dayman

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/306280/j-manziel-committed-to-nightlife-as-rookie Citing nearly 20 Browns sources, ESPN's Jeremy Fowler and Pat McManamon report Johnny Manziel exhibited a "year-long pattern" of lacking commitment and preparation to football and a "continued commitment to nightlife" during his rookie year. One player called Manziel a "100 percent joke." Team security reportedly found Manziel "drunk off his a--" the morning before the Browns' season finale. He was fined for missing a treatment for his injured hamstring and spent the Week 17 loss to Baltimore in Cleveland's locker room. During his first NFL start, "Several sources said Manziel either didn't know the plays in the huddle or didn't call them correctly." Sources also told Fowler and McManamon that since-departed OC Kyle Shanahan preferred Jimmy Garoppolo and Tom Savage to Manziel as a 2014 draft prospect. Fowler and McManamon claim Manziel still has some "support in the (Browns') building," though it's mostly "on the business side." Source: ESPN.com Jan 23 - 3:15 PM

Would you raise the gas tax some moderate amount if you could? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rFJay9t_Uc#t=104

Look it's pretty simple...whether the gov't already has enough money for its needs is subjective. It just is. So we have a gov't of people elected to figure it out by debating and voting. There will never be consensus and there will always be a bunch of stuff people think we shouldn't be doing. With that said, the position that new taxes are off limits until one group no longer feels like anything the gov't does is an over-reach or mismanged...it's just not workable in our system. We can't function like that.

Haha what? What exactly does this report look like, what is "highly detailed" to you.

More detail about the national dialogue. I mean, I have no idea what a national dialogue of the detailed results of a financial audit would be. You turn on cspan or cable news and watch a constitutional convention where modern day politicians discuss a detailed gov't wide financial audit? I mean I doubt what that would end up producing would be something you approve of.

Well lets have it then. We've gone over it for bit and I have read what you think. So what would you, living in your life, like to see that you would consider the gov't making the case?

I'm asking, literally, what does it look like to make the case? What person/people does what in what forum.

I say that being a person who wants to make a cake a particular way is not a protected class, and most discrimination laws are ridiculous anyway.

So what are we talking about by making the case? Literally building a huge binder with this report and then talking about all gov't spending on the floor and in the media when the topic is gas tax?

My point is, other than the subpoena power watchdog group (unless you consider something like the GAO a watchdog group), what you are asking for largely exists today and is publicly obtainable. It is a ton of information--probably not pre-packaged in an easily usable format--but it is there.

What would the demonstration be? What form does it take?

They should be banned from winning the division for 5 years.

Do I think the Arkansas Dep't of Human Services could make a mistake? Yup. Am I ever going to read an article about someone ending up with the State taking their children from them and just assume they're being victimized by the State? Hell no. Odds are high some there was some ****ed up **** going on in there.

Mangling the constitution with amendments for things like raising the rate on gas tax because you don't trust it enough as a simple act of congress is unreasonable. Amendments can be repealed and replaced anyway (admittedly, with more difficulty). There just aren't guarantees in this life. Having enough money depends on what legitimate needs are. That is impossible to define as a nation and the way you are looking at it basically means no more money util the gov't stops doing things you disagree with. Not sure what I was saying was much of a stretch. Appropriations records are yours for the taking. Actual gov't institutions are constantly conducting detailed audits of themselves, every day. A large number of employees do nothing but that. These audits follow the money downstream to some extent as well. Outside organizations do some of this as well. These audits are often made public/widely available. If they are not easily found, you can ask for them and get them. Are politicians making explaining the nuanced finances of gov't there platforms? No. But this idea that the gov't secretly squanders our money isn't true at all. To the extent they waste it, they do it fairly openly.

Well then you are against any additional taxes because you believe they have enough money as it is, and that is a reasonable position (even though tax revenue as a % of GDP is historically low). Saying you could be for a tax but only if we amend the constitution is not.

The stimulus wasn't supposed to all go to infrastructure and good amount did. A lot of it was tax cuts and some of it went elsewhere. Good or bad...this isn't that stimulus bill. It isn't designed to be a shotgun like that one either. Either way, there is no logical reason to believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that (just for example) an additional 10 cents a gallon goes to highways. If your completely against the appropriations process, government budgeting, and any/all government ability to audit or implement fiscal controls...then I guess that means you don't agree our government can or should bother with infrastructure.

Nope. But the gas tax goes to highway spending and that fund is robbing other funds, so I'm not concerned about my gas taxes being robbed by other funds at this point. If some future Congress does it, I'm sure I'll have an opinion about whether that is justified at that point.

Accounting nonsense or not, there are regular transfers from general revenue to the allocation for highway spending. Raiding that fund doesn't appear to be a problem that justifies an amendment. The strongest argument for changing the gas tax is that the highway fund is currently raiding other funds...and yet still not funding projects most could agree on.

Well you are never going to have the government not wasting money and you can blame the politicians more than the bureaucrats for that (but most of the blame would just be on the what government is/how it runs). That doesn't mean it shouldn't do infrastructure. And you can get an idea of what is going on with your money now if you are interested, fairly good one if you are really interested and just go through available public documents. Politicians don't talk about this b/c they don't know and people don't care. That doesn't mean there is no info out there or that we shouldn't do infrastructure. If they came up with a relatively decent formula and decided to stick it in the constitution then that is fine with me. But it is not necessary. At some point, we will inevitably have good reason to change it (it's a specific tax)...so it doesn't make sense to put it in the constitution at this point. Yes, future Congresses will destroy, change, and write laws. This is not a bad thing. I think it is a bit ridiculous (and somewhat immature) if you genuinely might agree with a specific idea for a gas tax but only if it is an amendment to the constitution.

What to do with the tax rate is undetermined. Set it up so it goes down or caps out when gas is high or the growth weak. Doesn't matter. I doubt it takes an act of Congress to account for tax money. I'm sure it's a mess and insane but you could get that now. Amendments for each new tax? We don't need to treat our federal constitution like some state's do theirs...it shouldn't be used as a giant statute. Law is good enough, we don't need everything in the constitution.

Well neither of those things are happening. I think it would be reasonable to designate in the law that the funds are to be used on infrastructure and only infrastructure...and then find a reasonable thing to do with the tax rate. Pass an infrastructure bill (that has keystone in there for those who for some reason love keystone) and mess with the gas tax, go build/improve more stuff. Economy is rolling and gas is cheap, now is a fine time to do this.

It's not a percentage and it isn't a flat fee per gallon that is tied to inflation by any formula. It's just 18.4 cents a gallon and has been '93. There's a highway trust fund that this goes toward, and that fund just keeps needing supplements from general revenue to stay afloat...and infrastructure spending as percentage of GDP is historically low. Most people agree that if you are going to do something...building infrastructure is as good as anything. $50 a gallon. It's not going to stay 18.4 cents a gallon forever, it's arbitrary at this point. Since you have to revisit at some point, why not now? It's a pretty regressive tax, conservatives should be able to stomach a small increase if it comes by way of some formula.

B-Man unfamiliar with political State of the Union speeches?

Obama setting up his zinger perfectly.

So Obama just said Keystone is fine if they roll it into his infrastructure bill.