dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 What would the demonstration be? What form does it take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 What would the demonstration be? What form does it take? A highly detailed department by department accounting and justifications of all expenses, outlined against the budget; then handed over for thorough audit to a series of tax payer watchdog groups granted full subpoena powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) 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. Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 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. And my point is, that the money belongs to the citizens, not to the government; so if the government wants more, it is for them to make the case that they need it, not for the citizens to make the case that they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 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? It's a process that should be Constitutionally mandated every 5-10 years. And what we're talking about is the government saying that it doesn't have enough money to meet the obligations of it's legitimate functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) I'm asking, literally, what does it look like to make the case? What person/people does what in what forum. Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I'm asking, literally, what does it look like to make the case? What person/people does what in what forum. I think that would be a great conversation to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I think that would be a great conversation to have. Â 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â 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? It would start with the audit, followed up with a national dialogue about the legitimate functions of government. Â The first run through would likely require a Constitution convention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 A highly detailed department by department accounting and justifications of all expenses, outlined against the budget; then handed over for thorough audit to a series of tax payer watchdog groups granted full subpoena powers. Â Wouldn't work. Government expenses aren't really tracked like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015  Wouldn't work. Government expenses aren't really tracked like that. Ah, well then... I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ah, well then... Â I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. Â Haha what? What exactly does this report look like, what is "highly detailed" to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ah, well then... Â I suppose they could begin tracking them like that, and then ask in two years. Â That experiment wouldn't last three months before the country went belly-up. Actually tracking government expenditures on an accurate, accrual basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I know it's easier said than done, but I'd really like to see some of our defense spending get funneled into infrastructure, public works, education, healthcare, etc. We really need to strengthen the "core" of our nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Where does average mpg, hybrids, etc... fit into this equation? We have to be @ an all-time high w/average car getting better fuel economy. ?? What were the roads set-up for? 20mpg... The average car has to be getting double. What kind of wear and tear does the average weight car do? Â I drive two 2006 vehicles that get around 15 and 20 mpg. My Jeep is light on the road when it comes to wear and tear. Â FWIW... In other news they just raised the amount they take for the Inland Waterway Trust Fund. Raised it from around .20 a gallon to .29 cents on the diesel fuel commercial shippers use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â Haha what? What exactly does this report look like, what is "highly detailed" to you. As Tom just commented, an accurate accrual log. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) The best part is birddog is going to line himself up with baskin and pretend they're "high information" voters. Â High Information - Low Information - As soon as someone breaks out that line all you are saying to the conversation is "What you are saying is stupid ...only my opinion is qualified"... Â My point to the OP is - This - to me - is a relatively simple legislative issue - the revenues to keep our infrastructure in good condition have not kept pace - they need to be raised. To me this is not a liberal/conservative/tea party issue. This is just a simple act of getting things done. Â Yet - Paul Ryan - Chair of W/M says no - "on principle" - whereas to get to his "principle" he has to stretch quite a bit. Â If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? Â As a fiscal conservative...I think that ridiculous battles like this only lessen your ability to get reform on substantive issues. Â And a Constitutional Amendment is not an answer to every issue. Edited January 23, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â Â High Information - Low Information - As soon as someone breaks out that line all you are saying to the conversation is "What you are saying is stupid ...only my opinion is qualified"... Â My point to the OP is - This - to me - is a relatively simple legislative issue - the revenues to keep our infrastructure in good condition have not kept pace - they need to be raised. To me this is not a liberal/conservative/tea party issue. This is just a simple act of getting things done. Â Yet - Paul Ryan - Chair of W/M says no - "on principle" - whereas to get to his "principle" he has to stretch quite a bit. Â If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? Â As a fiscal conservative...I think that ridiculous battles like this only lessen your ability to get reform on substantive issues. Â And a Constitutional Amendment is not an answer to every issue. Â What are we to do? Prioritize. Just like every entity that operates on a budget. Â The problem with politicians is they refuse to make hard choices, instead they have people like you supporting ridiculous positions like "they just don't have enough money", despite the fact that they touch more money than the GDP of all but a handful of nations even generate. Â We do less with more money than any nation on earth. It's not by coincidence and the answer is NEVER going to be "give the politicians more money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â High Information - Low Information - As soon as someone breaks out that line all you are saying to the conversation is "What you are saying is stupid ...only my opinion is qualified"... Â My point to the OP is - This - to me - is a relatively simple legislative issue - the revenues to keep our infrastructure in good condition have not kept pace - they need to be raised. To me this is not a liberal/conservative/tea party issue. This is just a simple act of getting things done. Â Yet - Paul Ryan - Chair of W/M says no - "on principle" - whereas to get to his "principle" he has to stretch quite a bit. Â If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? Â As a fiscal conservative...I think that ridiculous battles like this only lessen your ability to get reform on substantive issues. Â And a Constitutional Amendment is not an answer to every issue. Â You've missed the point of the three pages of dialogue that follow your OP. What critics of the proposal to increase the gasoline tax are saying is to provide more accountability for the funds they already collect. Someone labeling themselves a 'fiscal conservative' should see government accountability as a priority, and should expect legislators to lay out their case for increased funds, whether for infrastructure or anything else. Simply pointing to dilapidated bridges and highways and saying we need more cash in order to fix them doesn't cut it. That's what the TEA party is saying, not 'let the roads and bridges fail'. And that's consistent with their philosophy, considering what the acronym T.E.A. stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Â You've missed the point of the three pages of dialogue that follow your OP. What critics of the proposal to increase the gasoline tax are saying is to provide more accountability for the funds they already collect. Someone labeling themselves a 'fiscal conservative' should see government accountability as a priority, and should expect legislators to lay out their case for increased funds, whether for infrastructure or anything else. Simply pointing to dilapidated bridges and highways and saying we need more cash in order to fix them doesn't cut it. That's what the TEA party is saying, not 'let the roads and bridges fail'. And that's consistent with their philosophy, considering what the acronym T.E.A. stands for. Â Nowhere have I seen a legislator (tea/gop/dem) state that we need to adequately fund our infrastructure but in order to do so we would like to see proper accounting. That is what the posters on this forum state - which I see as perfectly reasonable and can be referred to as "getting things done". Â What your "tea" party legislators are instead saying is "No taxes...ever" which is completely different than your stance... Edited January 23, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â Â Â If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail"....where are we to go? . Â Â When you keep posting foolishness like this, you make all your other points moot. Â Â Â Â Â . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015   When you keep posting foolishness like this, you make all your other points moot   Well you have a choice - you can discuss the point I am trying to raise or you can say there isn't a point...  I try to stay on topic and discuss the point....      . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Â Nowhere have I seen a legislator (tea/gop/dem) state that we need to adequately fund our infrastructure but in order to do so we would like to see proper accounting. That is what the posters on this forum state - which I see as perfectly reasonable and can be referred to as "getting things done". Â What your "tea" party legislators are instead saying is "No taxes...ever" which is completely different than your stance... No, what the "Taxed Enough Already" legislators are saying is the government HAS the money to do what needs to be done and more regressive taxes don't need to be passed because the amount of revenue the federal government takes in is enough to deal with the issues of the land. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with such a simple point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Well, I can see that being polite doesn't work with your closed mind, let me try this................. Â Â When you post statements like this: If the tea party doesn't want to raise fund for roads and bridges and says - "No revenues - let the roads and bridges fail". Â Â Â You prove your ignorance. Â Â . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with such a simple point. Â He can't get the point because as a stereotypical progressive, he believes the money that comes from the people does not actually belong to the people in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Wow - you guys are able to devolve any conversation into "progressive" "what he believes.." You have no idea what I believe Bro - but your belief in yourself sure is high enough to project your stereotypes onto me... Â So - you (TEA partiers) - are telling me that the Federal Government actually has sufficient funds to adequately invest in our infrastructure to bring it up to speed - but they are so inefficient that it appears that don't - and if they became more efficient - they would surely have enough to get the job done.... Â Again - if that is what you are saying surely their is a link or some maths (as the English might parse) that back up your stance.... Â And again - if this is what the TP stance is - are any TP elected legislators saying this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Wow - you guys are able to devolve any conversation into "progressive" "what he believes.." You have no idea what I believe Bro - but your belief in yourself sure is high enough to project your stereotypes onto me... Â So - you (TEA partiers) - are telling me that the Federal Government actually has sufficient funds to adequately invest in our infrastructure to bring it up to speed - but they are so inefficient that it appears that don't - and if they became more efficient - they would surely have enough to get the job done.... Â Again - if that is what you are saying surely their is a link or some maths (as the English might parse) that back up your stance.... Â And again - if this is what the TP stance is - are any TP elected legislators saying this? Â So what you're saying is that the government doesn't actually have sufficient funds to adequately invest in our infrastructure to bring it up to speed? If that's what you're saying surely there is a link or math that backs up that stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/economics/economic-policy-reforms-2013/public-investment_growth-2013-graph177-en#page1 Â U.S. is solidly above average for percentage of GDP for infrastructure spending. U.S spends 3.3% Europe spends 3.1%. Â Again, there's almost no good argument for raising taxes on anything in this country. The government isn't hurting for money, it's hurting for leadership and priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Right now, the revenues collected on gasoline tax are going up, since the amount of the tax is static (18.4 cents per gallon) and the price of gasoline is much lower than it was at this time last year (here's a link to the US Energy Information Administration's numbers going back to 1993: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=W ) Â A gas prices go down, people use more of it. The more they use, the more tax revenue is generated. Â Until someone can produce hard numbers either way, it's not unreasonable to assume the federal government's handling of revenues from gas taxes is as inefficient as it is with in literally every other tax they collect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted January 23, 2015 Author Share Posted January 23, 2015 Ok - Where is the Tea Party platform or wonking work that show how they would reform the budget, the government etc....? Â The TP is quite confident we have all the money we need - maybe we do - where are their policy and budget stances and proposals? Where is their sponsored legislation in the house and senate? Â Where are the actual reform proposals - much harder actually doing something than sniping from the balcony.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) Ok - Where is the Tea Party platform or wonking work that show how they would reform the budget, the government etc....?  The TP is quite confident we have all the money we need - maybe we do - where are their policy and budget stances and proposals? Where is their sponsored legislation in the house and senate?  Where are the actual reform proposals - much harder actually doing something than sniping from the balcony.... http://www.teaparty-platform.com/Tea_Party_Movement_Platform.html  7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government - A bloated bureaucracy creates wasteful spending that plagues our government. Reducing the overall size, scope and reach of government at both local and national levels will help to eliminate inefficiencies that result in deficit spending which adds to our country’s debt.  This is a general approach I know but it is at least a starting point to the answer you want. Edited January 23, 2015 by Dante Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Where is their sponsored legislation in the house and senate? Â Paul Ryan's House-approved budget was sitting on Harry Reid's desk after passing the house in April of last year. It's about to be re-introduced after Obama releases his budget...assuming he does finally does one. Â Thanks for asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Everyone - well almost everyone - agrees that our infrastructure is in need of investment.  Some middle oriented GOP members even say the gas tax needs to be raised.  http://www.nationaljournal.com/policy/insiders/transportation/gas-tax-hike-looking-more-palatable-to-republicans-20150112  Meanwhile Tea Party leader Paul Ryan - Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee says No way...  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/paul-ryan-gas-tax  Tea Party out of their minds? We spend too much on infrastructure already? We can live without adding more money to our already bloated highways ports and airports? Gas tax hasn't been raised in decades, the highway fund is bankrupt and cars are using less gas than ever reducing revenues - something has to change?  Is Paul Ryan helping us out?   Ok - Where is the Tea Party platform or wonking work that show how they would reform the budget, the government etc....?  The TP is quite confident we have all the money we need - maybe we do - where are their policy and budget stances and proposals? Where is their sponsored legislation in the house and senate?  Where are the actual reform proposals - much harder actually doing something than sniping from the balcony.... Sniping from the balcony? You're the one that took the first shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) 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. Â 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. Edited January 23, 2015 by MoreOffense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Look it's pretty simple...whether the gov't already has enough money for its needs is subjective. Â That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 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. Â 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. Nor can we continue to give them more and more money without demanding accountability. The closest thing to immortality is a government program. We were still paying mohair subsidies in 1993 that were put in place so we could make coats for troops in WWII! Â Politicians count on the fact that they can repeat the "we just don't have enough money" lie enough to actually convince people that it's true. That's why we are trillions and trillions in debt at the federal level and virtually every state has countless billions of unfunded liabilities. Last year the United States Government spent more money than the GDP of all but 10 COUNTRIES. To put it in perspective, we weren't far from spending more than CANADA MADE. We spent almost 30% more than the entire economy of SOUTH KOREA. How much is enough? Â At some point the house of cards is going to tumble. We saw a couple of minor instances with the banking industry and the housing markets, both brought to you by politicians who don't have even a basic understanding of how markets work or how to look at possible long term consequences. Yet the President is still trying to curry favor with more "free" stuff and pretending the problem is "not enough revenue." Â The last thing this country needs is another new tax. What it needs is massive reform at all levels of government and way more sensible citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 That's the point. Â Would you raise the gas tax some moderate amount if you could? What it needs is massive reform at all levels of government and way more sensible citizens. Â https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rFJay9t_Uc#t=104 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Â Would you raise the gas tax some moderate amount if you could? Â https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rFJay9t_Uc#t=104 It's nice to see Bill Maher is still a completely senseless dolt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts