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  
•       •       •

2840 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report