dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 What would the demonstration be? What form does it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 What would the demonstration be? What form does it take? A highly detailed department by department accounting and justifications of all expenses, outlined against the budget; then handed over for thorough audit to a series of tax payer watchdog groups granted full subpoena powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) My point is, other than the subpoena power watchdog group (unless you consider something like the GAO a watchdog group), what you are asking for largely exists today and is publicly obtainable. It is a ton of information--probably not pre-packaged in an easily usable format--but it is there. Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 My point is, other than the subpoena power watchdog group (unless you consider something like the GAO a watchdog group), what you are asking for largely exists today and is publicly obtainable. It is a ton of information--probably not pre-packaged in an easily usable format--but it is there. And my point is, that the money belongs to the citizens, not to the government; so if the government wants more, it is for them to make the case that they need it, not for the citizens to make the case that they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So what are we talking about by making the case? Literally building a huge binder with this report and then talking about all gov't spending on the floor and in the media when the topic is gas tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So what are we talking about by making the case? Literally building a huge binder with this report and then talking about all gov't spending on the floor and in the media when the topic is gas tax? It's a process that should be Constitutionally mandated every 5-10 years. And what we're talking about is the government saying that it doesn't have enough money to meet the obligations of it's legitimate functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) I'm asking, literally, what does it look like to make the case? What person/people does what in what forum. Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I'm asking, literally, what does it look like to make the case? What person/people does what in what forum. I think that would be a great conversation to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I think that would be a great conversation to have. Well lets have it then. We've gone over it for bit and I have read what you think. So what would you, living in your life, like to see that you would consider the gov't making the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Well lets have it then. We've gone over it for bit and I have read what you think. So what would you, living in your life, like to see that you would consider the gov't making the case? It would start with the audit, followed up with a national dialogue about the legitimate functions of government. The first run through would likely require a Constitution convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 A highly detailed department by department accounting and justifications of all expenses, outlined against the budget; then handed over for thorough audit to a series of tax payer watchdog groups granted full subpoena powers. Wouldn't work. Government expenses aren't really tracked like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 More detail about the national dialogue. I mean, I have no idea what a national dialogue of the detailed results of a financial audit would be. You turn on cspan or cable news and watch a constitutional convention where modern day politicians discuss a detailed gov't wide financial audit? I mean I doubt what that would end up producing would be something you approve of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Wouldn't work. Government expenses aren't really tracked like that. Ah, well then... I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ah, well then... I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. Haha what? What exactly does this report look like, what is "highly detailed" to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ah, well then... I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. That experiment wouldn't last three months before the country went belly-up. Actually tracking government expenditures on an accurate, accrual basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I know it's easier said than done, but I'd really like to see some of our defense spending get funneled into infrastructure, public works, education, healthcare, etc. We really need to strengthen the "core" of our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Where does average mpg, hybrids, etc... fit into this equation? We have to be @ an all-time high w/average car getting better fuel economy. ?? What were the roads set-up for? 20mpg... The average car has to be getting double. What kind of wear and tear does the average weight car do? I drive two 2006 vehicles that get around 15 and 20 mpg. My Jeep is light on the road when it comes to wear and tear. FWIW... In other news they just raised the amount they take for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Raised it from around .20 a gallon to .29 cents on the diesel fuel commercial shippers use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Haha what? What exactly does this report look like, what is "highly detailed" to you. As Tom just commented, an accurate accrual log. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) The best part is birddog is going to line himself up with baskin and pretend they're "high information" voters. High Information - Low Information - As soon as someone breaks out that line all you are saying to the conversation is "What you are saying is stupid ...only my opinion is qualified"... My point to the OP is - This - to me - is a relatively simple legislative issue - the revenues to keep our infrastructure in good condition have not kept pace - they need to be raised. To me this is not a liberal/conservative/tea party issue. This is just a simple act of getting things done. Yet - Paul Ryan - Chair of W/M says no - "on principle" - whereas to get to his "principle" he has to stretch quite a bit. If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? As a fiscal conservative...I think that ridiculous battles like this only lessen your ability to get reform on substantive issues. And a Constitutional Amendment is not an answer to every issue. Edited January 23, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 High Information - Low Information - As soon as someone breaks out that line all you are saying to the conversation is "What you are saying is stupid ...only my opinion is qualified"... My point to the OP is - This - to me - is a relatively simple legislative issue - the revenues to keep our infrastructure in good condition have not kept pace - they need to be raised. To me this is not a liberal/conservative/tea party issue. This is just a simple act of getting things done. Yet - Paul Ryan - Chair of W/M says no - "on principle" - whereas to get to his "principle" he has to stretch quite a bit. If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? As a fiscal conservative...I think that ridiculous battles like this only lessen your ability to get reform on substantive issues. And a Constitutional Amendment is not an answer to every issue. What are we to do? Prioritize. Just like every entity that operates on a budget. The problem with politicians is they refuse to make hard choices, instead they have people like you supporting ridiculous positions like "they just don't have enough money", despite the fact that they touch more money than the GDP of all but a handful of nations even generate. We do less with more money than any nation on earth. It's not by coincidence and the answer is NEVER going to be "give the politicians more money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts