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  
•       •       •

2846 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 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.
 
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