- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 13, 2011 at 4:59 PM #696488May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM #695288
jstoesz
ParticipantI apologize in advance for my long tirade. You are right, we do tend to tirade on here. We are Pissed off.
How about a thought experiment?
CAR imagine if we had no income tax (lots of states don’t). Where do you think our economy would be? Or is our 12.3% unemployment rate completely unrelated to the restrictive government largess and high taxes that go to pay for it? Is it all the fault of the financial sector?
I found myself agreeing with everything you said starting out, but then in every post I have seen you find yourself in the curious position of defending those middle managers. You accuse everyone of not knowing the facts, and you are right. We do not know everything about the details of these employees jobs duties or the pych problems related. But there are some facts that cause the average Californian to want to go on a witch hunt and for good reason.
1. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
2. We have the highest budget deficit in the country.
3. We pay a lot more for lower quality services than most states (prison guards are a great example).So why would we look to the financial sector to reform (and it clearly needs to be reformed), when clearly our state government is corrupt beyond measure. Maybe we shouldn’t point figures at jobs we do not know all the intricacies of, but we are on a witch hunt because of those simple facts. And until those facts are no longer true statements, I and many like me will want blood.
I grow tired of pointing out your false link between financial sector reform and government reform. They both need to happen, but financial reform is not a precondition for government reform.
On top of all of this. Instead of getting in there and canning some wasteful middle managers and reforming pension spikes and double dipping, all we get is furloughs (man I would love a furlough) and closed state parks in an effort to bully us into higher taxes. It is enough to make you want to lash out at everything.
May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM #695375ParticipantI apologize in advance for my long tirade. You are right, we do tend to tirade on here. We are Pissed off.
How about a thought experiment?
CAR imagine if we had no income tax (lots of states don’t). Where do you think our economy would be? Or is our 12.3% unemployment rate completely unrelated to the restrictive government largess and high taxes that go to pay for it? Is it all the fault of the financial sector?
I found myself agreeing with everything you said starting out, but then in every post I have seen you find yourself in the curious position of defending those middle managers. You accuse everyone of not knowing the facts, and you are right. We do not know everything about the details of these employees jobs duties or the pych problems related. But there are some facts that cause the average Californian to want to go on a witch hunt and for good reason.
1. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
2. We have the highest budget deficit in the country.
3. We pay a lot more for lower quality services than most states (prison guards are a great example).So why would we look to the financial sector to reform (and it clearly needs to be reformed), when clearly our state government is corrupt beyond measure. Maybe we shouldn’t point figures at jobs we do not know all the intricacies of, but we are on a witch hunt because of those simple facts. And until those facts are no longer true statements, I and many like me will want blood.
I grow tired of pointing out your false link between financial sector reform and government reform. They both need to happen, but financial reform is not a precondition for government reform.
On top of all of this. Instead of getting in there and canning some wasteful middle managers and reforming pension spikes and double dipping, all we get is furloughs (man I would love a furlough) and closed state parks in an effort to bully us into higher taxes. It is enough to make you want to lash out at everything.
May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM #695977ParticipantI apologize in advance for my long tirade. You are right, we do tend to tirade on here. We are Pissed off.
How about a thought experiment?
CAR imagine if we had no income tax (lots of states don’t). Where do you think our economy would be? Or is our 12.3% unemployment rate completely unrelated to the restrictive government largess and high taxes that go to pay for it? Is it all the fault of the financial sector?
I found myself agreeing with everything you said starting out, but then in every post I have seen you find yourself in the curious position of defending those middle managers. You accuse everyone of not knowing the facts, and you are right. We do not know everything about the details of these employees jobs duties or the pych problems related. But there are some facts that cause the average Californian to want to go on a witch hunt and for good reason.
1. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
2. We have the highest budget deficit in the country.
3. We pay a lot more for lower quality services than most states (prison guards are a great example).So why would we look to the financial sector to reform (and it clearly needs to be reformed), when clearly our state government is corrupt beyond measure. Maybe we shouldn’t point figures at jobs we do not know all the intricacies of, but we are on a witch hunt because of those simple facts. And until those facts are no longer true statements, I and many like me will want blood.
I grow tired of pointing out your false link between financial sector reform and government reform. They both need to happen, but financial reform is not a precondition for government reform.
On top of all of this. Instead of getting in there and canning some wasteful middle managers and reforming pension spikes and double dipping, all we get is furloughs (man I would love a furlough) and closed state parks in an effort to bully us into higher taxes. It is enough to make you want to lash out at everything.
May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM #696124ParticipantI apologize in advance for my long tirade. You are right, we do tend to tirade on here. We are Pissed off.
How about a thought experiment?
CAR imagine if we had no income tax (lots of states don’t). Where do you think our economy would be? Or is our 12.3% unemployment rate completely unrelated to the restrictive government largess and high taxes that go to pay for it? Is it all the fault of the financial sector?
I found myself agreeing with everything you said starting out, but then in every post I have seen you find yourself in the curious position of defending those middle managers. You accuse everyone of not knowing the facts, and you are right. We do not know everything about the details of these employees jobs duties or the pych problems related. But there are some facts that cause the average Californian to want to go on a witch hunt and for good reason.
1. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
2. We have the highest budget deficit in the country.
3. We pay a lot more for lower quality services than most states (prison guards are a great example).So why would we look to the financial sector to reform (and it clearly needs to be reformed), when clearly our state government is corrupt beyond measure. Maybe we shouldn’t point figures at jobs we do not know all the intricacies of, but we are on a witch hunt because of those simple facts. And until those facts are no longer true statements, I and many like me will want blood.
I grow tired of pointing out your false link between financial sector reform and government reform. They both need to happen, but financial reform is not a precondition for government reform.
On top of all of this. Instead of getting in there and canning some wasteful middle managers and reforming pension spikes and double dipping, all we get is furloughs (man I would love a furlough) and closed state parks in an effort to bully us into higher taxes. It is enough to make you want to lash out at everything.
May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM #696478ParticipantI apologize in advance for my long tirade. You are right, we do tend to tirade on here. We are Pissed off.
How about a thought experiment?
CAR imagine if we had no income tax (lots of states don’t). Where do you think our economy would be? Or is our 12.3% unemployment rate completely unrelated to the restrictive government largess and high taxes that go to pay for it? Is it all the fault of the financial sector?
I found myself agreeing with everything you said starting out, but then in every post I have seen you find yourself in the curious position of defending those middle managers. You accuse everyone of not knowing the facts, and you are right. We do not know everything about the details of these employees jobs duties or the pych problems related. But there are some facts that cause the average Californian to want to go on a witch hunt and for good reason.
1. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country.
2. We have the highest budget deficit in the country.
3. We pay a lot more for lower quality services than most states (prison guards are a great example).So why would we look to the financial sector to reform (and it clearly needs to be reformed), when clearly our state government is corrupt beyond measure. Maybe we shouldn’t point figures at jobs we do not know all the intricacies of, but we are on a witch hunt because of those simple facts. And until those facts are no longer true statements, I and many like me will want blood.
I grow tired of pointing out your false link between financial sector reform and government reform. They both need to happen, but financial reform is not a precondition for government reform.
On top of all of this. Instead of getting in there and canning some wasteful middle managers and reforming pension spikes and double dipping, all we get is furloughs (man I would love a furlough) and closed state parks in an effort to bully us into higher taxes. It is enough to make you want to lash out at everything.
May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #695318eavesdropper
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.
May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #695406Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.
May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #696007Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.
May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #696154Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.
May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM #696508Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.[/quote]
Brian, we can eliminate the lifeguards from the beaches when we eliminate personal injury lawyers from the courtroom and re-school our citizens in the Theory of Personal Responsibility.
I’m all in favor of personal freedom. Wade into in a rough ocean when you don’t know how to swim, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or go hiking in remote mountainous areas with which you are not familiar, or ignore temperature warnings when you drive across a frozen Great Lake to go ice fishing (i.e., drinking). I’m not sure, but I believe the Constitution guarantees your right to exercise personal stupidity. As a U.S. citizen, I’ll back you on it, as long as I don’t end up having to PAY for it.
May 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM #695343bearishgurl
Participant[quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.
May 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM #695431Participant[quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.
May 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM #696032Participant[quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.
May 13, 2011 at 5:49 PM #696179Participant[quote=jstoesz]renters pay prop taxes too, only the prop manager is the tax collector…
It doesn’t matter how we are taxed, only that we are taxed so much for so little benefit.[/quote]
If the local rents will bear the landlord collecting at least PITI on a fairly recently purchased property, then maybe. Many individual landlords of SFR’s and condos cannot get this amount.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.