|
GRP
|
Examples of Democrate root cause solutions - NOT.
"Pawlenty wants to put in place a limit on how much cities and counties can increase property taxes. DFLers want to hold down taxes by providing more state aid to local governments and provide state refunds to homeowners with high property taxes relative to their incomes."
DFLer's - that is NOT a solution. At best is a short term bandaid. Local governments will spend it just like they have every other time this approach was used and they raise your taxes again. This is nothing more the perpeturation of an over reliance on government and a redistribution of wealth
"Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said Democrats hope to renegotiate support for their health care reform package in exchange for their support for a property tax cap. "It seems to me there would be some symmetry there," Pogemiller said."
"On Wednesday, Pawlenty vetoed lawmakers' health care package, which would have expanded subsidized care to Minnesotans and adjusted how health care providers get paid for their services."
DFLer's - your idea of reform is to expand subsidized care? Subsidized care and K-12 funding accounts for 65% of the state budget. Do you know the 92% of the funds from the MN's SCHP's program (health care for needy children) goes to able bodied adults with out children. How can the state of Wisconsin with a greater population have a far smaller social service case load - Pogemiller - why don't look at that model?
|
|
SEES ALL
|
Politics! Belongs in a pile out in the meadow!
|
|
Db Sweeney
|
There is no way we're going to get the University LRT now.
Anyone care to venture which state will get the federal funding that we're set to receive if we don't move forward with it?
I'll give you a guess. It's warm all year round. They have a basketball team with famous alumni like Tom Chambers, Charles Barkley, and Steve Nash. There are a lot of golf courses. Most of the state is a desert.
The man with the golden mullet finds a way to scratch the back of his political ally again. We'll see, but the thought of Governor Molenau for the next few years isn't exactly "appealing."
|
|
Pat from Blaine
|
Hey DB Sweeney,
Are you serious about a University LRT. This is a huge waste of dollars. Almost a billion dollars for a train running between the cities!
I think people like you are the problem in this state if you believe LRT is a cost effective way to move traffic. LRT is horribley expensive. A billion dollars for a train!
Please tell me you are kidding!
sign
curious
|
|
Db Sweeney
|
Pat from Blaine wrote: Hey DB Sweeney,
Are you serious about a University LRT. This is a huge waste of dollars. Almost a billion dollars for a train running between the cities!
I think people like you are the problem in this state if you believe LRT is a cost effective way to move traffic. LRT is horribley expensive. A billion dollars for a train!
Please tell me you are kidding!
sign
curious I think it's curious that the state that will get the matching federal funds if we don't take them is also Senator McCain's home state AND that our Governor is angling hard for that VP slot which Senator McCain still has as bait. You honestly don't think a little quid pro quo isn't involved here? Your numbers are misleading. While your overall cost is somewhat accurate, Minnesota's contribution to that won't be as much since we'd be getting federally matching funds. Our exposure would not be a billion dollars. Second, have you seen the threads about unemployment? Most of it is in construction and manufacturing. The train won't build itself. That's called jobs. So while we're investing in the train, we're also getting some of the money back through taxes and investing in our economy. It's more jobs, that's never a bad thing. Third: Yes, rail-transit has been an abject failiure is cities like Chicago, NY, Boston, DC, and San Francisco. We should never aspire to find and invest in new ways to transport people. You would have fit in well in Molenau's MnDot management team. Four: You obviously, based on where you live, won't ride it so I'm not surprised to hear you dismiss it. It's not perfect, but it's no where near the devil that some conservatives on these threads make it out to be either. Most conservatives that you read here are afraid of any change and are opposed to any new ideas/thoughts/theories. Their natural inclintation is to say No to everything and blame it on cost to hide their own insecurities and lack of original thought. It's the nature of their ideology which is why you hear them saying just add more bus routes. It's not a big deal to me, but I'd like to find a way to move people outside of buses (gas costs getting out of control) between the two cities. It's the politics and the fact AZ will get the money if we don't that caught my eye. That's an awfuly interesting coincidence is it not?
|
|
Downtown Resident
|
The Twin Cities had a very good rail transit system until the mid 1950s and it was scrapped for a "better" bus system. Clearly, we would have been so much better off if that had not happened. The crook behind the change over went to prison for stealing proceeds from the scrap of the old rails and taking bribes from GM.
I am for rail transit, but I would like to see something more like the trolley system we used to have. A billion dollars seems like a lot of money to essentially replace the #50 bus line. The light rail going down University Ave. is never going to even remotely approach the speeds it was designed to travel and that fact reduced the Federal government's financial participation. It seems to me to be like hitching a race horse to a milk wagon.
My spouse works in Downtown MPLS and takes the 94D express bus. Based on projected travel time, if she got on the 94D at 4th and Minnesota at the same time someone else boarded the train at the 4th and Cedar transit station, she would be at her desk 10 to 15 minutes before the train traveler. That adds up to about 100 hours of lost time in the course of a year. No one is going to get her onto the train.
Finally, a smaller train would probably be able to run directly to the Union Concourse, rather than having to run the gorilla train across the block from 5th and Cedar, to 4th and Minnesota. Then the Rhode Scholars that planned that stop, would not have to cut the Skyway system into two completely disconnected islands and all the folks living down by the Farmers Market might be able to get some sleep without the bells going off hundreds of time all night long.
|
|
Suzanne
|
Nanny State DFL Nazis-Talk about a nanny state? Why don't you call out folks like Carl Pholad and the owners of the MOA who continually want more money? Oh wait, rich folks get tax money without questions, you are only worried about the pennies.
And nice attitude about the RNC convention. Some of us around here actually like democracy. Can you actually participate in a dialouge, or are you just good at calling names and throwing insults?
|
|
Suzanne
|
Db Sweeney wrote: <quoted text>
I think it's curious that the state that will get the matching federal funds if we don't take them is also Senator McCain's home state AND that our Governor is angling hard for that VP slot which Senator McCain still has as bait. You honestly don't think a little quid pro quo isn't involved here?
Your numbers are misleading. While your overall cost is somewhat accurate, Minnesota's contribution to that won't be as much since we'd be getting federally matching funds. Our exposure would not be a billion dollars.
Second, have you seen the threads about unemployment? Most of it is in construction and manufacturing. The train won't build itself. That's called jobs. So while we're investing in the train, we're also getting some of the money back through taxes and investing in our economy. It's more jobs, that's never a bad thing.
Third: Yes, rail-transit has been an abject failiure is cities like Chicago, NY, Boston, DC, and San Francisco. We should never aspire to find and invest in new ways to transport people. You would have fit in well in Molenau's MnDot management team.
Four: You obviously, based on where you live, won't ride it so I'm not surprised to hear you dismiss it.
It's not perfect, but it's no where near the devil that some conservatives on these threads make it out to be either. Most conservatives that you read here are afraid of any change and are opposed to any new ideas/thoughts/theories. Their natural inclintation is to say No to everything and blame it on cost to hide their own insecurities and lack of original thought. It's the nature of their ideology which is why you hear them saying just add more bus routes.
It's not a big deal to me, but I'd like to find a way to move people outside of buses (gas costs getting out of control) between the two cities. It's the politics and the fact AZ will get the money if we don't that caught my eye. That's an awfuly interesting coincidence is it not? Lest we forget that all the folks who will work on it will be paying taxes, as well as the companies who get the projects. And for those who oppose it, one of the key factors in ensuring that an economy runs well and smoothly is to make sure you can move freely, whether you are moving goods or services, or you are commuting to work. Look at countries(and states) that have no highway infrastructure. They have NO economy, or very little. Adam Smith had it right("The Wealth Of Nations"), in order for an economy to work, goods and services need to move freely. You know that whole free market theory? Can't do it if you are stuck on 94 for two hours a day, five days a week. And for those that oppose LRT, no one is forcing you to ride it, but it will absolutely free up the roads more than anything else, and it will be filled with folks who want to ride it. Unless of course you like sitting in trafic?
|
|
|
|
Suzanne
|
Pat from Blaine wrote: Hey DB Sweeney,
Are you serious about a University LRT. This is a huge waste of dollars. Almost a billion dollars for a train running between the cities!
I think people like you are the problem in this state if you believe LRT is a cost effective way to move traffic. LRT is horribley expensive. A billion dollars for a train!
Please tell me you are kidding!
sign
curious You know, whether or not LRT would work was answered with the success or the Hiawatha line. With all the benefits that it will bring(moving people throughout the two cities far faster than buses, freeing up the roads, less pollution, less health care costs(from pollution, stress from long commutes). There are so many more benefits that continuing the same old same old bulding more roads. But of coarse you can't build more roads in the city because all the land is developed so how else are you going to move large amounts of people throughout the city without doing it by car?
|
|
Tired of it all
|
Db Sweeney wrote: There is no way we're going to get the University LRT now.
Anyone care to venture which state will get the federal funding that we're set to receive if we don't move forward with it?
I'll give you a guess. It's warm all year round. They have a basketball team with famous alumni like Tom Chambers, Charles Barkley, and Steve Nash. There are a lot of golf courses. Most of the state is a desert.
The man with the golden mullet finds a way to scratch the back of his political ally again. We'll see, but the thought of Governor Molenau for the next few years isn't exactly "appealing." Gee wouldn't it be nice, if no state used the money, and our federal income taxes were reduced. Then maybe I would buy a new car....That employs folks that pay taxes. Maybe I would vacation at a resort in MN. That employs folks that pay taxes. Maybe I would update my house. That would hire folks that pay taxes. You just can not get past the goverment having to do it all for you. The goverment takes the money I may choose to spend for items I like that would help the economy. But no, let's have the goverment collect the money, and distribute it as the state sees fit.
|
|
Suzanne
|
Tired of it all wrote: <quoted text>
Gee wouldn't it be nice, if no state used the money, and our federal income taxes were reduced. Then maybe I would buy a new car....That employs folks that pay taxes. Maybe I would vacation at a resort in MN. That employs folks that pay taxes. Maybe I would update my house. That would hire folks that pay taxes.
You just can not get past the goverment having to do it all for you. The goverment takes the money I may choose to spend for items I like that would help the economy.
But no, let's have the goverment collect the money, and distribute it as the state sees fit. Why provide roads? How much tax dollars go to them each year?
|
|
Your GOP Mission PS
|
Judged:
1
1
GRP wrote: Examples of Democrate root cause solutions - NOT.
"Pawlenty wants to put in place a limit on how much cities and counties can increase property taxes. DFLers want to hold down taxes by providing more state aid to local governments and provide state refunds to homeowners with high property taxes relative to their incomes."
DFLer's - that is NOT a solution. At best is a short term bandaid. Local governments will spend it just like they have every other time this approach was used and they raise your taxes again. This is nothing more the perpeturation of an over reliance on government and a redistribution of wealth The reason local governments had to raise property taxes is that Pawlenty slashed local government aid so he could balance his budget. He solved his budget problem by passing the buck to local governments. They had to either drastically cut back services, or raise property taxes. Then Pawlenty had the gall to complain that local governments were raising taxes. That way he could make himself look good as an anti-tax crusader, and polish his VP resume. The Democrats are simply trying to put back some of the LGA that Pawlenty slashed. They are not trying to raise LGA above the original levels.
|
|
Suzanne
|
Your GOP Mission PS wrote: <quoted text>
The reason local governments had to raise property taxes is that Pawlenty slashed local government aid so he could balance his budget. He solved his budget problem by passing the buck to local governments. They had to either drastically cut back services, or raise property taxes. Then Pawlenty had the gall to complain that local governments were raising taxes. That way he could make himself look good as an anti-tax crusader, and polish his VP resume. The Democrats are simply trying to put back some of the LGA that Pawlenty slashed. They are not trying to raise LGA above the original levels. Why can't Republicans be honest about this. You should see the % all the fees for running a business have gone up. In just a few short years. You can call it a fee, a service charge, a candy bar, if you are paying it to the government, it's a tax. Call it what it is. Anti-tax crusader my left foot. Anyone who believes he really held the line on taxes must also still believe in the Easter Bunny.
|
|
annoymous
|
Government doesn't create solutions you left-wing activist morons!!! Didn't you folks pass basic philosophy class 101 back in College to figure that out?!
|
|
Suzanne
|
annoymous wrote: Government doesn't create solutions you left-wing activist morons!!! Didn't you folks pass basic philosophy class 101 back in College to figure that out?! Huh? Who are you talking to? So all corporations make solutions? What about when they are causing problems? Like creating and sustaining monopolies so they are really no different than government, except the the general public has no voice over how they conduct their business because their board is selected by investors, if they are a public company, and who knows, if they are private. How that can possibly be called the free market takes a great stretch of the imagination for sure. You want free market? Pay for the roads yourself then. Why are you entitled to roads by public money, but other citizens, who also pay taxes, are not entitled to their choice of transportation? And instead of throwing out names, make your case with facts and logic instead of resorting to emotion and name-calling. Or perhaps you didn't learn that in college?
|
|
Tired of it all
|
Suzanne wrote: <quoted text>
Why provide roads? How much tax dollars go to them each year? You missed my point. It is like any goverment agency. We must use this money or we lose it. How about a budge and save for something worth while. If you don't have a need for it, save it until one comes up. This crap where if we don't spend the 700 million some other state will snap it up is baloney. 700 million here, and another billion there, and soon you are talking about a lot of money. Is this how you run your home finances? Let's see I made 50K this year. I have better spend every cent I made or I will not get that much next year.
|
|
Tired of it all
|
Suzanne wrote: <quoted text>
Why provide roads? How much tax dollars go to them each year? No, why provide foreign aid to counties that hate us? Why do we have troops in Korea, Germany, and other areas? Those wars are over. We are sending aid to China!!! We are sending supplies there. China builds it, we buy it, it gets shipped over seas to us. Then we ship it all back at taxpayer expense, and give it back to them!!! What is wrong with this picture? China can afford to pay for it's own disaster. Did they offer goods and services to us free of charge for Katrina? With just the huge amount of waste this country does, we should have brand new streets everywhere....PAID IN FULL.
|
Judge it!
Most Popular
