Apple·286 discussions

18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

Locked

Ouch!! Glad I don’t live in N.Y. 😀

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_gov_david_paterson_unveils_dire_new_york.html

88 new fees and taxes New York has proposed to fix its debt. “Gov. David Paterson unveils New York State budget that includes … new taxes, layoffs and cuts.”

Will this be the coming trend in other states? It just might be.

Any comments?

Topic

government

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

In working in government, the one thing I see they could cut that would usually cut cost is the use of long-term contractors.

I know that I have seen contractors come in and get entrenched in the operations and get an agency dependent on their services, and continually hike fees and extend timelines to milk the system.

Usually if a government agency would just hire staff to do the work on a long-term project and use a contractor for initial setup and training, it would make things better.

Then, things like taxes on soda wouldn’t be necessary.

But, that’s bureaucracy.

I agree

In reply to government

Governments seem to hire contractors with an end date in mind. If the contractors are to research,say, better increasing of technology, it often is not followed.

I have been in a non-gov big company and seen layoffs, with contractors in plain sight sitting around doing nothing, still being paid.

Life is not always fair. Unfortunately, when they get a tax on soda, it will stay, even if it is not needed.

But doesn’t the exact same thing happen…

In reply to government

…when government agencies handle long-term projects themselves? The incentives for those running the project to become entrenched and make the agency dependent are exactly the same, regardless of who the employer is.

True, however…

In reply to But doesn’t the exact same thing happen…

with an employee on staff, they are generally employed in an exempt position and don’t incur a cost in overtime.

Any additional requirements added to a project with a contract almost always requires renegotiation and added cost.

Hence being that most government agencies always have projects to work on, I really can’t see a contractor being needed unless it’s in an initialization or re-factoring phase where outside consulting brings in a short-term expertise that you need to educate your staff on.

And there adds in one of the biggest expenses

In reply to True, however…

every new contractor has to be taught the systems that are in place, to a point, to be able to integrate them together, where as an on-staff developer would know the old systems inside-out and maybe even be able to just modify existing code instead of starting over with something else.

In I.T., that’s called SAAS

In reply to government

“contractors come in and get entrenched in the operations and get an agency dependent on their services, and continually hike fees and extend timelines to milk the system.”

read that as

“service provider comes in and gets entrenched in the operations and gets an agency dependent on their database access and storage, and then continually hikes fees and extends timelines to milk the system.”

re: Government and Contractors

In reply to government

You said: [i]In working in government, the one thing I see they could cut that would usually cut cost is the use of long-term contractors.[/i]

Add to that, the use of purchasing agreements, especially when the agreement is made with a company which, after the agreement is made, has no incentive to offer lower prices to government agencies. Most, if not all, government agencies are locked into purchasing agreements for nearly everything they buy and those agreements don’t allow for any kind of price shopping. For example, a particular State government might have a computer peripheral purchasing agreement with a certain company, or maybe an office supplies purchasing agreement. When an agency or department of that State government needs to purchase keyboards or paper, they’re forced to purchase through the agreement company instead of having the ability to shop around for price.

Most of us who do any kind of purchasing at all know we can find that same item cheaper at another company, including the local shop around the corner which saves on freight. But, since we’re forced to either buy from the company we have the agreement with or not buy at all, we’re stuck with the price.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars every year could be saved by each and every state and local government, in office supplies and computer peripherals alone, if they simply allowed the people in charge of doing the purchasing to shop for price before they buy.

Trend? Not a problem.

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

There will always be some neighboring state that figures it can keep it’s taxes lower and make it up on the volume. See cigarette smuggling as a working example.

New Jersey will likely be the beneficiary of New York’s new taxes…

In reply to Trend? Not a problem.

…as consumers will flock there for their sodas and clothing, as they do for cigarettes and other overly-taxed goods now.

NJ will definitely benefit, except . . .

In reply to New Jersey will likely be the beneficiary of New York’s new taxes…

I’m sure we’ll be taxed on the same stuff in NJ soon. We even had a governor once (Florio) who taxed toilet paper! It didn’t go over well with the people

Before Governor Corzine raised the sales tax in NJ to 7%, we had lots of NY shoppers here. Not so much anymore.

AV

Illinois & Indiana is a great example

In reply to Trend? Not a problem.

As the taxes on cigarettes, gas and liquor have continued to rise in the C(r)ook County area a trend emerged; less and less tax revenues were coming in via those avenues.

What gives, the numnut politicians wondered.

Indiana maintained their tax levels (which were already lower), and essentially priced out the competition. Doy duh doy doy.

I know about a dozen or so smokers within a 20 minute drive of the state border. Not a one EVER purchases any cigarettes in the Chicagoland area.

20 minutes to save a nickel per gallon of gas doesn’t make much sense to me. But 20 minutes to save $10 (or more by now) on a carton of cigarettes, 20+ cents per gallon and a couple of bucks per pint….add it all together, and it’s just about the equivalent of getting paid $60 or so per hour. More than worth the trip!!

Almost makes me wish I was a smoker or heavy drinker, too. I am missing out on an opportunity to ‘stick it to them’! 😉

Ironically, you are already “sticking it to them”…

In reply to Illinois & Indiana is a great example

…by not smoking and drinking. The smokers and drinkers are paying taxes that you’d otherwise be paying somewhere else.

I’ll take consumption taxes over income taxes any day. You have far more freedom to decide how you wish to be taxed, if at all.

I agree….

In reply to Ironically, you are already “sticking it to them”…

…about the consumption vs. income taxes. Given the choice (assuming ‘neither’ isn’t an option), I’d much rather have the former than the latter.

Eh, I avoid the cigarette and booze taxes, but they get me in other ways. Cell phone and cable/internet/phone bills are just about 40% in taxes now; utility taxes are enough to make even the most ardent leftists cry uncle (well, obviously not, but they’re still pretty friggin’ hefty) and the sales tax in Chicago is 11% (I avoid this mostly, but when I forget to bring lunch into work, I get nailed).

If I were to walk into a branch office and demand 25% of the money in the drawers, I’d probably be looking at 10-20 and called a felon. The politicians do it to all of us, and they’re called public servants.

I don’t get it!!

Don’t be selfish.

In reply to I agree….

Be a “patriot” and let the “public servants” “spread the wealth”.

I’d be more than happy to spread it…

In reply to Don’t be selfish.

…just need to find some, first!! 🙂

When we’re in the midst of the second American revolution, I hope history remembers to take note of all these felonious tax policies as a major instigator!

I’m not sure why they would

In reply to I’d be more than happy to spread it…

They seem to have forgotten the instigation of the 1st Revolution. It took much less to get people upset about such things 230 years ago.

VOIP and Internet phones are driving them nuts!

In reply to I agree….

because they are data, they can not be taxed….. yet…..

Bawstards are trying though.

Coming soon…

In reply to VOIP and Internet phones are driving them nuts!

…to a bill near you:

The Data Delivery Excise Fee

Big Broadband teaming up with political filth to find a way to raise revenues and dissuade heavy downloaders in one fell swoop.

I haven’t seen the remake of ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’, but my understanding is that Jennifer Connelly’s character convinces Klaatu not to wipe out humanity. Wrong move….

She should have convinced him not to wipe out ALL humanity. 😉

“Yeah, My Klaatu, see that domed building right there, beyond the phallic monument, feel welcome to sick your nano-locust-looking-chomping thing on that, and any building that looks like it in all 50 states. Preferably when a bunch of gasbags are convening.”

It’s probably closer

In reply to I agree….

[i]If I were to walk into a branch office and demand 25%[/i]

to 45 🙁

The same

In reply to Illinois & Indiana is a great example

happens at the southern end of Illinois. My local cigarette and alcohol discounter has a significant customer base from Illinois.

I have some family downstate…

In reply to The same

…along the Mississippi. None of them smoke, though, so I couldn’t use it as a frame of reference.

Good to know we’re screwed all across the Land of Lincoln, and not just up here in the collar counties!!

😉

I know of several people who “smuggle” cigarettes

In reply to Trend? Not a problem.

At least three of them can do it legally.

The three “legal” smugglers have summer homes in Myrtle Beach and live in New York or New England. Each time they return home for the summer, they buy a case or two (12 cartons/case) to last until they come back down in the fall. With an excise tax difference between NY and SC of $23.80 per carton, the savings are substantial. For NYC residents, the tax difference is $41.80 per carton. http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0097.pdf

I know one individual who drives down from NYC twice a year to buy cigarettes. The only problem he says he has is having to pre-order so his regular supplier will have enough in stock. He buys 2 cases each trip and says the excise tax savings more than offset the costs. He says he makes the trip on about 1-1/2 18-gallon tankfuls in his VW Passat TDI.

Some SC cigarette retailers will sell you as many cartons as you like if they are in stock, no questions asked. Some do ask, but will sell up to three cases if you say those cigarettes are for personal use. Many of the retailers in MB will pre-order cases, given enough time, but only for regular customers.

edit: clarify, added link

This is a prime example

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

of what has been labeled “Tax and Spend” policies.

The ONLY good thing about taxes like this, is they are actually almost fair.

Instead of punish someone based upon success and effort, let people that use SERVICES pay for those services.

We will hear some scumbag liberal politician try to say it is a GOOD thing because soda isn’t good for you, so it will discourage it’s use, like the lowlifes did with cigarettes.

I loved the posting quote…

In reply to This is a prime example

…”if they could find a way to tax s**t, they’d do that, too”. (not sure if this counts, but Chicago did raise the fees required by the Water Reclamation Department)

This may just be my perception, but it seems as though the places that tax the most also are running the largest budget deficits (Chicago, NYC, various cities in California, etc); inspiring them to come up with ever more taxes.

Hmmmmmmm……

?:|

(Edit: to help clarify the city distinction)

Another thing you should notice

In reply to I loved the posting quote…

Democrat ruled vs non-Democrat.

The higher the Democrat population, the higher the taxes and the lower the quality of life.

They can’t understand that higher taxes chase business away, as well as the qualified work force that goes with it, leaving only the people with their hands out.

Things not to be forgotten

In reply to Another thing you should notice

Opposed to the current Republican administration belief that you cut taxes and bring a record deficit with it. I still don’t get that. Spend money like it grows on trees and cut taxes. Isn’t it called irresponsible spending? Spend the money without knowing how it will get paid back. Now when taxes have to be risen to pay for this record deficit, people will cry about the Democrates.

Also you say that higher taxes chase business away. Explain what has happened to all the jobs being sent over seas. There has been a Republican government in place for a long time who cut taxes and still the jobs went over seas. Based on your staement, these jobs should have stuck around. The qualified work force has stayed around. They now are unemployed looking for work. And now more then ever needs the hand out.

You know the answer before you even ask the question

In reply to Things not to be forgotten

We are talking cities, not countries, weren’t we? Why, yes, we were…..

Tell me if the Democrat controlled cities have higher or lower tax burden than Republican controlled cities, and you will have the answer to what my comment was.

As for at a national level, the exidus out of the country started before Bush got in office, and then the Republicans (almost all of them) moved away from their principles and started throwing the money around, thinking they would be able to buy friends as easily as Democrats could. Didn’t work, did it? This was my first national election that I did not vote Republican because they do not represent me or my ideals. Just because Democrats are worse does not make Republicans good.

It just comes down to, do you want the handbasket to hell or the express lane there?

No difference

In reply to You know the answer before you even ask the question

I didn’t realize that the philosophy changed that much between city and federal. A Democrat is a Democrat and a Republican is a Republican. The ideology is the same.

“Tell me if the Democrat controlled cities have higher or lower tax burden than Republican controlled cities” Both would have basicaly the same burden. Some how, some way, you have to pay for services rendered by each city. Each city is required to provide at least some basic services ie… police, fire, payrol for city government ect… Some how these fees must come from some place.

The saying could also be Just because the Republicans are worse doesn’t make the Democrats better. I feel both parties have failed the American people.

I don’t think there is a handbasket any more, and the express lane is filling up fast.

Not the same burden

In reply to No difference

Not talking about bills the City pays, but the burden on the citizens.

Raise taxes on people and business and the people that MAKE money will move to more business friendly cities, taking their revenue with them.

The less people with the higher revenue are in the area, the harder it is for all the supporting businesses to thrive, driving more and more out of business or the area.

The people that cry out for punitive taxes on “big business” forget all the other businesses in the area are only there BECAUSE of the “big business”.

Bite that hand that feeds you, and after a while, you are going to starve.

Look at the hole California is in

In reply to No difference

California has been exercising the “let’s tax the rich more for the benefit of the rest of us” philosophy for nearly 20 years now. By the early ’90s, an interesting thing started happening; people making over 6-figures started leaving and were replaced nearly more than equally than those making the low 5-figures. Since the net population didn’t go down, the politicians didn’t get too worried.

Now who would you rather have as your tax base? Lots of people making over $100,000 or lots of people making $20,000?

I would rather have

In reply to No difference

[i]Now who would you rather have as your tax base? Lots of people making over $100,000 or lots of people making $20,000? [/i]

consumers as my tax base, then ease up on business and income taxes to promote higher consumer activity. Of course, that would never happen, because it would drastically reduce the need for government services, and the control freaks in our society wouldn’t stand for that.

Math problems

In reply to No difference

I guess I need to take a different economics course. I have always believed if I have less coming in, means I have just as little to go out. Tax less means spend less. In my book.

“Not talking about bills the City pays, but the burden on the citizens.
”

I thought is was also the burden of the citizens to help pay the cities bills. Don’t cities rely on the taxes of the community to pay for the services?

As far as the taxing business goes, ask IL about Motorola and the big tax breaks they gave them, just to watch them pick up and leave and cut many jobs. Interesting how these big companies love the tax breaks and stick around to make there money. But ask them to pay there portion in taxes after a while and they grab there money and run some where else. They all seem to forget how they got the money.

As far as California goes, the early 90’s saw a resecion come around. CA was built on the defense industry. That was cut and that is what crippled CA then. That was when the housing market was really peaking. Suddenly all of these people were with out work and had to move. CA saw in the mid 90’s people were leaving the state faster then coming in. Then when things started coming back around, people began migrating back. All income figures were moving back. CA has a lot of wealthy people living in that state. I would have to recheck, but I remember when I lived there taxes were not that bad. There were a lot of things you did not pay taxes on. Now they are saying they may go bankrupt. Hmmm the whole economics of little taxes and spend more isn’t working out so well.

RE: Math problems

In reply to No difference

[i]As far as the taxing business goes, ask IL about Motorola and the big tax breaks they gave them, just to watch them pick up and leave and cut many jobs.[/i]

So what are they supposed to do, round up customers at gunpoint? If nobody’s buying, you have no choice but to close.

No business pays taxes. Never have, never will. The “taxes” they pay is included in the cost of their product or service, paid for by you, the consumer. The cost of complying with tax laws (staff) is also paid by you, yet does not show up in the quality of the goods or services. This comes up to over $500 billion a year. Money that, for all intents and purposes, is flushed away as it adds nothing to the value. Wouldn’t it make more sense to collect this tax at the register, paid directly by the consumer instead of going through middlemen? The infrastructure is already in place.

Doing just that one thing, [b]and changing nothing else[/b], would add [b]half a trillion dollars[/b] to our economy every year!

Re:Re Math

In reply to No difference

This happened back in 2001. It has nothing to do with the current problems. Motorola kept making cell phones at some other plant.

Well, there had to be a reason.

In reply to No difference

[i]This happened back in 2001. It has nothing to do with the current problems. Motorola kept making cell phones at some other plant. [/i]

Unless you think Motorola just had it in for that state…

If they were making so much money, I guarantee they wouldn’t have left.

Was the area better off with or without Motorola?

In reply to No difference

Anyone that is in business knows the way to make a profit is to keep your expenses low. If you can run your company cheaper at location X than at location Y, only a poor manager would stay at location Y.

So, politicians tried to get a bigger piece of someone elses pie, and put a lot of people out of work. Sounds like you are angry at the wrong people.

And the Cities/States DON’T cut back their spending, because spending is how they buy influence.

Why do they leave?

In reply to Things not to be forgotten

Because when you factor in local, state, and federal taxes on business, we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the world.

You kind of answer your own question anyway. Businesses have been fleeing New York for years because it has the highest taxes in the country. If it’s easy to recognize this fact, then why should it be so difficult to understand why industries leave the country as well?

You are right about one thing: Deficits are about spending, not revenue. Federal revenue under Bush was the highest ever. The problem isn’t revenue; it’s the idea that you can spend forever without consequence.

What we need in Washington are some adults who can say “no”. I don’t think we’ve had many since the end of the cold war.

Unfortunately

In reply to Why do they leave?

the obvious tends to escape far too many.

Just curious, is the last 8 years an exception to that?

In reply to Another thing you should notice

The last eight years have been republican and I do not feel that the quality of life is better. Democrats have not been in charge.

Of course, GWB might be the an exception.

Edited for bad math!!!!

A few non-math questions

In reply to Just curious, is the last 8 years an exception to that?

Are YOU better, worse, or the same, due to any Republican policies? If so, which policies had what effect?

Everyone knows that Clinton was in the right place at the right time for the dot.com craze, but if someone says he is responsible for the boom, then they would also have to say he was responsible for the crash. Neither were his fault, he knew enough to stay out of the way.

The economy was on it’s way down before bush got into office, and the financial issues have been building for decades, and only took high fuel prices to knock the card tower down.

Which stated policy Obama has put out there do you think will be good for business, and in turn, good for the workers?

I see things getting worse, and really hope I am wrong.

A fair question deserves an answer

In reply to A few non-math questions

My personal situation is both good and bad. I saw my taxes go up (Home owners, income, etc) directly due to the current administration and congress cutting money given to states and local governments. Due to a contiued war in the Middle east I worry that my son, currently in the military, will go into danger. The good part is that I still have a decent job.

I never gave Clinton credit for what happened when he entered office, it is just a good way to keep track of when it happened. The balanced budget and prosperity was a result of the republican’s contract with america as much as the democratic administration. What I liked most about the Dot Com era was that it proved that people on welfare chose to work when decent jobs were offered. That supprised the most liberal and conservative people. The taxes that group paid did the most to balance the budget than anything else.

Wish the best

In reply to A fair question deserves an answer

to your son.

Thanks, JD (NT)

In reply to A fair question deserves an answer

..

Reaganomics saved Clinton

In reply to A few non-math questions

Remember, the economy was stalled after the Bush (I) tax increases of ’90 and the victory of Clinton in ’92. The economy stayed that way for the first 2 years of the Clinton presidency as industry hunkered down for Hillarycare and other expected forms of government expansion. But when the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in ’92 for the first time in 40 years, those expansionist plans were laid to rest, and the economy boomed.

In effect, what made Clinton a perceived success was the central point of Reaganomics: Restrict the growth of government, business will flourish and deficits will eventually disappear.

Of course, by 2002, the Republican Congress had become as corrupt as the Democrats of ’94, and under the “No spending bill left behind” Bush (II) Administration, we now find ourselves in a Keynesian nightmare nearly unimaginable only a few years ago when most credible economists had finally written Keynes off.

Of course, due to the brainless nature of partisan politics, it appears as though an Obama Administration will continue on with more of the same Keynesianism in the name of “change”. Please wake me when it’s all over.

Pols have dried out the economic river

In reply to Just curious, is the last 8 years an exception to that?

I read a few years back a discourse given by some financial whiz from University of Chicago (where many a Nobel prize has been one in economics…but I can’t recall if the specific author was a Nobel winner or not) that spoke about both trickle-up and trickle-down economics.

Long story short, he said that both methods could work, and have worked historically. He said the problems come in when the ‘trickle gets stopped’. From the trickle-up perspective, it is when you stop pushing those that receive aid to do anything to better their situation (synonymous with animals taken from the wild into captivity…they can’t be returned back into the wild without EXTENSIVE re-acclimation, as they have grown dependent on the care of others…and no, I’m not saying those on aid are animals, I’m saying the ability to fend for oneself has been severely impeded by ‘feel good’ intentions). Instead, the money is like water once a levee breaks…pours out indiscriminately until it is cut off somehow.

Conversely, without motivations/pressures to return dollars into the economy (offshoring is a great example; profits stay in leadership pockets via a cornucopia of tax breaks, while domestic jobs are slashed, and the monies for salary enter another nation’s economy), there is nothing that gets trickled downward…like a river that is dammed.

In a nutshell, our politicians, Dems and Republicans both, have allowed a situation where we’re getting ‘dried out’ from both sides. The river is dammed upstream, and the levee is breached downstream; and we’re all the fauna/flora stuck in the middle wondering what the frilly f–k happened!

I’ll do a search from home later to see if I can find the article (I came across it for school…and am pretty sure it was in a database of academic journals…so I can’t search from the office), and post it if I do find it.

Well there is one thing…

In reply to Pols have dried out the economic river

[i]there is nothing that gets trickled downward[/i]

Blame! 🙁

That’s downward, upward…

In reply to Well there is one thing…

…and all around. If blame became a currency, the US would be flush in the black!!

Actually, that may not be such a bad idea. If we could go from tulips to precious metals, why not precious metals to blame??? The bigger the f–k up, the more blame it carries.

Automakers: Immediately back in black.
Financial markets: Lending freeze is OVER
Social Security: Retirement benefits for one and all
Health Care: break one arm, get the other one bandaged and put into a cast for free

😉

If they think that “trickle down” doesn’t work, then why…

In reply to Pols have dried out the economic river

…are they about to waste billions reviving Detroit?

It’s not that trickle down doesn’t work…

In reply to If they think that “trickle down” doesn’t work, then why…

…it’s just that p_ss poor management stops the flow.

Asides, if you saw the thread about how politicians fare on a basic quiz on relevant issues (civics, economics, history, law, etc) you wouldn’t be shocked to know that the Tidy Bowl Man is sailing off with taxpayers’ money by the billion!! We’ve elected a bunch of room temperature IQers; with questionable morality, to boot!!

X-(

That much is true

In reply to If they think that “trickle down” doesn’t work, then why…

Any short sample of news commentators or politicians on the current economic situation more than proves their low IQ & comprehension skills.

Not to mention…

In reply to If they think that “trickle down” doesn’t work, then why…

[i]…it’s just that p_ss poor management stops the flow.[/i]

piss poor government policy

Um… correct me if I am wrong…

In reply to Another thing you should notice

…but aren’t we still Republican-ruled? You can’t blame this mess on a government that hasn’t even been sworn in.

Ok, you are wrong

In reply to Um… correct me if I am wrong…

Happy?

I was talking cities, thankyouverymuch. 😀

Care to give it another shot? ;\

You didn’t say that…

In reply to Ok, you are wrong

I guess you need to be more specific.

I guess I hadn’t realized that city governments were responsible for the economic recession we’re in. Hmmm.

They didn’t cause it…

In reply to You didn’t say that…

…but they could very well be making it worse on the local level with prohibitive taxing.

Case in point, I work in downtown Chicago, and live out in the burbs. It would be slightly more convenient for me to go do some shopping during my lunch break than wait until I’m home; as I am less than a block away from just about any store I’d need to visit for gift giving purposes. HOWEVER, the effective tax rate is 11%. This causes me to hold off shopping until I am back out near my area.

I figure I’ve spent a shade under $700 on gifts that I could have easily gotten downtown, but chose to get them out by me. The tax rate where I’m at is 7.25%. If Chicago had a similar tax rate, it could have made $50.25 off of me, as opposed to hoping to get $77.

Scale that up by the hundreds of thousands of people that work downtown, but live elsewhere, and the city’s tax policies could literally be scaring off revenue by the millions.

Granted, that’s speculative, and there are more variables at play when people decide to go shopping. But given that the city is still hemorrhaging money and is talking about shutting down parts of the government for days at a time, I don’t think I’m too far off base.

Who was talking about recession?

In reply to You didn’t say that…

That is a completely different topic, that we can discuss sometime if you wish.

The current mess has both disgraceful parties neck deep in sh1t, going back decades. It is questionable (at best) to try to lay it at any one party/administrations feet.

As for what I did or didn’t specify, it was because my post was in reply to someone elses, that started talking about Chicago and Ny. That lead me to talk about Cities, and I tried to clarify my position with a follow-up posting. We can pick it up from there, later. Time to go to the bar…. ;\

Sure I can.

In reply to Um… correct me if I am wrong…

One could argue that the stock market has had a nearly perfect inverse correlation to the popularity of Obama, and the exposure of his agenda.

Any old excuse in a storm?

In reply to Sure I can.

.

Addition for those jumping into the discussion part way through

In reply to Another thing you should notice

The discussion was about CITIES, as started by saigman.

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=281322&messageID=2662755

Sorry for the confusion to the people that missed the post that I was replying to.

I figured this was better than editing my existing post, which only would further confuse the issue.

Care to start over again people? 😀

Take it one step further

In reply to Addition for those jumping into the discussion part way through

I would bet the cities with the highest crime AND highest unemployment are and have been Democrat cities.

Any takers?

Add to that

In reply to Take it one step further

the ones who spend the most per-student on schools end up with the lowest average test scores.

Arizona would give them a run for the money

In reply to Add to that

We spend at a level that places us 49th in the Nation. Our tests scores reflect that very well thank you. 🙂

No can do

In reply to Take it one step further

Your not going to be able to satisfy the “and” part of your question.

I just looked around and New Orleans leads the list for high crimes but Yuma AZ leads the nation in unemployment 21.9% WOW that is high.

As I looked at the lists, it appears Detroit and Flint MI are the only ones on both lists. Isn’t Flint MI right next to Detroit? Now if you wish to use Detroit as your example, go ahead. I don’t think it can be used. There is much more to the story then politics.

Also looking at the list CA and MI each have six cities in the top 20 highest unemployment rate. That is a lot for a state.

Unemployment rates

http://jobs.aol.com/article/_a/us-cities-with-the-highest-and-lowest/20060918100709990001

Crime rates

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/new_orleans_has_highest_crime.html#

Personally, I don’t think it matters much any more Democrats or Republicans. Neither has the American people in mind.

The policies pushed to get and stay in office make the problems worse

In reply to No can do

New Orleans, yeah, Democrat.

High unemployment along the mexican border. Gee, who would think that having a cheaper work force flooding an area could be bad for the job market and would devalue the American worker?

Cities like Chicago and Detroit, make policies that only cater to the lowest denominator to gain votes.

There has been a “war on poverty” for over half a century, yet there seems to be as much poverty as ever.

Both brands are only looking out for their own gaining and maintaining power, but the way they go about getting the power makes a big difference to how a city will move forward.

From the beginning?

In reply to Addition for those jumping into the discussion part way through

As in top to bottom revenue paradigm? Function-based as opposed to thing-based? From there to scrapping the paradigm of governance itself? Or continue spinning wheels?

You don’t have to scrap it.

In reply to From the beginning?

[i]As in top to bottom revenue paradigm?[/i]

Yes. With the citizen being “top”.

States should get the lion’s share of tax monies (what part of the infrastructure isn’t within in a state? The state should pay wholly for its part of that infrastructure). Paying it to the Fed and back to the state is just stupid and adds an extra layer of middlemen.

Better that each state’s citizens decides what needs done within that state and then those citizens pay for it. The fed should get a small amount from each state, based on that state’s population, not on income.

More class envy

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

Most of the items being taxed are considered luxuries. Taxes on these things go more easily because the electorate assumes that if a fellow citizen can afford such things, they can afford to pay a larger tax burden.

At some point people will go to NJ for more and more goods and NY will have to widen their attack on the taxpayers to recoup the difference between expectations and results.

Funny, politicians tell us they want to tax cigarettes to decrease smoking but fail to understand that bigger tax on business results in less business. They acknowledge cause / effect in one case but ignore it in others.

Time for N.Y to get a new T-shirt

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

Slogan –

No

Joy!

NY

but when do

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

the tax tax come into effect???

8 years of Laisse Faire Republicanism

In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

Followed by 8 years of crushing tax increases and social redistribution of earned wealth?

Why not? Who would want to follow the middle of the road?

I don’t know.

In reply to 8 years of Laisse Faire Republicanism

I’m still waiting for the “Laisse Faire Republicanism” part to happen. That certainly has not been what the last 8 years have been about.

Laisse Faire…

In reply to I don’t know.

…started disappearing from American governance in the 19th century, was critically wounded by Roosevelt’s New Deal, and was mortally wounded by Nixon’s price controls during the 1973-1974 oil crisis.

I don’t expect a resurrection in the remainder of my lifetime.

I don’t either.

In reply to Laisse Faire…

What amuses me is the impression by the masses that it actually still exists.

I am mostly a moderate libertarian

In reply to I don’t know.

I believe in the free-est of free markets, generally. Yet careful and prudent regulation is necessary. My favorite example is safety regulation of the automotive market. The mass of people purchasing cars are too damn stupid to vote with their pocketbooks to ensure that cars meet minimum safety requirements. That leaves enlightened people like myself to either do without, or to demand regulation. I understand there are consequences of tampering with the free market in this manner, but I fully believe there is no other solution.

The Republican Trio leading up to FDR’s administration did not step in soon enough to correct a faltering economy, and the results were a disaster.

The Bush administration and Congress allowed the banking industry to go crazy with high risk mortgages over the last several years, despite warnings that something needed to be done. Again, because of a Republican too afraid to step in and take corrective action, we find ourselves in economic turmoil.

I realize this is all oversimplified, but it would have been better to have made the right decisions two years ago, then to have to pass emergency bailout legislation now.

You do know Obama knew about the financial meltdown

In reply to I am mostly a moderate libertarian

years ago, right?

You know that Democrats stood against Republicans in 04 and 05 when Republicans were calling for oversight, right?

You know it started with Clintion removing regulations to allow “everyone to own a home”, right?

There is more than enough shame to go around for both of the parties that have left us behind.

Obama, the great hope, stood by and did nothing then, so what will he do now?

Not only that…

In reply to You do know Obama knew about the financial meltdown

…but wasn’t Mr. Obama the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money?

Lame attempt at partisian distraction

In reply to You do know Obama knew about the financial meltdown

What does Obama have to do with it? When did I imply anything pro-Obama in my rhetoric or polotical ideology? I think I indicted what I perceive as Obama’s policies in my original post. Attempting to turn this into a Democrat versus Republicans argument is useless – it is just business as usual, and what got us into this mess. The “other” side is just as guilty of small minded “us -or- them” ideologies as you are here, but that makes no difference.

This happened under Bush’s watch, and traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics are the obvious and logical suspect in allowing things to get so far off the tracks. Ultimately, it happened under Bush’s watch, period. I’m not really concerned with *excuses*. If HP has a huge profit drop under their CEO, do we as stock holders blame her staff, the productivity of the floor workers, an increase in the price of raw materials? No, we hold the CEO accountable.

Aren’t Republicans *all* about *accountability*?

I’m not interested in excuses from Bush sympathizes or Obama justifiers – and I think my original post made that crystal clear from a non-partisian perspective.

Perhaps you should defog your Elephant-Gray Tinted Sunglasses.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt

In reply to Lame attempt at partisian distraction

of having just not read my entire post, rather than that you are just to stupid to comprehend what was said. If you go back you will see:

[i]”There is more than enough shame to go around for both of the parties that have left us behind. “[/i]

Which was it? Lazy or stupid? I accept your humble apology in advance, because I am such a nice guy… 😀

I would be interested if you have ever watched these two videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
“Mr. Chairman, we do not have a problem at Freddie Mac”. – Maxine Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related

MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

In reply to Lame attempt at partisian distraction

Again, exactly what policy of the last 8 years can you point out that represents “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics” that precipitated the current meltdown?

Was it the expansion of the size of the federal government by nearly 50%?

Was it new and expanded entitlements?

Was it their inability to reform the massive Ponzi scheme that is Social Security?

Was it social engineering via Freddie & Fannie that they were unable to stop?

Spending literally trillions to bail out billionaire bankers and terminally mismanaged industries?

Exactly which of the above represent “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”?

I’d argue that the problem with the last 8 years was the near complete abandonment of “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”.

Banking and Mortgage Meltdown

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

You’ve both cited that the unregulated expansion of high risk mortgages was pushed by the Democrats.

Please cite credible sources – everything I’ve read about this crisis, from credible sources, indicates that economists were blowing the whistle on this and trying to get the Bush administration to respond, and that the Bush administration was reluctant to interfere, operating on the word of leaders in the financial industry that they would not overextend themselves and would in fact, self-regulate.

This clearly didn’t happen.

So, if you can get me some credible sources (read: not a forum post on GOP.COM), I’d like to read any alternate perspective on where the blame lies for allowing this to escallate to this point.

There are plenty of sources for those willing to look for them

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

I first became aware of the impending Fannie/Freddie meltdown when the Wall Street Journal started chiming in on the issue in 2002.

Fannie Mae Enron?: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1014169323358510560.html?mod=Extra

Frantic Fannie: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1014858120376638680.html?mod=Extra

Inside Fannie: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1016494105312486320.html?mod=Extra

Fannie Mae’s Risky Business: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1032746859385988393.html?mod=Extra

Fannie Takes the Hill: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB106566201089091000.html?mod=Extra

Fannie Uncovered: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109590598523225802.html?mod=Extra

Fannie Mae Enron?: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109684359646434797.html?mod=Extra

Fannie Mae Liberals: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715.html?mod=Extra

Fannie More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119309741437967766.html?mod=Extra

Too Political to Fail: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120873813171529991.html?mod=Extra

Of course, you might be forgiven if you rely entirely upon the mainstream media to learn about what is behind the meltdown:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080924145932.aspx

“Yet Barney Frank and his chums blocked all Bush’s attempts to put a rein on Raines. During the House Financial Services Committee hearing following Bush’s initiative, Frank declared: “The more people exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness [at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae], the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially.” His colleague on the committee, the California Democrat Maxine Walters, said: “There were nearly a dozen hearings where we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Mr Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac and particularly at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr Franklin Raines.”: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-democrat-fingerprints-are-all-over-the-financial-crisis-949653.html

Oh, and Fannie CEO Franklin Raines is/was an Obama economic advisor. Makes since, since Obama was one of the top recipients of Fannie/Freddie money.

http://www.termlimits.com/articles/what-they-said-about-fan-and-fred

And finally, you can google all of the following quotes, and find multiple sources to verify them:

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 10, 2003:

Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): I worry, frankly, that there’s a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. . . .

Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:
Secretary Martinez, if it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

* * *

House Financial Services Committee hearing, Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D., N.Y.): . . . I am just pissed off at Ofheo [Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place.

And Freddie Mac, who on its own, you know, came out front and indicated it is wrong, and now the problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job. . .

Ofheo Director Armando Falcon Jr.: Congressman, Ofheo did not improperly apply accounting rules; Freddie Mac did. Ofheo did not try to manage earnings improperly; Freddie Mac did. So this isn’t about the agency’s engagement in improper conduct, it is about Freddie Mac. Let me just correct the record on that. . . . I have been asking for these additional authorities for four years now. I have been asking for additional resources, the independent appropriations assessment powers.
This is not a matter of the agency engaging in any misconduct. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week’s hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs. We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .
Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?
Mr. Raines?
Mr. Raines: No, sir.
Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?
Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .
Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .
Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we’re using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie’s mission. And I don’t think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don’t believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:

Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.): What is the wrong that we’re trying to right here? What is the potential harm that we’re trying to avert?
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: Well, I think that that is a very good question, senator.
What we’re trying to avert is we have in our financial system right now two very large and growing financial institutions which are very effective and are essentially capable of gaining market shares in a very major market to a large extent as a consequence of what is perceived to be a subsidy that prevents the markets from adjusting appropriately, prevents competition and the normal adjustment processes that we see on a day-by-day basis from functioning in a way that creates stability. . . . And so what we have is a structure here in which a very rapidly growing organization, holding assets and financing them by subsidized debt, is growing in a manner which really does not in and of itself contribute to either home ownership or necessarily liquidity or other aspects of the financial markets. . . .
Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.): [T]he federal government has [an] ambiguous relationship with the GSEs. And how do we actually get rid of that ambiguity is a complicated, tricky thing. I don’t know how we do it.
I mean, you’ve alluded to it a little bit, but how do we define the relationship? It’s important, is it not?
Mr. Greenspan: Yes. Of all the issues that have been discussed today, I think that is the most difficult one. Because you cannot have, in a rational government or a rational society, two fundamentally different views as to what will happen under a certain event. Because it invites crisis, and it invites instability. . .
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don’t want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that’s been done here. And that shouldn’t be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, April 6, 2005:

Sen. Schumer: I’ll lay my marker down right now, Mr. Chairman. I think Fannie and Freddie need some changes, but I don’t think they need dramatic restructuring in terms of their mission, in terms of their role in the secondary mortgage market, et cetera. Change some of the accounting and regulatory issues, yes, but don’t undo Fannie and Freddie.

* * *

Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Robert Bennett (R., Utah): I think we do need a strong regulator. I think we do need a piece of legislation. But I think we do need also to be careful that we don’t overreact.
I know the press, particularly, keeps saying this is another Enron, which it clearly is not. Fannie Mae has taken its lumps. Fannie Mae is paying a very large fine. Fannie Mae is under a very, very strong microscope, which it needs to be. . . . So let’s not do nothing, and at the same time, let’s not overreact. . .
Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, “Let’s dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie,” when that is not what’s called for as a result of what’s happened here. . . .
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.): Mr. Chairman, what we’re dealing with is an astounding failure of management and board responsibility, driven clearly by self interest and greed. And when we reference this issue in the context of — the best we can say is, “It’s no Enron.” Now, that’s a hell of a high standard.

cspan videos of them in their own words is not enough for you?

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

Do I have to find the video for you of Clinton (bill) stating that Democrats blocked efforts by Republicans for reform to head off the crisis?

Thanks for those posts, John.

I’m not looking for my OWN sources…

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

I’m interested in your particular sources. I’d like to see the data that leads you to your individual conclusions, so that I can study it and decide for myself.

Seems reasonable enough. Is there some reason why you’re hesitant to provide this?

hesitant?

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

I did provide two links from a few years clearly showing leading Democrats getting quite hostile at the idea of even looking to see if there was a problem with the banking.

Here they are again.

I would be interested if you have ever watched these two videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN31-nKndg8
“Mr. Chairman, we do not have a problem at Freddie Mac”. – Maxine Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0&feature=related

Hesitant?!?

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

Well, when I ask for sources, and I get told, “look them up yourself”, it leads me to wonder why the poster wouldn’t be willing to link me to their sources.

I’ll check out the links you post to when I get a chance. I’m not at a place where I can stream right now.

Question, though… do you believe this is a partisan issue percipitated by the Democrats, or is it a bipartisan lack of action that allowed this to grow to the scale it did? Seems we should have clarification on exaclty what we are “arguing” about.

You’re starting to sound like a troll

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

We’ve provided plenty of sources. I’m beginning to think that you are either being lazy, willfully ignorant, or just a liberal troll.

Here’s another of my favorites: The 1999 New York Times (hardly the standard bearer of the right-wing agenda) article lauding the Clinton Administration and Fannie Mae for loosening underwriting requirements: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

Now, can you imagine an entire economy run by people like this? Soon, you may not have to.

Few “libertarians” are confused by this

In reply to MIA: “traditional Republican Laisse Faire economics”

“do you believe this is a partisan issue percipitated by the Democrats, or is it a bipartisan lack of action that allowed this to grow to the scale it did? Seems we should have clarification on exaclty what we are “arguing” about.”

I think what we are “arguing” about is this notion that you call yourself a “libertarian”, and yet cannot seem to understand that:

A) the current mess is the direct result of government intervention in the marketplace for mortgages
B) your confusion that this intervention somehow represented “lassie faire” principles.
C) That this intervention was mainly the responsibility of Democrats, and any attempts to correct the obvious flaws of this intervention was blocked by Democrats.

Questions?

Re your Depression myths and legacy and ignorance of very recent history

In reply to I am mostly a moderate libertarian

Sorry to disapoint you, but the Democrats totally own the banking meltdown. Republicans and the Bush Administration had been warning about the impending meltdown of Fannie & Freddie since around 2002. It was Fannie & Freddie that created the “moral hazard” that literally rewarded banks for (and threatened to punish them if they did not) make the high-risk loans that precipitated the meltdown. Democrats in Congress would not allow the Republicans to touch these programs, and labeled any attempt to do so as an affront to FDR’s legacy. As recently as last summer, Fannie & Freddie’s overseers in Congress still insisted that there was nothing wrong. Not surprisingly, these same overseers were also the top recipients of campaign cash from Fannie & Freddie.

And these are the people you’d have overseeing the economy?

As for 1929, the Hoover administration pretty much did what the Bush administration has done; abandoned free market principals in favor of regulating what they clearly did not understand and turned what might otherwise had been a correction into a full-fledged depression. They kicked it off with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which is legislation that and then embarked on a program of spending and taxation that sucked the incentive and live out of the economy.

Autos: So, you don’t mind that you’ve been put at risk in the name of “the masses”?

Example: Government specs for airbag performance dictate that airbags are supposed to perform for the benefit of people who are not wearing seat belts. This means that they must be more powerful than they need to be for people who are belted, meaning more injuries as a result of deployment in the name of saving people who do not even care enough about their own safety to buckle up.

Short version: Those of us who do care are disregarded for the sake of those who do not.

This is what we get when we engineer for the masses.

[Author]

Replies