Printable View
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If's he's anything NJ's gov, he'll have all types of good jokes about him. I can't post most of them here.
McGreevey has done a wonderful service for our state. When was the last time you had heard a new New Jersey joke?Quote:
Originally posted by MEck51
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If he's anything like NJ's Dem. Governor, he'll just borrow it and let future generations pay it off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If's he's anything NJ's gov, he'll have all types of good jokes about him. I can't post most of them here.
BTW, in case those of you in the other 49 states don't realize how bad it is here in NJ, I have a 4BR home on 1.5 acres, no city water and a septic tank. My new tax bill says I will pay about $10,000 (that's right-thousand) per year in property taxes. McGreevey didn't do this. It started with a Dem corrupt idiot named Florio and continued with a Dem in Repub clothing named Whitman and was excacerbated by McGreevey.
Somebody give me an example of a Dem administration actually lowering taxes.
John F. Kennedy did in the early 1960s.Quote:
Somebody give me an example of a Dem administration actually lowering taxes.
In the early 1960s, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK I) observed that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”
In the years following President Kennedy's proposed tax cuts, the U.S. economy grew at a healthy rate of more than five percent annually.
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/fre..._20040818.html
I have a no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with the tax structure of this nation. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government's tax percentage should be the lowest of all levels of government. The highest amount of taxes should go locally, County, State, and then Federal. It is my job in Durham, NC to pay taxes to get the proper equipment to the schools in Durham, NC, get the Durham FD enough manpower and equipment. Not through FIRE Act grants from the twits in Washington. It should be inverted from what it is now. The Federal government should not be involved in my personal life as much as it is, this is not what was intended by the founding fathers of this nation. No government should be intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
Good call! I knew someone would post this example.Quote:
In the early 1960s, John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK I) observed that “an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.”
In the years following President Kennedy's proposed tax cuts, the U.S. economy grew at a healthy rate of more than five percent annually.
Now class, in the 80's what did the liberal call the type of tax plan put forth by Pres. Kennedy?
Local problem = local fundingQuote:
I have a no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with the tax structure of this nation. Constitutionally speaking, the federal government's tax percentage should be the lowest of all levels of government. The highest amount of taxes should go locally, County, State, and then Federal. It is my job in Durham, NC to pay taxes to get the proper equipment to the schools in Durham, NC, get the Durham FD enough manpower and equipment. Not through FIRE Act grants from the twits in Washington. It should be inverted from what it is now. The Federal government should not be involved in my personal life as much as it is, this is not what was intended by the founding fathers of this nation. No government should be intrusive into the lives of its citizens.
Amen, Shark.
Failure or refusal to provide funding by local governments is a national problem...hence, federal funding.Quote:
Local problem = local funding
Failure of a local government to adequately supply its agencies with a proper level of equipment is a local problem. It is your department's fault that you do not put out the word to the public to put pressure on the governing boards to disperse funds appropriately.
It is ludicrous that I, in North Carolina, pay for your bunker gear, gym equipment, or fire truck in Tennessee. This is the most inefficient way to get money to pay for something that I have ever seen a crackpot politician come up with. It is not the federal government's responsibility to provide local fire suppression, law enforcement, education, DPW repairs, or anything else. It is stated nowhere in the Constitution as such. The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.
You could not possibly be more wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Failure or refusal to provide funding by local governments is a national problem...hence, federal funding.
If the local government is not providing adequate funding for essential services, CHANGE THE GOVERNING BODY! In most towns, the FD is potentially the largest political force there. Each member could potentially effect multiple votes. As I have said before, if the FD is getting a raw deal, run a candidate, than run another candidate until the governing body gets it...that the FD is important and must be funded properly in order to do the job.
Federal funding for local projects is socialism. And the overwhelming majority of people n this country, Dem or Rep. don't want that.
Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.Quote:
Federal funding for local projects is socialism.
This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.Quote:
The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.
Thank God that I do not live in the country that exists inside your head.Quote:
Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight. As for your solution to local problems, we all know that this is not always possible, due to different reasons. Economical or political, fire departments continue to come up short.
This is not true. Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past. Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster. While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs, I do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.
The libs in the 60's annointed President Kennedy as the President who was going to save this country. One of the things they supported was Kennedy's plan to reduce the tax burden and, subsequently improve the economy. Sadly, Pres. Kennedy's life was cut short and his fiscal vision was replaced by five years of a boderline socialist/welfare state model by LBJ.Quote:
Now class, in the 80's what did the liberal call the type of tax plan put forth by Pres. Kennedy?
In the 80's a man was elected President and did largely what Pres. Kennedy wanted to do. He reduced the tax burden on virtually all Americans and caued the single most prolific economy in this country's history. Yet, the Dems maligned him to his death. They called Ronald Reagan's courageous economic policy "Reagonomics" and "trickle-down economics". Yet, when the plan came out of the mouth of a Dem President, it was the greatest plan ever.
It may have been the dawn of the double-standard we know so well today.
I am from thr U.S. Government and I am here to help you......:rolleyes:Quote:
It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.
Now, oversight is one thing, paying for it with federal dollars is another. Regardless of how the problem exists at the local level, it is a local or county problem, NOT the responsibility of the federal government. Think about it this way.....
You pay your local, county, state, and federal taxes....Let's concentrate on the federal taxes since this is the issue at hand.
Your money goes to the feds, into some giant pool o fmoney that gets dispersed by congress. That money goes to a particualr department or branch of the federal government. From there it sits in their general fund. About 99% of the time it is dispersed back to the state and sits in their general pool of money. From there it may or may not get dispersed into the programs or to the communities for the appropriate expenditure. This is inneficient, wastes money, and makes NO SENSE.
What is in the best interest of the people of this nation is to have the most direct control of how money is dispersed and expended possible. That does not allow for money to go to D.C. to then go to your state, and then to your county, and then to your town. How about you just give your money to the town board and let them spend it as you citizens see fit. If they do not spend it appropriately, you vote them out of office or organize for your best interests. Do you really think the people in Washington D.C. care about what is truly in your best interests? They do not. Just about every single one of them cares about 1 thing - staying in office and getting wealthier. This is why they have PACs and lobbyists.
The federal government is supposed to be operating the government in the best interests for the general welfare of the citizens. Dispersing fund to a local municipality is not in the interest of general welfare, only that municipality's.
Quote:
The U.S. government is supposed to pass laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constituionality of those laws - not be the "solution" to local problems. No government program has ever ended, or solved a problem - that I know of.
Then expalin to me how the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the federal government (and many local and state) work. It is checks and balances. All three are required to operate and maintain a balance. That is specifically what the constitution of the United States of America outlines - quite well I might add. It says nothing about providing for one's retirement supplement (Social Security), fire department (FIRE Act), education (Dept. of Education grants), arts and music (National Endowment for the Arts), ora almost all of the many other programs out there.Quote:
This is not true.
This is different than other programs. This is part of the whole rebuilding concept after the wars that we have fought. It continued through WWI, WWII, Korea, during Vietnam, and again in Iraq.Quote:
Had it not been for federal intervention, much of the South, no doubt, would still be wallowing in the misery of its racist past.
In addition, the South was our nation, and it was - and has been - in the best interest of our nation to rebuild that part of our nation that had suffered. Especially since the North caused much of the damage by bombarding many cities, Sherman's march through Georgia and the Carolinas, the Siege of Richmond, and the raiding of the countryside for supplies and taking them from citizens. It was an obligation to repay those war crimes committed in that war. It was also in the best interest of the nation as a whole, whereas many programs run by the federal government now are not. They are in the best interest of politics, and localities, not the general citizenry of the United States of America as a whole.
Same situation as above. When a major disaster, like Hurrican Clyde, strikes, the local, county, and even state governments cannot support the response and rebuilding. It is in the interest of the general citizenry of the United States to aid in their rebuilding. It is not in the best interest of the citizenry to put local police officers on your town's streets.Quote:
Federal dollars continue to help rebuild areas of our nation that are struck by disaster.
We agree there.Quote:
While I don't question the mismanagement of many of these programs
But the question posed over and over, is whether or not the United States government is the best form or level of government to be implementing and supporting these programs. Couldn't the money be better supported and managed at a state, or local level? Couldn't it be more efficiently expended and dispersed at the state, county, or local level? Wouldn't the money saved by reducing or eliminating the beaurocracy be put to better use?Quote:
do believe a great deal of them are needed, and have been very successful in the past.
A fire truck bought with county or state money benefits that county or state's population much more than a truck for your department in Tennessee benefits my population in central NC.
State or county money to put a police officer on your streets benefits them better than it does me.
State or county money is better spent on local homeless, or job training programs than a program in Washington D.C. does.
I agree that many programs are needed, but the good that they perform is dwarfed by the collossal mismangaement and beaurocracy that is needed to run this local program at the local, county, state, and federal levels. It would be much better to have the money go through as few beaurocracies as possible.
During these heady times of economic "recovery", the Census Bureau just released new figures that 1.3 MILLION MORE AMERICANS fell below the poverty level in the last year. This goes along with the 1.4 MILLION MORE citizens that dont have health insurance. Unemployment was up last month (again)and you people are worried about what Kerry and Edwards MIGHT do. How about the guys in charge now? Let the excuses begin...
Both statistics are related. More people unemployed means fewer people making money, means fewer people above poverty level, means fewer people have insurance. No excuses, simple common sense (which is not all that common these days - not a slight to anyone just an observation about society).Quote:
During these heady times of economic "recovery", the Census Bureau just released new figures that 1.3 MILLION MORE AMERICANS fell below the poverty level in the last year. This goes along with the 1.4 MILLION MORE citizens that dont have health insurance. Unemployment was up last month (again)and you people are worried about what Kerry and Edwards MIGHT do. How about the guys in charge now? Let the excuses begin...
In addition the statistic were for the calendar year 2003 when a huge number of jobs were lost. This is not an argument just a point of view from which the statistics must be examined.
Presidents do very little to correct an aconomy or economic downturn. Republican or Democrat. Most benefit or duffer from the policies of the previous administration. In addition an economy id cyclical and about every 10 years or so it hiccups for a variety of reasons. It did in the 60s, 70s, late 80s/early 90s, and now.
As for any president or candidate saying that they will creat jobs (especially 10 million) I have to wonder - how? Is he going to expand the exectuive branch of the government? If you are going to spoiut off about how you are going to correct the economy then you must come out and state your plan, not just say that you have one.
No President, Democrat or Republican, has ever created a private sector job, PERIOD. If you fall for that line you deserve what you get, no matter who you get it from.
And you've come to this conclusion how? If the local government (i.e. the people that have been elected to represent you on a local level and depend on you to keep their jobs next election cycle) is unresponsive to the needs of your department, and they're RIGHT THERE in your town/city/boro/whatever, accessible and eminently available to protest against in a myriad of real grass-roots ways, what makes you think that some bureaucrat a thousand miles away in DC who knows little and cares less about your town in Tennessee will be MORE responsive? Does being a federal worker drone somehow convey a greater sense of compassion for towns in Tennessee? Is the air different in DC? Does human nature change when you cross that mystical border from Virginia and Maryland into the magic kingdom of Washington?Quote:
Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.
This is just silly. And socialist. In fact, socialism as a whole would be silly if people hadn't kept trying it over and over, and in the process taking 100 million lives over the last century. Hey guys, what do you figure, another 200 million dead before we finally get Marx's vision right? When will the lefties get it?
Originally posted by ThNozzleman
Do you want the feds to dictate your staffing levels? Your work week? Your reseponse protocols?Quote:
Nonsense. It is in the best interest of the people of this country that the federal government have oversight.
how....Orwellian...
Right Nozz, long after it was illegal for municipal departments to do so, federal firefighters were still working 72 hr. weeks. I'm here to help you. right.
That would be the same federal government that exempts itself out of every regulation they pass. OSHA comes to mind.
Orwellian is a GREAT word.
And the point here is...what? I thought we were talking about taking my tax money from Bucks County, PA and shipping it to Tennessee so Noz can get new suspenders for his turnout pants.Quote:
Originally posted by oldman21220
Right Nozz, long after it was illegal for municipal departments to do so, federal firefighters were still working 72 hr. weeks. I'm here to help you. right.
The point is that these are the people that Nozz thinks should have oversight. The ones that think that they don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.