Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31772392/ns ... gton_post/

States, municipalities getting the sh*t kicked out of them. Conks squeezed the last blood from turnips 15 years ago.




Arizona's Republican governor called the Republican-led legislature into special session on Monday after the two sides failed to agree on the fate of a sales tax hike. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) said the state is losing money every day its two-year budget goes unpassed and called on lawmakers "to bring their pizza and pillows to the statehouse."

"For a lot of people, there is a continuing failure to recognize the severity of what is happening with this economy," Strickland said in a telephone interview from Columbus. "Programs will be reduced. Some programs will be eliminated."

Billions in federal stimulus dollars have kept cuts from being worse, Strickland said, but there is no magical cure for budget ills largely caused by plummeting tax revenues. The combination of a sour economy and balanced-budget requirements is forcing states to live with smaller budgets at a time when demand for services is increasing.

Personally I think we could shrink government but since that isn't the way the music is playing, I wouldn't have too much of a bitch about it as long as it was broad based. Everyone pays. Everyone's taxes goes up. I am not a lover of the rich but everyone needs a stake in the government not just the 1% of the population. It is numerically impossible to pay for all the government spending by simply taxing the highest wage earners.

OL FU wrote:Personally I think we could shrink government but since that isn't the way the music is playing, I wouldn't have too much of a bitch about it as long as it was broad based. Everyone pays. Everyone's taxes goes up. I am not a lover of the rich but everyone needs a stake in the government not just the 1% of the population. It is numerically impossible to pay for all the government spending by simply taxing the highest wage earners.

Shrink the gov't and raise taxes. Eventually, you'll meet in the middle.

OL FU wrote:Personally I think we could shrink government but since that isn't the way the music is playing, I wouldn't have too much of a bitch about it as long as it was broad based. Everyone pays. Everyone's taxes goes up. I am not a lover of the rich but everyone needs a stake in the government not just the 1% of the population. It is numerically impossible to pay for all the government spending by simply taxing the highest wage earners.

Shrink this. We got a fvcking rickety space program that we don't need and we have kids who don't have breakfast or lunch everyday. We got a fvcking half-assed military with wild, unnecessary, expensive-ass projects with 200+% cost overruns (that contractors are allowed to get away with!) and we can't help a person who wants to get off heroin.


If you judge a nation by how she treats her most vulnerable, the United States of America is a gross failure. We are positively fvcked.

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31772392/ns ... gton_post/

States, municipalities getting the sh*t kicked out of them. Conks squeezed the last blood from turnips 15 years ago.




Arizona's Republican governor called the Republican-led legislature into special session on Monday after the two sides failed to agree on the fate of a sales tax hike. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) said the state is losing money every day its two-year budget goes unpassed and called on lawmakers "to bring their pizza and pillows to the statehouse."

"For a lot of people, there is a continuing failure to recognize the severity of what is happening with this economy," Strickland said in a telephone interview from Columbus. "Programs will be reduced. Some programs will be eliminated."

Billions in federal stimulus dollars have kept cuts from being worse, Strickland said, but there is no magical cure for budget ills largely caused by plummeting tax revenues. The combination of a sour economy and balanced-budget requirements is forcing states to live with smaller budgets at a time when demand for services is increasing.

Or, in the case of NC led by Donks since 1988 and with only 2 Conk governors since Reconstruction, they could just quit spending money unwisely.....

The Top 10 Transportation Boondoggles in N.C. =
http://www.serve.com/ccnc/archive/dot/boondoggles.html

Global Transpark
"Original predictions of the GTP’s economic impact were ambitious. Studies said that it would create 55,000 jobs by 1998 and pump $2.8 billion dollars a year into the region’s economy. Since 1991 more than $140 million in federal, state and county funds have been spent on the GTP, but the project has failed to land a major corporate tenant, has no manufacturing facilities as tenants and has not created a single manufacturing job."

The Randy Parton Theater: A Comedy of Errors That Has No One Laughing
http://www.capitol-monitor.org/its-your ... -a-com.php

Political Body Count Rises in Mary Easley Scandal: NC State Document Dump Gives Inside Peek at how Deal was Done
The former First Lady had signed a five-year, $850,000 contract with NC State in 2008. NC State officials are defending the trustees’ move as a response to state government’s current budget crisis.

In a victory for advocates of government transparency, NC State University released to the public all of the documents subpoenaed by the federal grand jury currently investigating Mike and Mary Easley. The subpoenaed materials included official documentation related to Mrs. Easley’s position, as well as e-mails dealing with the creation of the position and the hiring of Mrs Easley.

Former Governor Easley has maintained since the scandal broke in 2008 that he had no involvement in the creation of the position and the hiring of his wife at the Raleigh campus. But the emails released by NC State officials paint a different picture. The document dump included emails from Dan Gerlach, then a top Easley aide, discussing the creation of the position and the hiring of Mrs. Easley with NC State officials (Gerlach currently heads the Golden Leaf Foundation, a public-private venture charged with investing the proceeds from the federal tobacco settlement).
http://www.capitol-monitor.org/in-a-pic ... st-lad.php

Cap'n Cat wrote:

OL FU wrote:Personally I think we could shrink government but since that isn't the way the music is playing, I wouldn't have too much of a bitch about it as long as it was broad based. Everyone pays. Everyone's taxes goes up. I am not a lover of the rich but everyone needs a stake in the government not just the 1% of the population. It is numerically impossible to pay for all the government spending by simply taxing the highest wage earners.

Shrink this. We got a fvcking rickety space program that we don't need and we have kids who don't have breakfast or lunch everyday. We got a fvcking half-assed military with wild, unnecessary, expensive-ass projects with 200+% cost overruns (that contractors are allowed to get away with!) and we can't help a person who wants to get off heroin.


If you judge a nation by how she treats her most vulnerable, the United States of America is a gross failure. We are positively fvcked.

Looks like you have already found some places to shrink government

Those people need to be shot.



Doesn't mean still don't need to raise taxes.

We need to be more efficient with our taxes, the lower income people are getting more strapped with the increasing taxes. 50% tax rate is liveable for people making over $100,000, but lower incomes get hurt the most. Higher taxes cut into needs for the poor, and luxeries for the rich. 50% tax rate on a $20,000 income hurts much more that 50% of $200,000.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Those people need to be shot.



Doesn't mean still don't need to raise taxes.

Sure, we can raise them if it's used to build a prison and gallows to house and excute corrupt politicians....gotta look at the ROI for that kind of project....

Gil Dobie wrote:We need to be more efficient with our taxes, the lower income people are getting more strapped with the increasing taxes. 50% tax rate is liveable for people making over $100,000, but lower incomes get hurt the most. Higher taxes cut into needs for the poor, and luxeries for the rich. 50% tax rate on a $20,000 income hurts much more that 50% of $200,000.

And how is that richer guy going to be able to buy gifts for his secretaries with a 50% income tax. Huh?

grizzaholic wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:We need to be more efficient with our taxes, the lower income people are getting more strapped with the increasing taxes. 50% tax rate is liveable for people making over $100,000, but lower incomes get hurt the most. Higher taxes cut into needs for the poor, and luxeries for the rich. 50% tax rate on a $20,000 income hurts much more that 50% of $200,000.

And how is that richer guy going to be able to buy gifts for his secretaries with a 50% income tax. Huh?

Embezzlement? Up his salary?

Gil Dobie wrote:We need to be more efficient with our taxes, the lower income people are getting more strapped with the increasing taxes. 50% tax rate is liveable for people making over $100,000, but lower incomes get hurt the most. Higher taxes cut into needs for the poor, and luxeries for the rich. 50% tax rate on a $20,000 income hurts much more that 50% of $200,000.

You do realize of course that somewhere around 40% of the households in the country don't pay income taxes. Lower incomes are impacted by sales and property taxes certainly and that is a consideration states need to think about before raising them. But the federal income tax is rapidly becoming the responsibility of about 50% of house holds in America.

Appaholic wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Those people need to be shot.



Doesn't mean still don't need to raise taxes.

Sure, we can raise them if it's used to build a prison and gallows to house and excute corrupt politicians....gotta look at the ROI for that kind of project....

That weekend in Big Sur with Tman did you wonders, App.

grizzaholic wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:We need to be more efficient with our taxes, the lower income people are getting more strapped with the increasing taxes. 50% tax rate is liveable for people making over $100,000, but lower incomes get hurt the most. Higher taxes cut into needs for the poor, and luxeries for the rich. 50% tax rate on a $20,000 income hurts much more that 50% of $200,000.

And how is that richer guy going to be able to buy gifts for his secretaries with a 50% income tax. Huh?

Secretary is a luxury, he get himself organized, like the lower income guys.

Get back to full employment to increase the paying tax base, revise welfare benefits so every yahoo out there doesn't qualify for the teat, teach some basic math to government so that they realize that you can't spend $20 when you only have $10 in your pocket. We have more demand for services right now? No kidding - unemployment at 10%+ in many areas, everybody's scrambling to get their share of Obama benefits.

Gil Dobie wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
And how is that richer guy going to be able to buy gifts for his secretaries with a 50% income tax. Huh?

Secretary is a luxury, he get himself organized, like the lower income guys.

Yep...then fire the secretary and keep half that wages as a bonus...give the company the other half to increase stock dividends...you're on to something there...

ASUG8 wrote:Get back to full employment to increase the paying tax base, revise welfare benefits so every yahoo out there doesn't qualify for the teat, teach some basic math to government so that they realize that you can't spend $20 when you only have $10 in your pocket. We have more demand for services right now? No kidding - unemployment at 10%+ in many areas, everybody's scrambling to get their share of Obama benefits.

Bing!!

Col Hogan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Secretary is a luxury, he get himself organized, like the lower income guys.

Yep...then fire the secretary and keep half that wages as a bonus...give the company the other half to increase stock dividends...you're on to something there...

Definition of corporate America.

ASUG8 wrote:Get back to full employment to increase the paying tax base, revise welfare benefits so every yahoo out there doesn't qualify for the teat, teach some basic math to government so that they realize that you can't spend $20 when you only have $10 in your pocket. We have more demand for services right now? No kidding - unemployment at 10%+ in many areas, everybody's scrambling to get their share of Obama benefits.

It is amazing that people are cutting back because they are losing jobs....let's see, less money, I spend less...

But government feels it has the right to demand more money so it can stay the same or grow...

Less income should mean less government services...plain and simple...

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Get back to full employment to increase the paying tax base, revise welfare benefits so every yahoo out there doesn't qualify for the teat, teach some basic math to government so that they realize that you can't spend $20 when you only have $10 in your pocket. We have more demand for services right now? No kidding - unemployment at 10%+ in many areas, everybody's scrambling to get their share of Obama benefits.

It is amazing that people are cutting back because they are losing jobs....let's see, less money, I spend less...

But government feels it has the right to demand more money so it can stay the same or grow...

Less income should mean less government services...plain and simple...

Tell us where, right now or even in the immediate future, government is "demanding" more money?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
It is amazing that people are cutting back because they are losing jobs....let's see, less money, I spend less...

But government feels it has the right to demand more money so it can stay the same or grow...

Less income should mean less government services...plain and simple...

Tell us where, right now or even in the immediate future, government is "demanding" more money?

Simple...they just borrowed hundreds of billions, instead of cutting back on expenses...putting the cost onto future generations...

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
It is amazing that people are cutting back because they are losing jobs....let's see, less money, I spend less...

But government feels it has the right to demand more money so it can stay the same or grow...

Less income should mean less government services...plain and simple...

Tell us where, right now or even in the immediate future, government is "demanding" more money?

This couple of trillion dollars in bailouts and stimulus won't pay for themselves - there are grandkids of posters that will be paying for that in addition to the current generation. Not to mention the inflationary impact and further dollar devaluation that tossing that kind of cash into the economy will have......

ASUG8 wrote:
This couple of trillion dollars in bailouts and stimulus won't pay for themselves - there are grandkids of posters that will be paying for that in addition to the current generation. Not to mention the inflationary impact and further dollar devaluation that tossing that kind of cash into the economy will have......

You explain it much better than I do....thanks...

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
This couple of trillion dollars in bailouts and stimulus won't pay for themselves - there are grandkids of posters that will be paying for that in addition to the current generation. Not to mention the inflationary impact and further dollar devaluation that tossing that kind of cash into the economy will have......

You explain it much better than I do....thanks...

I get lucky sometimes - I'm still just a banjo pluckin' hillbilly, you know.

Col Hogan wrote: It is amazing that people are cutting back because they are losing jobs....let's see, less money, I spend less...

But government feels it has the right to demand more money so it can stay the same or grow...

Less income should mean less government services...plain and simple...

I completely agree..
The only entity not presently experiencing a recession is the Federal Government..!!!!

Cut congressional salaries by 25%
Reduce support staff by 10%
Reduce the budget dramatically

just my 2 cents