending" pops up almost entirely articles about a four star general spending money inappropriately.

[c.o0bc.com image 539x410]


General Spending returning from the front, sir.
 
2013-03-21 06:49:06 PM

skullkrusher: lennavan: No but you did say he's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that improves the economy. Clearly he's not. He's arguing we should spend tax dollars on something that he likes, that also improves the economy. That was my point.

no, I said that he said that there's a difference. Which is what he said.
Never did I say that he said we should ONLY spend money on the "non-general spending" as he termed it. Opposition to MJ legalization provides support for that.


That's not what I'm saying.  At face value, the basis of his argument is "this is worthy of spending on because it improves the economy."  All I'm saying is there's more to it than that.  I could also grow MI's economy by legalizing pot and spending tax dollars on growing weed on farms.  Why would he be for tax dollars for roads but against tax dollars for pot when both would grow the economy?  His personal values, that's why.

And you gotta believe the pot thing would grow their economy way more than the roads thing.  People would flock there on horseback and shiat if they legalized it (lets ignore the federal law complication for the sake of the joke).
 
2013-03-21 09:48:31 PM
Snyder is just another tax and spend libtard.
 
2013-03-21 09:55:04 PM

Magorn: Weaver95: jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?

They could always raise taxes.  that'd fix the problem!  oh, wait - no, they can't.  Republicans can't raise taxes, they can only CUT taxes.  And they can only cut taxes on corporations and the rich.  that's why it kinda sucks to be them.

They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


I hate that shuttle from Dulles to the metro.  I'll pay extra to go to National.
 
2013-03-21 09:55:18 PM
Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again
 
2013-03-21 10:27:46 PM

Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again


streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.
 
2013-03-21 10:34:20 PM

DamnYankees: But job creators!


Done in two.
 
2013-03-21 10:51:15 PM

jake_lex: Wait, what, you're telling me that a decent infrastructure and functional government services might be a factor in getting business to locate in your state, not just tax breaks? What kind of voodoo economics is this?


I know. Everyone knows the job creators built everything themselves.
 
2013-03-21 11:17:03 PM

PsyLord: skullkrusher: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: skullkrusher:

heh good one. Still, I haven't heard of many people talking about the privatization of roads except the more ideologically driven right libertarians

Heh - A guy I know believes the federal highways program was one of the most useless and wasteful government programs in history. See - he has a jeep and if he wants to drive to Texas (from DC) he could just go off road the whole way so why should he be forced to pay for roads between his house and Florida, let alone all the roads that go to places he doesn't intend to visit.

/CSB

your friend sounds like a dummy but that also sounds awesome.

You should tell him to try it just for the lulz.  I'm willing to bet that he wouldn't get halfway to FL before he is either stuck, his suspension destroyed, tires blown, or engine overheats.


I think the real fun would come when (accidentally) drives on someone's private property and ends up getting shot.

/Lives in the Calif high desert region
//Drives a Jeep
 
2013-03-21 11:57:49 PM

skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.


Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?
 
2013-03-22 12:15:53 AM
How about letting these businesses... you know, the ones who got their taxes cut and who are now b*tching about the roads... pay for the upkeep of those roads? Higher gas taxes hit the people who can least afford them, and cause them to drive less or carpool, which further reduces gasoline use, which reduces revenue, which makes these idiot legislators want to raise gas taxes... and on and on.

No... it's your 18 wheel trucks tearing sh*t up all over the country 24/7/365, you pay what you owe.
Stop with the f*cking giveaways to corporations.
 
2013-03-22 12:37:46 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?


I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.
 
2013-03-22 12:49:36 AM

skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.


Are you saying you disagree?
 
2013-03-22 01:02:41 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?


I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.
 
2013-03-22 01:25:25 AM

HellRaisingHoosier: xanadian: They also like the simple idea behind it. "It's a user fee," Snyder said. "If you use the roads more, you should pay more. If you use the roads less, you should pay less."

Ok, that actually makes some sense.  Doesn't take into account the poor slobs who *have* to commute an hour each day because their job is so f*cking far from home.

Who abuses the roads more? A shipping company with hundreds of multi-ton semi's that run almost 24/7/365 OR a poor guy who commutes to work a few miles half the week? Remember, the companies are the ones asking for it but it's the citizens who are paying for it.


Generally speaking, "multi-ton semis" don't use surface streets, since they're neither wide enough nor rated for such usage. Big semis are pretty much restricted to freeways and main thoroughfares. Shipping companies have to transfer goods to smaller trucks for side-street deliveries. That's why you see signs like "No Trucks Over 10 T on Grove St." all over the place.

Also, as any trucking company could tell you, they do pay a shipping tax and a use tax per mile; that's what the "shipping and handling" charge is for when you order something, and part of a tariff when anything is shipped across state lines--so that interstate freight doesn't chew up other states' roadways. People in New York have to subsidize California's highways whenever goods travel across country, you know.

I'm not entirely sure why you think the companies should be footing 100% of the bill for using the roads that benefit the poor guy who commutes half a week to work, as if the roads were only there for the companies' benefit. By having an interstate network, companies can ship goods more cheaply and let your impoverished commuter buy consumer goods more cheaply than he'd otherwise have access to. Since his taxes pay part of the roadway bills, the shipping company doesn't have to pay crippling tariffs to bring goods from Missouri to  Wyoming, and your worker can get his electronics at Walmart without paying twice the price. That helps anyone who doesn't live on a river or a coast.

It's not like we live in a country where every state produces everything, and don't need other states products.
 
2013-03-22 02:56:28 AM

skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.


Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.
 
2013-03-22 03:24:02 AM

Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.

Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.


That is coming from the guy who says spending from the general budget fund is not "general spending". He is either not very honest or not very bright.
 
2013-03-22 08:21:58 AM

Gyrfalcon: Generally speaking, "multi-ton semis" don't use surface streets, si


Wait, what?  What do you think there is, some sort of secret truck only tunnel network throughout the US?  Because that would be awesome.
 
2013-03-22 08:28:46 AM
skullkrusher:
it's really not a white-knight to exercise assumptions which are pretty common to human interactions. I don't think it is terribly likely that he thinks that spending on roads is the only spending that should be done.

(My emphasis on "should")
See, the issue here is that the Gov. is just finally admitting that it's spending that hasto be done, if Snyder had his way there wouldn't be a single thing that tax money should be spent on (other than his, and his emergency managers' paychecks).
 
2013-03-22 10:10:16 AM

Corvus: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: skullkrusher: Frederick: Yes, we should be socialist when it benefits the wealthy and corporations.  /sarc
Everyone pays for the same infrastructure that disproportionately favors business.
But keep living that lie, America, that were a capitalist economy. /sarc, again

streets are keeping the 99% down too? Damn.

Do you often misunderstand what is being said around you, or is it just the written word?

I dunno, when someone says stuff like "infrastructure disproportionately favors business" it takes on a certain "this is a thread where we can say whatever the fark we want because sense is now optional" feeling and I just jumped right in.  It looked like fun.

Are you saying you disagree?

I'm saying I don't know how the fark a network of inanimate objects favors anyone. However, if you're saying that businesses derive more money from the use of roads than individuals then that is a great argument for use taxes. Use the road more, you pay more.

Roads are one example of infrastructure.  Law enforcement and fire departments are another example.  When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category.  Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes.  All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases.  And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits.  Trickle down; my ass.

That is coming from the guy who says spending from the general budget fund is not "general spending". He is either not very honest or not very bright.


hehe good Lord Corvus
 
2013-03-22 10:13:51 AM

Frederick: Roads are one example of infrastructure. Law enforcement and fire departments are another example. When you look at the funds that support those infrastructures; property taxes, sales taxes, etc. it is clear businesses are more in the "taking" category than the "giving" category. Do a GIS on some of the major businesses in your area on those taxes they pay and have been exempted from.

The company I work for has been given some huge property tax abatements in addition to exemption on sales taxes. All the while laying off employees, and diminishing salary increases. And oh, have posted 6 straight record breaking quarterly profits. Trickle down; my ass.


what sort of infrastructure are we referring to in this thread? Now, imagine you were someone else reading your posts. What sort of "infrastructure" would you think your post referred to?
So you're arguing in favor of progressive taxation to fund police and firedepartments? OK, that's an entirely new topic. One that no one has opposed here as far as I've seen.
 
2013-03-22 12:36:38 PM
Magorn:
They cut the living hell out of  them taxes don't they? 'Course when they then realize they've got no money to provide basical govenmental functions like keeping the roads in repair or funding transportation infrastructure, then, well then they just hike "user fees" which so totally NOT the same thing.  Or even better yet, they "privatize" the road and let a private company gouge you for the privilege of being able to get to work every day

/Live in VA, Work in DC
//means that driving to work involves a a private "greenway" with a $5 each way toll,  $2 each way on the Va-owned toll road (which is set to double and then triple in the next couple years because VA won't pay for its share of the expansion of the Metro system out to Dulles airport) AND now Bobby MC wants to boost the Gas taxes and slap a toll on i-95 as well
///for those of you playing along at home that means effectively a $14/day $280/mo $3360/year "tax" that me and every other Nova resident has to pay regardless of income
//// S'why most days I take a commuter bus that is $7 a day each way -cheaper than driving (no gas costs) and they at least get to use the carpool lanes


As someone who lives in DC, please let me play you a tune on my teeny-tiny violin.  You don't pay Jack in property taxes, sales taxes and especially income taxes compared to DC residents, yet you and your big ass buses chew up our roads.  As for the Dulles toll road, we're building you a metro with parking garages AND there ARE alternate routes.  They suck, but they are there.

VA residents save a ton in taxes compared to DC, MD residents because you have the rest of the state helping you out.  So wah!
 
Displayed 287 of 287 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report