Originally posted by whodeyA state government promoting the economic interests of its state and the federal government lending money to banks are unrelated.
No. By in large they have a miserable track record. Obama said that his stimulus plan would create "X" number of jobs, but then had to recant when those jobs were not created. To save face he then said that the stimulus saved "X" amount of jobs. How in the world do you prove such a claim? Then they loaned money to the banks and then complained that the b ...[text shortened]... ey going in will not equal the money going out via taxs just like in the other examples.
Originally posted by FMFNo its not. All it is doing is robbing from Peter to try and pay Paul. It's shuffling money around in the hopes of generating more somewhere else. Then again, does Harry Reid care if he makes more money for his state than is payed out by the tax payers of the entire country? My guess is that he just wants a little more money for his state at the expense of the tax payers of the nation. Really that is how the game is played in Washington. You try to amass as much pork for your state as possible in the hopes that you will get reelected. The amount of debt created nationally is of little importance to your political career.
A state government promoting the economic interests of its state and the federal government lending money to banks are unrelated.
Originally posted by whodey"A state government promoting the economic interests of its state and the federal government lending money to banks are unrelated."
No. By in large they have a miserable track record. Obama said that his stimulus plan would create "X" number of jobs, but then had to recant when those jobs were not created. To save face he then said that the stimulus saved "X" amount of jobs. How in the world do you prove such a claim? Then they loaned money to the banks and then complained that the b ...[text shortened]... ey going in will not equal the money going out via taxs just like in the other examples.
You see what happens when you get into this kind of debate Whodey, i.e. trying to argue the effectiveness V ineffectiveness of gummint programmes, it clouds things up, gives the control freaks cover. You do a fine job researching here and there toting up the failures of gummint and they come back with this, A state guvamint stimulus is not a federal guvamint stimulus, mind blowing revelation that one.
I hit them with the right versus wrong argument, get right to the root of it, is it right that guvamint bureaurats assign values for you, cultural or otherwise. Because when they make you pay for something you have no interest in, that may not advantage you in any way, that actually hinders your pursuit of your own self assessed values, that may be completely at odds with what you believe to be right and good, that could even be in direct competition with your own productive effort(you're being told to put the noose around your own neck) then that is wrong, no if's or buts, no cop outs about that's what 50.01% people happen to think on a some arbitrary day, it's just wrong,
...and they are wrong.
Originally posted by whodeyNothing of the sort. The government of the province where I live has worked hard to promote tourism, and other things like the conference trade and its higher education services, and it has had an impact on economic activity. For example, it was crucial in helping the bounce back after the earthquake of 2006 is also makes a crucial contribution now as this city and region recovers from last year's volcano disaster. It has absolutely nothing to do with "robbing from Peter to try and pay Paul".
All it is doing is robbing from Peter to try and pay Paul.
Originally posted by WajomaWell, as much as you and whodey might see eye to eye on the legitimate and illegitimate roles of government, he apparently thought that local government promoting the economic interests of its region and a federal government lending money to banks were the same thing. It's seems you, like I do, realise that it's not so.
You do a fine job researching here and there toting up the failures of gummint and they come back with this, A state guvamint stimulus is not a federal guvamint stimulus, mind blowing revelation that one.
Originally posted by FMFIn which case you have mis-read, they are the same thing, the cowboy poetry and the bank bail out.
Well, as much as you and whodey might see eye to eye on the legitimate and illegitimate roles of government, he apparently thought that local government promoting the economic interests of its region and a federal government lending money to banks were the same thing. It's seems you, like I do, realise that it's not so.
Originally posted by WajomaSo what democratic mechanism do you suggest for levying taxes and planning government expenditure?
....then that is wrong, no if's or buts, no cop outs about that's what 50.01% people happen to think on a some arbitrary day, it's just wrong,
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Tax in a Democracy It's something called 'right' and 'wrong' and it is something to care about, it is not determined by a show of hands, the loudest bleating form the biggest mob of sheep who happen to be over a certain age living within certain boundary lines scratched in the dirt.
As yet unanswered questions: No one claims that representative democracy is perfect. You propose that taxation and budgeting are decided and implemented by unelected people? If tax rates are not to be set by the democratic mechanism [your "a show of hands"], then how?
Originally posted by Wajoma
On Paying Tax - You should pay for the services you use, so if you believe yourself to be in credit you are morally justified in evading taxes.
Still unanswered question: So let's say someone require less protection from force and fraud than someone else. Does that mean they pay less taxes?