The Government Can !!

eric lavine wrote: and i hate the fcn NY Yankees too

and other than hearing yourself talk, your point is?

One thing we can all agree on....
2012 - The best election money can buy!

thats the beauty of politics Dave, they tell you what you want to hear, you mold it, shape it and end up believing it, they are selling....you are buying.

Here's the 50 pages the Bee article referenced from the non partisan US Budget Watch group they referred to where Rivlin is a member.

50 pages

The point(among others)is if deficit reduction is so important to the GOP why are they not supporting Ron Paul? Are they really just more interested in birth control and abortions?

I am sorry, but the Bee article starts with the premise that the budget cannot be erased without tax increases, which is a political position. If spending were reduced below income the budget deficit would decrease. Second it faults Romney for not listening to Obama's deficit panels recommendations. Even Obama will not listen to his panels recommendations, so what is the point?

How are Obama's Dogs Hunting? I am not impressed. I am not in agreement with all of the republican plans, but I believe they would be lesser of the evils. I don't think Obama's bait and switch plan to reduce corporate taxes but eliminate write offs increasing the actual collections by hundreds of billions, and raising dividend taxes from 15 to 40+ percent will help. I personally don't think we have the luxury of cutting taxes much more to stimulate the economy. We have already done that.We also cant hurt the fragile economy by raising them. What we need is to cut spending significantly. None of the republican top three are the fiscal conservatives they claim to be, but just wait till Obama stops worrying about re-election. Then his true colors will really show. You are right, I am not big on proof reading, too few hours in the day. At least my Mozilla browser gives me spell check but it is not bright enough to understand context.

If typing slower will reduce mistakes like using no when you mean know or to when you mean too among other basic mistakes that undermine credibility and reader understanding.

Funny that the GOP's top guys plans will all (except for Paul) increase the deficit by trillions with Gingrich having the largest increase. Yes Ron Paul is the only one who has a plan that reduces the deficit.

Deficit spending may be the only way to pull the country out of the hole it's in. The tax breaks to the richest people and corporations have sure not created jobs like the GOP claims those tax breaks provide. That dog just don't hunt.   

Kind of a big price to pay to beat the system.

Dave, What if you buy a million dollar life insurance policy, pay the 52.00 bucks a month, and die in 2 months....do you still get the million?

JoeinNY wrote: [QUOTE=OverMyHead] How do you pull out the tired old comment about half our society not paying a thing towards the benefits when that clearly only takes into account federal income taxes and is a stretch at that, when in the same thread as you listed a set of taxes that effects everyone in society. Are those real taxes, in which case everyone really contributes or is federal income tax the only way to contribute and therefore those retirees who no longer make more than 20k or so a year are really just dregs on society? Do you want to have your cake or eat it?

So if I shop at five stores, pay at four and shoplift at the fifth, I am still doing what I should?

Marty,your signature mentions camping. Your picture in the tub shows a little tent. Coincidence, I don't think so.

Hansel wrote: Reading that list of taxes it seems to me that many of them are what you might call "pay to play" taxes. For example, if I want to go fishing I pay a tax in the form of a license that goes to support the maintenance of fish stocks and lake ecosystems allowing the fishing to take place. Seems like a perfectly legitimate tax to me. Many people think of taxes as solely a mechanism for the government to collect money. Sometimes taxes and fees are used to create a negative feedback on behavior that we as a society have deemed problematic ("sin taxes"), or just to keep people from abusing a system. I have no problem with taxes in principle and I struggle to see the logic that very often seems to say "I want all the benefits without having to pay for it." You cannot have your cake and eat it too! And this from a person fresh off doing my taxes and seeing my burden in stark relief!

Its not so much not wanting to pay for the benefits although more than half of our society does not pay a thing towards them. Its more are we getting what we pay for. There are a lot of zeros in a trillion. I have a hard time seeing 3.83 trillion in benefit in 2011. I can have my cake, or I can eat it, or I can give it to the government and then have them give me one slice back, and tell me that is a good deal.

ononewheel wrote: He isn't going to get "his" budget, and you know it. More like a campaign pitch, and that is fine by me. Is there anything the righties will agree to?    Are you really saying we need to roll it back a hundred years? Or that you do not benefit from the above taxes and fees? Or are you short sighted so badly you think they were only enacted to create more gov? I for one am glad there is a building permit tax, ( many more on the list too) , my neighbors house falling on mine would suck.

I was recently helping to build a garage (it had burnt down), and was present for the building inspection. We were told our siding fasteners were to short to meet code, we had to pull out a tape measure and make drawings to show the inspector that the electric code and the fastener code were in conflict and that the siding staples of the length he wanted could reach wiring properly run through the studs. We also brought a gas line up through a conduit in the foundation and into the garage in a continuous run for the gas furnace replacing the woodburner that was speculated as the cause of the fire. We were required to move it and bring it up outside the structure with no conduit where it could be struck by passing lawn mowers which was what we were trying to prevent. In the first case we could have created electrical problems and a possible fire hazard had we blindly followed the inspectors rules. In the second we were forced to create a hazard where none existed.

In the 80's they came out with synthetic stucco for housing exteriors.the product was superior to its predecessor but "breathed differently. Stucco contractors were forced by inspectors to follow existing codes which were not in sync with the new products. Thousands of homes developed mold problems despite and because of the out of date codes. Homeowners went after the builders and contractors for the damages which often cost far more to remedy than the original charges for the installation. Builders reputations were damaged, contractors were driven into bankruptcy, but the cities and state could not be held liable even though they had final approval of the plans and wrote the codes. Why? Because they right the rules and have exempted themselves from damages.

Current code requires a vapor barrier on the outside and inside of framed and insulated basement walls. when water gets in, and it always does there is no way for it to breath itself out. Another huge code induced problem coming in the future.

I will give credit to the codes for reducing house fires and saving lives with smoke detectors, to the point that statistically fires, deaths and property damage have been nearly eliminated. Minneapolis recently mandated sprinkler systems in all new residential single family structures at an average cost of 3 grand per house. The costs will far exceed the long term payoff considering how rare a fire is new housing and remediation of water damage from sprinklers, and the city is now at a $3,000 disadvantage competing with the surrounding cities for new home buyers.

When I roofed my home The city had a non-negotiable permit fee of $275, presumably to cover the costs of inspectors and administration. I did the work on the weekend because I work during the week. I asked about a Saturday inspection fully knowing that no government city inspector can be found on a weekend, they said I could take pictures of my work and bring them in to show them, but offered no discount for me doing the inspectors job. Plus the roof would be completed before they had a chance to determine if it met code. I have worked on enough roofs to know where they fail. My roof exceeds code with ice and water shield further past the the exterior wall than required, rolled up under all the metal flashing's, and sealing the top three sides of all through flashing's for venting and the solar tube. I also replaces some very soggy plywood around the chimney due to inferior (and city inspected) flashing work.

For all this we pay a building permit tax? Thanks big government. I dont want my house to fall down either, so I make sure it is built so it will not, and hire private inspectors when I purchase an existing home to make sure it is up to snuff. It is just personal responsibility, pay now or pay later.

At least Marty's still got a sense of humor.

With Martys employment situation, I am afraid we may all become his entertainment. Stir the pot and then sit back and watch?