Alaska Darin Posted April 14, 2005 Posted April 14, 2005 April 17th is the Average The average American has only 3 more days of working for the government this year. The proponents of the "Clinton Economy" will notice that the bubble boosted tax collections to artificially high levels toward the end of his term, meaning the federal government got richer while you actually got poorer. Maine is the most taxed state, with NY coming in a close 2nd. Alaska has the lowest burden. Big government sucks.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 14, 2005 Posted April 14, 2005 April 17th is the Average Maine is the most taxed state, with NY coming in a close 2nd. Alaska has the lowest burden. Big government sucks. 305533[/snapback] A close third, if you count DC. And that's without DC's proposed commuter tax (where non-residents have to pay income tax to DC for the privilege of working in the district).
Rubes Posted April 14, 2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Big government sucks. 305533[/snapback] Tell that to the Republicans...
erynthered Posted April 14, 2005 Posted April 14, 2005 Tell that to the Republicans... 305571[/snapback] why not to all of them Like your party is any better than the other, give me a break.........
Alaska Darin Posted April 14, 2005 Author Posted April 14, 2005 Tell that to the Republicans... 305571[/snapback] I do. Regularly. Are you saying that they're somehow solely responsible for the mess that's been building for the last half century.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Tell that to the Republicans... 305571[/snapback] And while you're telling that to the Republicans, don't forget to ignore the chart on that link that shows the tax burden increasing in every year of the Clinton administration. Sure...it's a partisan issue...one party's better than the other...right...
erynthered Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I do. Regularly. Are you saying that they're somehow solely responsible for the mess that's been building for the last half century. 305579[/snapback] You know I remember when I was a little guy watching TV and reading the paper. It was always the same thing, “We’re raising your taxes for these reasons, and here they are. Raises for teachers, more police, more fireman, better schools, smaller class size, smarter government, better roads, cleaner air, yada ,yada, yada. BTW, I’m talking the 60’s and 70’s. It was the same before me too. Same sh^t different day. And If any of you think its any better than that, your !@#$. Grow up people. It does not matter what party is in power. Azzholes. all of them
blzrul Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Well, I don't often agree with what the morons choose to spend my money on. On the other hand, I think of it this way: paving a road, for example, can cost $150 a linear foot to much, much more. Given that cost, if I can to build and pay for my own road, it would take a lifetime and I'd be lucky to get as far as Tacoma. Of course why one would WANT to go to Tacoma is something else. Maybe Bellingham, but definitely not Idaho. In any event, the point is that there are fixtures and services that most of us use and when you look at paying $30,000 a year (or whatever) in taxes, considering all you get it's really not a bad bargain.
erynthered Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Well, I don't often agree with what the morons choose to spend my money on. On the other hand, I think of it this way: paving a road, for example, can cost $150 a linear foot to much, much more. Given that cost, if I can to build and pay for my own road, it would take a lifetime and I'd be lucky to get as far as Tacoma. Of course why one would WANT to go to Tacoma is something else. Maybe Bellingham, but definitely not Idaho. In any event, the point is that there are fixtures and services that most of us use and when you look at paying $30,000 a year (or whatever) in taxes, considering all you get it's really not a bad bargain. 305654[/snapback] So whoever spends it is ok with you? You're killing me
Rubes Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 I do. Regularly. Are you saying that they're somehow solely responsible for the mess that's been building for the last half century. 305579[/snapback] And while you're telling that to the Republicans, don't forget to ignore the chart on that link that shows the tax burden increasing in every year of the Clinton administration. Sure...it's a partisan issue...one party's better than the other...right... 305611[/snapback] Damn you boys are touchy these days. Can't a guy just comment on how Republicans have traditionally been against big government, yet while in power now (and enjoying quite the majority) have been doing a splendid job of abandoning those traditions? No, let's make it a partisan issue. More opportunity to be confrontational, I guess...
Alaska Darin Posted April 15, 2005 Author Posted April 15, 2005 Damn you boys are touchy these days. Can't a guy just comment on how Republicans have traditionally been against big government, yet while in power now (and enjoying quite the majority) have been doing a splendid job of abandoning those traditions? No, let's make it a partisan issue. More opportunity to be confrontational, I guess... 305738[/snapback] Yeah, Tom and I are big supporters of the Republican party.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Well, I don't often agree with what the morons choose to spend my money on. On the other hand, I think of it this way: paving a road, for example, can cost $150 a linear foot to much, much more. Given that cost, if I can to build and pay for my own road, it would take a lifetime and I'd be lucky to get as far as Tacoma. Of course why one would WANT to go to Tacoma is something else. Maybe Bellingham, but definitely not Idaho. In any event, the point is that there are fixtures and services that most of us use and when you look at paying $30,000 a year (or whatever) in taxes, considering all you get it's really not a bad bargain. 305654[/snapback] I'm sorry, but I think I can find a better use for my $30K.
beausox Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Damn you boys are touchy these days. Can't a guy just comment on how Republicans have traditionally been against big government, yet while in power now (and enjoying quite the majority) have been doing a splendid job of abandoning those traditions? No, let's make it a partisan issue. More opportunity to be confrontational, I guess... 305738[/snapback] Kumbaya.....
Terry Tate Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Damn you boys are touchy these days. Can't a guy just comment on how Republicans have traditionally been against big government, yet while in power now (and enjoying quite the majority) have been doing a splendid job of abandoning those traditions? No, let's make it a partisan issue. More opportunity to be confrontational, I guess... 305738[/snapback] I thought their point was that it wasn't one party that was responsible, which is pretty well documented. Republicans' behavior has been galling because they won many of those seats that gave them the majority by masquerading as the fiscally responsible party. As we now see, that is not the case - it wasn't big government they were against, it was the Democratic version. Republicans believe their version of big government is better. The end result is if you're a single-issue voter deciding between R and D, it's pointless to focus on the amount of money the government spends, or the size of government. The only debate in that regard is what it's being spent on - which on individual issues is can certainly still be a worthwhile debate. The question I have is this - with the understanding that both parties will overspend, is growth inevitable, and can only be slowed or re-directed? I know too many self-described 'conservatives' who will then also state their support of one government program or another, so I don't believe a third party will ever gain enough power to make a difference in this regard (that is, there aren't enough actual conservatives to reverse this trend). I have yet to decide where this will take my vote in the future. It is clear that in regard to spending, there is no one in the two major parties who takes my side, and only justification for a 'lesser of two evils' vote. Not the case on every issue, but certainly on this one.
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 The question I have is this - with the understanding that both parties will overspend, is growth inevitable, and can only be slowed or re-directed? I know too many self-described 'conservatives' who will then also state their support of one government program or another, so I don't believe a third party will ever gain enough power to make a difference in this regard (that is, there aren't enough actual conservatives to reverse this trend). 305870[/snapback] Well, the Libertarian Party is specifically targetting people who are "true conservatives." These are the people who truly believe in smaller government and reduced government spending. They set up a booth at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington in February. In fact, they were a co-sponsor of the event. There is a major push within the Libertarian Party to target disgruntled Republicans. BTW, the Libertarian Party is America's third largest and fastest growing political party.
RuntheDamnBall Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Well, the Libertarian Party is specifically targetting people who are "true conservatives." These are the people who truly believe in smaller government and reduced government spending. They set up a booth at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington in February. In fact, they were a co-sponsor of the event. There is a major push within the Libertarian Party to target disgruntled Republicans. 305905[/snapback] If they would also target some of the people who believe social, as well as monetary liberties, are being trampled on by too much government (like ludicrous marriage amendments, etc. etc.) they might become a formidable political force.
KRC Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 If they would also target some of the people who believe social, as well as monetary liberties, are being trampled on by too much government (like ludicrous marriage amendments, etc. etc.) they might become a formidable political force. 305911[/snapback] They also target those people as well. The first step it to get people to realize that there are more than two parties in this country. The next is to break the mentality of "I am not going to vote for them until they win." Well, they can't win if you don't vote for them, right? The Libertarians believe that each person is responsible for themselves. They can to what they want, as long as it does not infringe on the civil liberties of others. They have targeted single issue voters. One example is gun owners. The Libertarians have set up booths at gun shows in order to target those voters. Taxes is another issue. They participated in the tax rallies held this week. They will target specific voting groups in order to make them aware of how the Libertarian Party feels about those specific issues in order to increase the size of the party.
John Adams Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 If they would also target some of the people who believe social, as well as monetary liberties, are being trampled on by too much government (like ludicrous marriage amendments, etc. etc.) they might become a formidable political force. 305911[/snapback] They do. Ken was focusing on the fiscal responsibility angle because that was the topic of the thread. The Founding Fathers risked their own and their families lives to change the government that oppressed them. All we have to do is vote to effect a change. The Libertarians suffer from a few major problems: (1) They have been a party of idealists, and not realists, for a while. What I mean is that they have too many members running around talking about their Utopian ideal of NO governmennt regulation on almost everything. Most people can't envision this, and distrust this idea, especially when it comes to things like drugs, welfare (in some form), schools, and infrastructure. This has begun to change. Libertarians are increasingly realistic, and focus on real plans, not for decimating government, but just for shrinking its size/reach in realistic bits. This should have broader appeal, but the perception of the Libertarians is often still that they(we) are a party of Utopian Hedonists who need to grow up. If the Libs can overcome this perception, they will have a shot at gaining influence. (2) The two party system works- for the two parties. People vote for their party because that's their habit, and they know that third parties don't win. (3) There is no known standard bearer. The Libertarians need a "name" defector (likely some true Conservative) or a known charasmatic leader. This sounds shallow, but it's true. A name candidate would give the party street cred. The Michael Badnariks and Harry Browne's of the world will not draw national interest.
nobody Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Since the wealthiest 1% pay a lot less tax now then they did recently of course the tax freedom day comes earlier. And from the article: the internet bubble boosted tax collections to artificially high levels.
Rubes Posted April 15, 2005 Posted April 15, 2005 Yeah, Tom and I are big supporters of the Republican party. 305768[/snapback] *Sigh* Not exactly what I was implying, as this is pretty well known. Never mind. I'll just chalk this one up to the communication shortcomings intrinsic to message boards.
Recommended Posts