GREENDALE FORUM by GreendaleLife.com

Our Garden Community's Cyber Town Square
It is currently Sun Apr 30, 2017 10:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:32 pm 
Offline
Very Active User
Very Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 1169
Location: In front of my computer when I wrote this.
Smith wrote:
Hey, I just came across this: http://www.nrpa.org/Content.aspx?id=650. Seems as though CE Walker’s stewardship must be pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Not that I care all that much as I don’t believe that PARKS is, as I said, something that government should really be handling. There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee.

I would have to give credit for that award to the Parks Director, Sue Black. She's done a lot with the budget cuts Walker sends her. Entrance fee? Not always. As an example, I believe admission to the domes is free to Milwaukee County residents on Mondays.

Plus she comes across as a whole lot smarter than Walker. Where did he get his degree from again? Oh, yeah, he wasn't smart enough to get one. :roll:

_________________
Want to create more jobs? Buy American-made products whenever you can.
Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:26 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
Hey, I just came across this: http://www.nrpa.org/Content.aspx?id=650. Seems as though CE Walker’s stewardship must be pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Not that I care all that much as I don’t believe that PARKS is, as I said, something that government should really be handling. There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee.

I would have to give credit for that award to the Parks Director, Sue Black. She's done a lot with the budget cuts Walker sends her. Entrance fee? Not always. As an example, I believe admission to the domes is free to Milwaukee County residents on Mondays.

Plus she comes across as a whole lot smarter than Walker. Where did he get his degree from again? Oh, yeah, he wasn't smart enough to get one. :roll:


Well hello, Joe.

My I do get to correspond with a multitude here. I am blessed.

Actually you might have misread what I wrote about the parks that require an entrance fee. That was not a reference to Milwaukee County Parks.

And if Sue Black is responsible for doing well with enough, then all the power to her. How much cutting was done, by the way?

And I know that I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...
But I will.

What is your evidence that Scott Walker wasn't smart enough to get a degree?



And how smart do you need to be, anyway?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Greendale D-section
Thanks for the reply, Smith. I saw the initial post without any new content, so I was a bit confused.

I understand from your previous posts, that you believe Government which governs least governs best. The problem I am having in understanding which parts of government, specifically, you think should be eliminated? I asked you which specific taxes you would eliminate, and you made a general reply (all unConstitutional taxes) but that could mean almost anything. My questions have been posed because I would understand your position better if you gave specific examples. But so far, you have skillfully avoided that :wink:

I understand you to say that you believe that users of a resource or service should pay the full cost of that resource or service. Then perhaps you would agree that when a developer opens a new subdivision, the cost of the homes in that subdivision should fully include the cost of roads and other municipal services (e.g. police, fire, trash collection, school capacity) that were extended to cover the new residents? That would be a welcome change.

And would you also agree that manufacturers and their customers should have to pay the costs of disposal of their products when their useful life is over, and pay for decommissioning of the manufacturing facility when the company moves or goes out of business? No more need for a toxic cleanup by government: That would be great! Just interested in how you might imagine that such a plan could be implemented.

Is there any place in the world that has less government but which you find would offer a similar standard of living and quality of life? It is my opinion, and that of others I have read on this forum, that these "inappropriate" government functions, such as providing parks and schools, actually serve to improve the quality of life for all the people in the community, whether or not they actually go and sit in the park and use the picnic tables, and whether or not they have any children of school age. Remember the uproar over the church's proposed parking lot? And that's just over a vacant lot! :) Also, communities with green space and other public amenities afford higher property values to the home owners therein. In this way, I contend, these home owners DO receive something back for their support of these public amenities.

I just try to picture what Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon would look like if the federal government had not set out to preserve these gems in an unspoiled state. Maybe I don't go to the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone more than once in my lifetime, but without someone acting for the greater common good to preserve these marvels, I would not even have that chance.

I think people have different pictures of what constitutes "enough" w.r.t. wealth/power/ownership/etc. In my experience, those with the biggest cut of the pie already are the ones most actively trying to get even more, at the expense of the small fish like me. That's not something I can stand up to alone. The way I see it, I band together with my neighbor small fish and form governing bodies to intervene and speak power to power. What other options are there? Oh, wait, I guess I could just expire, and let my postage-stamp-sized domain be gobbled up by the big fish. Then Everyone would be happy! Right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:27 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
Hey, I just came across this: http://www.nrpa.org/Content.aspx?id=650. Seems as though CE Walker’s stewardship must be pretty good, wouldn’t you say? Not that I care all that much as I don’t believe that PARKS is, as I said, something that government should really be handling. There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee.

I would have to give credit for that award to the Parks Director, Sue Black. She's done a lot with the budget cuts Walker sends her. Entrance fee? Not always. As an example, I believe admission to the domes is free to Milwaukee County residents on Mondays.

Plus she comes across as a whole lot smarter than Walker. Where did he get his degree from again? Oh, yeah, he wasn't smart enough to get one. :roll:


Hi, Joe. Maybe you missed my earlier reply to your post; I surely don't believe you were trolling. That's for others who shall remain nameless just now.

Since Walker is very likely to be the next Governor unless it can be demonstrated, to many voters that he should not be, why do you attempt besmirch him regarding his intellect? That is, if you believe intellect, and it seems that you do, is a deciding factor in the receipt of a college degree?

In other words, help us out, is Walker dumb? What's your evidence?

Also, how much cutting did Walker do in the budgeting where Sue Black's job is concerned, I can't seem to locate the cuts.

Again, as for entrance fees, I was referring to privately owned parks.

Have a great day. Hope to "hear" from you.

You wrote, "I believe admission to the domes is free to Milwaukee County residents on Mondays." THAT is (sort of) accurate:

Free to all Milwaukee County Residents with proof of residency on Mondays 9 a.m.-noon, excluding major holidays and celebrations of major holidays.

Interesting that Monday would be the day chosen for the three hours.

See you there!



Edit: Added Domes section.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee for service; questions not nonsensical
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 2:28 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Greendale D-section
Hello, Smith.

Remember all those "hypothetical" questions you decided not to answer because my assumption/premise of NO public sector was erroneous? I just read this on-line: (From News of the Weird)

News of the Weird wrote:
District of Calamity II: Wayne County's (Detroit's) budget for burying unclaimed bodies ran out last June; bodies are stacked like cordwood in 67 portable freezers.
WDIV-TV (Detroit)

The difference between TINY public sector and NO public sector is only a matter of degree. Most of those questions would apply regardless. As you can see from Detroit's current dilemma, even when there is a public sector, it can still get swamped...

The question that remains, and still needs answering, is: What is to be done with/for those people who do NOT have the fee required for the service being offered? This question needs an answer, whether some, most, or all services are offered on a fee-only basis.

You are great at the glittering generalities, such as No UnConstitutional Taxes, but you are mighty weak on the specifics.

Kind regards! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:39 pm 
Offline
Very Active User
Very Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 1169
Location: In front of my computer when I wrote this.
Smith wrote:
My I do get to correspond with a multitude here. I am blessed.

Yes, I only wish more would jump into the fray. Everyone coming here is looking for something to read. But if nobody posts or replies, well, things become rather bland. Don't you agree?

Smith wrote:
Actually you might have misread what I wrote about the parks that require an entrance fee. That was not a reference to Milwaukee County Parks.

Then what parks were they? State parks?

Smith wrote:
And if Sue Black is responsible for doing well with enough, then all the power to her. How much cutting was done, by the way?

She's done well with what she has... on some key projects. But face it, with aging infrastructure there are a lot of what I would consider "back lot projects" to be done. Case in point were the domes: Glass and 40 years of weather take their time. They needed to be redone and it was expensive.

You can only cut back on mowing and painting so much, then it starts to hit. Some of the golf course club houses could use a bit of maintenance.

How much cutting wasn't done to her budget, by the way?

Smith wrote:
And I know that I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...
But I will.

What is your evidence that Scott Walker wasn't smart enough to get a degree?

A) I went to MU the same time he did. Well, actually I went a bit longer. After three years of reading about him moving up in student government, he vanished. Word was he dropped out. So someone (he or his parents) spent 3.5 years on tuition at MU and he drops out in the home stretch with one semester to go. Considering the cost of MU tuition at the time (much more now) is that a smart move financially? I mean, if he wanted to go to school to play politics, he could've gone to UWM and been far more "fiscally conservative".

B) Look at all of his bio information. It will say he attended MU. Never a mention of a degree. Yet it mentions he was an Eagle Scout. While noteworthy, I think a degree is also worth noting on a political resume, don't you?

C) This JSonline chat with him should shed a bit of light on the subject (about half-way down the chat). Although he still doesn't address why he bailed out of MU one semester short of graduating.

I shouldn't ask, but I will. Were you living under a rock the last time he ran for governor and county executive? It was mentioned then.

Smith wrote:
And how smart do you need to be, anyway?

While I feel there are many people without degrees who are more "street smart" than those who do (especially MBAs), I would expect those moving up to that level of government to have a tad more education, and finish what they started. I mean, he has had 20 years.

Then again, he's had the past eight years to fix the County's budget and he hasn't done that, either.

_________________
Want to create more jobs? Buy American-made products whenever you can.
Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:58 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
My I do get to correspond with a multitude here. I am blessed.

Yes, I only wish more would jump into the fray. Everyone coming here is looking for something to read. But if nobody posts or replies, well, things become rather bland. Don't you agree?

I do agree. You and Firefly may not make a multitude (I exaggerated that maybe) but it's true that I am blessed.

NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
Actually you might have misread what I wrote about the parks that require an entrance fee. That was not a reference to Milwaukee County Parks.

Then what parks were they? State parks?


In contrast I had written about privately owned parks, "There are many private parks all across this great land and, while they can’t, maybe, compare to the parks in Milwaukee County under the Stewardship of Scott Walker, they’re pretty good, or at least they’re as good as they need to be considering that you can’t use them unless you pay an entrance fee."

NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
And if Sue Black is responsible for doing well with enough, then all the power to her. How much cutting was done, by the way?

She's done well with what she has... on some key projects. But face it, with aging infrastructure there are a lot of what I would consider "back lot projects" to be done. Case in point were the domes: Glass and 40 years of weather take their time. They needed to be redone and it was expensive.

You can only cut back on mowing and painting so much, then it starts to hit. Some of the golf course club houses could use a bit of maintenance.

How much cutting wasn't done to her budget, by the way?


I didn't claim that cutting wasn't done. I was responding to your claim of cuts. Were there cuts or not?

NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
And I know that I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...I shouldn't ask...
But I will.

What is your evidence that Scott Walker wasn't smart enough to get a degree?


A) I went to MU the same time he did. Well, actually I went a bit longer. After three years of reading about him moving up in student government, he vanished. Word was he dropped out. So someone (he or his parents) spent 3.5 years on tuition at MU and he drops out in the home stretch with one semester to go. Considering the cost of MU tuition at the time (much more now) is that a smart move financially? I mean, if he wanted to go to school to play politics, he could've gone to UWM and been far more "fiscally conservative".

B) Look at all of his bio information. It will say he attended MU. Never a mention of a degree. Yet it mentions he was an Eagle Scout. While noteworthy, I think a degree is also worth noting on a political resume, don't you?

C) This JSonline chat with him should shed a bit of light on the subject (about half-way down the chat). Although he still doesn't address why he bailed out of MU one semester short of graduating.

I shouldn't ask, but I will. Were you living under a rock the last time he ran for governor and county executive? It was mentioned then.


A. That tells us something about you and little of Walker. Your assumption about his intellect is based in your own bias and your evidence seems to be questions. I don't care whether or not a guy went to college, graduated, or left early. I know people in all of those categories of similar intellect. That proves nothing about "smarts." I don't know why he left before completion. I don't care. What I do care about is how he does his job. Like Obama he stepped into a near-impossible job. I think Walker's done well. I think Obama needs more time...bigger job, bigger mess, more time needed to fix. I don't have much faith that Obama will- or McCain would have- do/done much in the way of fixing. But let's not run off on a tangent here...sorry.

B. So it says he "attended" so what? Jerry Kleczka's bio used to say that also. If it's a fact it's a fact. I attended some college. Never graduated myself. Problem? No. It's a big country, with opportunities for most. Should I say all? I don't know... If he has a degree I suspect that he'd mention it. If I had one and were applying for a job I'd surely mention it. What's the point of that question?

C. Who cares why he bailed? Why didn't you go on to get another degree? A Master's? (Is that spelled right?)

NBjoe wrote:
Smith wrote:
And how smart do you need to be, anyway?

While I feel there are many people without degrees who are more "street smart" than those who do (especially MBAs), I would expect those moving up to that level of government to have a tad more education, and finish what they started. I mean, he has had 20 years.


You got that Master's yet? If not why not? If so why not continue? It might be that he's done all that he's found of interest or necessary. The point is why would you denigrate intellect over such a matter? If you question the intelligence of a guy who "made it through" 3.5 years of college then is it not implicit in your reasoning that "doing less" means being less "smart?"

NBjoe wrote:
Then again, he's had the past eight years to fix the County's budget and he hasn't done that, either.


Just what would a "fix" mean to you? Spending more? Less? What?
Anyway, thanks for your time.

It would be no less arbitrary to base an assessment of a man's intellect on whether or not he "completed" college than on his ability to win a County Executive election (IMO).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:29 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:21 pm
Posts: 323
Location: Greendale D-section
Smith,

Just out of curiosity, what is a "private park?" Are you thinking about stuff like the bumper boats at the Dells, or something like private campgrounds?

I'm wracking my brains to try to come up with something in the private sector that is comparable in both features and accessibility to something like the Bong reserve, or Kohler-Andrae, which preserves natural terrain, and is open to the public. My observation re: private development of choice natural locations like that is that they are developed for the benefit of the few, as either private, high-priced membership resorts, or as private residences.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GOP: MASSIVE TAX CUT FOR WEALTHY
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:59 am 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
firefly wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Smith. I saw the initial post without any new content, so I was a bit confused.


Again I need to apologize. Just one mistake after another with me...

firefly wrote:
I understand from your previous posts, that you believe Government which governs least governs best.


Actually I believe that government which maintains fidelity to the definition of its just powers (derived from the consent (yes, consent) of the governed) and constrains itself in that manner cannot be argued against except on philosophical grounds. This is to say that government that governs by the rules governs best; when it steps outside the rules by which it is not only to be constrained, but defined, we are all in potential danger of tyranny. Witness your claim- in another thread- that a bunch of a$$es are handing it to the head of Toyota rather undeservedly. I’ll take your word for it, I have not followed it. Do you want those same a$$es governing outside the bounds of law, executing that which they deem appropriate, that which keeps them in power even though they break the law? I do not.
So, all things being equal, I prefer less government to more, yes, but FIRST, we need the law (that is the Constitution in the case of these united nation-states) to be followed with great fidelity. Sure mistakes can be made by men/women of good faith and we can, in good faith, identify and fix them. We are to be a nation of laws, not men. A nation of men, by personality and circumstance, sans rules/laws/governing documents is a very potentially dangerous situation. To whom would you be willing to blindly submit as king? Or queen? We seem to have many who would jump from a cliff at the request of President Obama or former President Bush. Without the law, our Constitution, government is effectively monarchical, if a squabbling bunch of spoiled-rotten-brat monarchs who seem mostly to have been over-indulged as children.

One of the biggest problems that I have with government that does not follow the rules they make is that this results in the law only restraining the law-abiding. Only restraining the law-abiding? What do you mean, Smith, you who fail so frequently to make things clear, you might ask. (Again.) You might ask, again, that is if you're still reading...

Law-breakers are not, by definition, restrained by the law. They will do what they will do regardless of the law. If the law is righteous, I have no complaint with the existence of the law. What does annoy me is how unenforced (righteous) law breeds contempt for the law and for the rules by which we govern our actions in society. Example, Smith? Sure, Firefly. One of my pet peeves is laws regarding snow shoveling….let’s not make distinction at this time between statute, regulation, law…if government makes a rule, let’s call it law for this discussion for the sake of simplicity of discussion.

There is in Greendale, a law that requires those who have property adjoining a common sidewalk to shovel that sidewalk. While I, and so many others, would do it out of respect and concern for our neighbors, Greendale government found it necessary to make it a law. So who shovels? Those who have respect for- and have a concern for- their neighbors AND those who respect the law. There may be some in both groups of course. Who does NOT shovel? Those who have not respect and concern for their neighbors and no concern for the law. Walk around a day or two after a snow you'll find lots of sidewalk that hasn't been shoveled. Citations issued? I don't know for certain, but I don't think they are issued often and, in fact, I know of one person who complained of the receipt of citations who (I am told) got them dismissed. In fact, there is a homeowner in my neighborhood who left the sidewalk unshovelled for years. I do not think that this person was ever issued a citation for that infraction.

This continuing disregard for the law without being sanctioned breeds a lack of respect for the law among those who have had at least some passing respect for the law to start. A law unenforced is a law that should get off the books and off our backs. In this case the government that governs least is NOT the one that doesn't enforce the law, the one that governs least is the one which doesn't have the law to begin with. This type of thing is actually a pretty good logic template. Let's consider laws against carrying a concealed gun (concealed, as in a pocket). Did you know that if you put your wallet in your pocket that you are "concealing" it? Sounds nefarious, doesn't it?
Anyway...who's carrying a concealed weapon in our state? Answer: Law enforcement personnel (including some retired) and, by definition, criminals, some with no nefarious intent and some with nefarious intent. The ordinary law-abiding Wisconsinite will not carry a concealed weapon whether legal or not. If it was legal then some people would. Always, though, those with nefarious intent will feel completely at ease to carry a gun if they intend to use it criminally. You see, drug dealers, by definition already criminals, have no compunction about carrying a gun whether legal or not. Ordinary, law-abiding Wisconsinites with no nefarious intent are made criminal just by putting a gun into a pocket. Stupid. Again, government fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We could, if you wish, explore this further but I will return to your post.
firefly wrote:
The problem I am having in understanding which parts of government, specifically, you think should be eliminated?

Name something specific I'll give you my thoughts on it, maybe not a comprehensive explanation because who's got the time for that, but, first the Constitution needs to be followed. After that we can all negotiate the appropriate size and direction of government and that which it does. Keep in mind, though, that I believe that the whole system is rather corrupt(ed) and needs a system fix or a re-boot, a return to the Constitution. Much of what is discussed in political circles these days with regard to spending our money and usurping our rights is dangerous and is, at best, is akin to rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic.

firefly wrote:
I asked you which specific taxes you would eliminate, and you made a general reply (all unConstitutional taxes) but that could mean almost anything.


EUREKA, YOU HAVE FOUND IT!
What is your thinking on this, Firefly?
If you believe that "all unConstitutional taxes" equals "that could mean almost anything" you have gone further in understanding what I am saying than you might know and would likely care to admit. Of course that's not technically correct, BUT "all unConstitutional taxes" does mean "all unConstitutional taxes." It would be simpler, though, to just quit all spending that does comport with the Constitution. As you have identified, with taxes, all unConstitutional spending does also mean almost any of it. Most FEDGOV spending (in dollars) does not comport with the Constitution.

firefly wrote:
My questions have been posed because I would understand your position better if you gave specific examples. But so far, you have skillfully avoided that

No skill here, I'll be glad to answer some of those questions, eventually, when you make them specific. However, I have noticed, speaking of skillful avoidance that you have skillfully avoided finishing our conversation about Mr. Willie Horton (under another topic).
firefly wrote:
I understand you to say that you believe that users of a resource or service should pay the full cost of that resource or service. Then perhaps you would agree that when a developer opens a new subdivision, the cost of the homes in that subdivision should fully include the cost of roads and other municipal services (e.g. police, fire, trash collection, school capacity) that were extended to cover the new residents? That would be a welcome change.

I'm not sure that I said full-cost. It's kind of silly to think that I/you/anybody should pay the full cost of a new road. We share the cost. Doesn't that make sense? (Well we share the cost in the sense that government taxes us and then spends. "Share" has some connotations that are not applicable here; kind of like Clinton calling taxes "contributions." But, anyway, the expense is DIVIDED among all the users in the case of those who pay gasoline tax and fees on automobiles and such.) If, as you suggest each of us paid the full cost that would make no sense. If three people “go in on” (buy) a bushel of apples then each still pays only for what they use, they don't all pay the full cost of the bushel, Firefly. Get it?
firefly wrote:
And would you also agree that manufacturers and their customers should have to pay the costs of disposal of their products when their useful life is over, and pay for decommissioning of the manufacturing facility when the company moves or goes out of business? No more need for a toxic cleanup by government: That would be great! Just interested in how you might imagine that such a plan could be implemented.

You mean Bic should pay for the disposal of my razor?
No.
I don't agree with that.
As for business cleaning up after itself, sure I think that's not only commendable but immoral to not do so as opposed to leaving a mess behind. How would such a plan be implemented? Can you give me a specific, real-life example? Maybe that would make it a little easier for us to work through it?
firefly wrote:
Is there any place in the world that has less government but which you find would offer a similar standard of living and quality of life?

I don't know. I like it here, with some reservations and will not easily be driven out. I have no desire to move wherever you might be thinking of, however much you might like me to move there. Ha ha. I, like most, would just like government (and others) to follow the rules, that's all. Is that asking too much? Is that not something that we can ALL agree on? That government follow the rules that it is legally bound to? You shouldn't expect business to follow rules if you don't expect government to follow rules. We can discuss morals later, but, really, if it's not Constitutional, how can anybody support it? If one person supports something because they like it despite it being unConstitutional, how can they argue against somebody else supporting something because it's unConstitutional? Before you know it, we have government by men, not laws? You want that? I don't. Not unless the man is Jesus.
firefly wrote:
It is my opinion, and that of others I have read on this forum, that these "inappropriate" government functions, such as providing parks and schools, actually serve to improve the quality of life for all the people in the community, whether or not they actually go and sit in the park and use the picnic tables, and whether or not they have any children of school age.

Well, ok, that's your opinion. Let's examine it. Consider the logic continuum of how much use makes it “worthwhile.” Start at the absurd notion of NOBODY using the parks (like the busses that used to run by my house; thanks for putting an end to that Mr. Walker). What if NOBODY used the parks instead of just a few? Would the parks still, somehow, improve the quality of life? Or would they just be greenish thoroughfares?
Have you thought through the idea that if parks were privately owned the money NOT spend on government-funded parks might improve some other quality of life?
Get outta the box, Firefly. Think, "what if." Maybe that money could be used to do something really worthwhile and the parks would still be there, used by however many, benefitting us all (in your opinion).
firefly wrote:
Remember the uproar over the church's proposed parking lot?

I remember that.
firefly wrote:
And that's just over a vacant lot! Also, communities with green space and other public amenities afford higher property values to the home owners therein. In this way, I contend, these home owners DO receive something back for their support of these public amenities.

While I do not consider that to be necessarily a cause and effect relationship I'll let it stand. What do some homeowners get back for their (you say) support (Clinton said "contributions" I say TAXES)? It costs more to live in their homes. Did you ever consider that the major expense in the life of some of Greendale retirees is the property tax that they pay? How compassionate is that? People on a fixed income continuously (it seems) paying more and more just to live in their home? JUST to live in their homes.
firefly wrote:
I just try to picture what Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon would look like if the federal government had not set out to preserve these gems in an unspoiled state. Maybe I don't go to the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone more than once in my lifetime, but without someone acting for the greater common good to preserve these marvels, I would not even have that chance.

Yes, I know, surely somebody would have paved Yellowstone flat, by now, and filled in the Grand Canyon.
firefly wrote:
I think people have different pictures of what constitutes "enough" w.r.t. wealth/power/ownership/etc. In my experience, those with the biggest cut of the pie already are the ones most actively trying to get even more, at the expense of the small fish like me .

What about you taking from the even smaller fish? (That would be me. And others.)
I do not know how those you describe as taking from you are empowered, but you are using force, as George Washington so eloquently identified government for us:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”

You are using force to take from me and mine, from my family, that which you want. You cannot point fingers at them, if you use force to take from others. That would be hypocrisy and I KNOW that you do NOT want to be hypocritical. I can sense a caring for the truth in you. I can. (I don't get that sense about everybody who posts here.)
firefly wrote:
That's not something I can stand up to alone.

Describe it. If it makes logical sense I'll go to battle with you, you won't have to go alone.
firefly wrote:
The way I see it, I band together with my neighbor small fish and form governing bodies to intervene and speak power to power.

You aint speaking power to power when you and (y)our neighbors take money from me and my family. You're power speaking to one man, one family.
firefly wrote:
What other options are there?

Well you could quit taking my money by force...
firefly wrote:
Oh, wait, I guess I could just expire, and let my postage-stamp-sized domain be gobbled up by the big fish.

Let's do battle with them. Who are they? How are they operating? Do they have support in government to do what they are doing?
firefly wrote:
Then Everyone would be happy! Right?

If you expired? No, that would not make me happy. Do you know where you'll go when you die? If you're going to meet the Lord as saviour (instead of Judge) you should be happy at that time (after the fact, I mean, not now, in anticipation).
Sorry I ran on so about the unenforced law breeding contempt for the law, but it is a pet-peeve of mine as I tend to be law-abiding. I pay for my permits to build on my land, pay the taxes I am forced to pay, generally follow the law regarding traffic. So when I see people disregarding the law (like leaving sidewalks unshovelled) while others comply with the law and the law-breakers unpunished I am more than annoyed, I feel for those who play by the rules and just get screwed.
Now, who are those big fish or those with the biggest cut of the pie?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Fee for service; questions not nonsensical
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 6:10 pm 
Offline
Active User
Active User

Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:56 pm
Posts: 302
firefly wrote:
Hello, Smith.

Remember all those "hypothetical" questions you decided not to answer because my assumption/premise of NO public sector was erroneous? I just read this on-line: (From News of the Weird)

News of the Weird wrote:
District of Calamity II: Wayne County's (Detroit's) budget for burying unclaimed bodies ran out last June; bodies are stacked like cordwood in 67 portable freezers.
WDIV-TV (Detroit)

The difference between TINY public sector and NO public sector is only a matter of degree. Most of those questions would apply regardless. As you can see from Detroit's current dilemma, even when there is a public sector, it can still get swamped...

The question that remains, and still needs answering, is: What is to be done with/for those people who do NOT have the fee required for the service being offered? This question needs an answer, whether some, most, or all services are offered on a fee-only basis.

You are great at the glittering generalities, such as No UnConstitutional Taxes, but you are mighty weak on the specifics.

Kind regards! :wink:


Actually the difference between TINY and NO public sector is not a matter of degree. The difference between TINY and LITTLE or BIG or (name your adjective of magnitude) would be a matter of degree. Anyway, do you just suppose that the article you read wouldn't have existed if somebody from Detroit government hadn't had a selfish agenda and, instead, had, as an agenda, serving the people? Do you suppose that there MIGHT just be enough money to squeeze from another place in the budget to handle the burying of those people? Maybe something could be found here: http://www.detroitmi.gov/Departments/tabid/61/Default.aspx

Do you think, maybe just a little bit, that there might be some fat or waste or fraud that might be found in the budget of the city of Detroit that such a matter could be handled?

Well do you? :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group