lobbyists on pace for a record year

[Azazello1313]

You idea has SOME merit . . but dont you see the obvious correllation between parties here?

 

When the right was in office, lobbyist didnt have to spend as much because the politicians were already bought and paid for.

 

Now when the left is in power, the businesses that have traditionally been coddled by business-friendly repubs now have to spend MORE to get their agendas passed. (and they WILL get passed, as the the left is BY NO MEANS speaky clean and incorruptable). The left is just trying to figure out ways to be as slick as possible to not offend theor voters.

 

Az, if you and perch REALLY think that the right hasnt been bought and paid for by big business for years, then you are blind as a bat. They really arent too subtle about it . . . It requires more money to buy the left because they need to GET RE ELECTED and figure out more under the counter ways to "launder" the lobbyist money.

 

Same result, but it just takes more to buy the Democrats than the Republicans because the right ALREADY has been working for corporate America . . . see the difference?

 

so the point you're clinging to here in their defense is that the democrats are wh00res with a higher price tag?

 

even if you're right about that, what would seem to be indisputable is that giving the government more power over virtually every aspect of the marketplace increases the opportunities and rewards for graft exponentially.

[Perchoutofwater]

even if you're right about that, what would seem to be indisputable is that giving the government more power over virtually every aspect of the marketplace increases the opportunities and rewards for graft exponentially.

 

Exactly!

[westvirginia]

so the point you're clinging to here in their defense is that the democrats are wh00res with a higher price tag?

 

even if you're right about that, what would seem to be indisputable is that giving the government more power over virtually every aspect of the marketplace increases the opportunities and rewards for graft exponentially.

 

And bp is making the point I've been making for years. A guy asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million dollars. She says "Okay". He asks if she'll sleep with him for $1, and she says "What kind of woman do you think I am?" to which he responds "I thought we'd already decided that, we were just haggling over price?".

 

The point being, a wh0re is a wh0re, after that it's just a question of degrees. If no one has principles in government, how much trust can you really have for them?

[bpwallace49]

And bp is making the point I've been making for years. A guy asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million dollars. She says "Okay". He asks if she'll sleep with him for $1, and she says "What kind of woman do you think I am?" to which he responds "I thought we'd already decided that, we were just haggling over price?".

 

The point being, a wh0re is a wh0re, after that it's just a question of degrees. If no one has principles in government, how much trust can you really have for them?

 

Precisely.

 

Az seems to be clinging to the hope that somehow the right . are "less" whhores than the left?

 

You cannot be serious az . . . .

[bpwallace49]

at perch . . .

 

you guys forget that Perch loves the constitution that was written orginally . . without some of those pesky amendemnets that came later.

 

he only wants wealthy white landowners to be able to vote . . . . . everyone else is offal in the street

[westvirginia]

Precisely.

 

Az seems to be clinging to the hope that somehow the right . are "less" whhores than the left?

 

You cannot be serious az . . . .

 

But you're making it sound like a good thing.

 

Az is correct as well - when the government takes over more power, THEY get to decide the winners and losers, not the market place. This would force lobbyists to spend more, to make sure they have the winning clients.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Government corruption pre-1929 largely exceeded today. Lobbyists weren't necessary for the titans of the Gilded Age.

true

 

You cannot be serious. Why not issue votes based on how much money you've got?

if you own land should be a one of the criteria also.

[Perchoutofwater]

at perch . . .

 

you guys forget that Perch loves the constitution that was written orginally . . without some of those pesky amendemnets that came later.

 

he only wants wealthy white landowners to be able to vote . . . . . everyone else is offal in the street

 

I do love the constitution, and wish we had adhered to it much more strictly particularly in the 1860's, 1930's, 1960's, and 2000's. I like most of the amendments. I do not like the 16th, 18th, or to a much lesser degree the 24th.

 

I believe the 16th amendment has done more to corrupt the government than anything else I can think of. If you limited it to a flat income tax subject to all people then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with some people not being subject to the tax, and some people being taxed at a higher rate than others.

 

The 18th amendment was just stupid, and thankfully was repealed by the 21st.

 

The 24th I really don't think there should be a poll tax, but at the same time I don't think freeloaders should be allowed to vote themselves money or services. I'd not in favor of setting a poll tax, but in making everyone that votes have at least some skin in the game. Do you think it is right that someone that doesn't pay taxes at all has the right to increase my tax bill by voting for people that will give him/her either a "tax credit" or services?

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'd not in favor of setting a poll tax, but in making everyone that votes have at least some skin in the game. Do you think it is right that someone that doesn't pay taxes at all has the right to increase my tax bill by voting for people that will give him/her either a "tax credit" or services?

happens all the time if you own land in more than one state or even county.

[Perchoutofwater]

happens all the time if you own land in more than one state or even county.

 

Now see, if you were to go to a straight up property tax instead of an income tax I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[Ursa Majoris]

Now see, if you were to go to a straight up property tax instead of an income tax I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Property tax, IMO, is the most iniquitous tax of all. In full declaration, I should mention that mine are pretty low compared to many around the metro area and across the country, so I don't have a personal ax to grind.

[Perchoutofwater]

Property tax, IMO, is the most iniquitous tax of all. In full declaration, I should mention that mine are pretty low compared to many around the metro area and across the country, so I don't have a personal ax to grind.

 

Oh, I'd much prefer a sales tax, or a flat income tax with no deductions, but a property tax would be better than what we have, as those that don't currently pay taxes would get hit with the property tax whether it be directly or through increased rent. Every one is taxed equally, everyone has equal say. I would dare say if everyone was taxed equally we would have a whole lot less spending in Washington, as the people that are pretty much leeches now would realize that their pet program is going to cost them something too.

[Ursa Majoris]

Every one is taxed equally, everyone has equal say.

Not with a property tax they aren't. The thing is completely capricious.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Not with a property tax they aren't. The thing is completely capricious.

a resident of a state pays less in property taxes than a person who is not a resident . in MN iit is almost double and in sconny it is double. Thing is you cant vote to change it because you cant vote, you are not a resident .

Edited January 6, 2010 by Yukon Cornelius

[Perchoutofwater]

Not with a property tax they aren't. The thing is completely capricious.

 

You have a federal property tax worth x.xx per $1,000 based on the fair market value of the property. If your property is worth more, it is taxed more. Heck with that you could even add hazard tax to places like Cali and New Orleans that we know have real hazards but idiots build there anyway, that way the idiots that build there are paying more for their future bailout. The only concern is determining fair market value, but that is already done in many states, and most have legitimate and fairly easy ways to protest and correct falsely high evaluations. Again I'd much rather go the sales tax route, I'm just saying the property tax is better than what we currently have where 40% of the people voting effectively pay no federal income tax, and thus have no problem voting for spending other peoples money. That is what I'm looking to correct.

 

 

a resident of a state pays less in property taxes than a person who is not a resident . in MN iit is almost double and in sconny it is double. Thing is you cant vote to change it because you cant vote, you are not a resident .

 

We are talking about a federal tax, not a state tax, but thanks for playing.

[dmarc117]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/wa...nance-lobbyists

[TimC]

the issue here is the more power under washington's thumb, the more the politicians rather than the marketplace are picking the winners and losers, the more advantage there is system-wide to trying to curry favor with the political power-brokers. if the government is taking a more hands-off approach (which is what I want), then that money going to lobbyists would be far better spent on R&D, advertising, etc. -- because the payoff will be there, rather than in legislative loopholes and regulation and corporate welfare. and no, I'm not saying republicans have been good on this issue, because it has been growing like crazy the last decade. it just seems to be getting worse, rather than better, under obama. and that's because government is just wrapping its tentacles around more and more.

 

Yep. Every time Azz is right, Pelosi gets a little uglier.

[westvirginia]

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/wa...nance-lobbyists

 

This would seem to indicate that Glass-Steagal never should have been repealed...

[Ursa Majoris]

You have a federal property tax worth x.xx per $1,000 based on the fair market value of the property. If your property is worth more, it is taxed more. Heck with that you could even add hazard tax to places like Cali and New Orleans that we know have real hazards but idiots build there anyway, that way the idiots that build there are paying more for their future bailout. The only concern is determining fair market value, but that is already done in many states, and most have legitimate and fairly easy ways to protest and correct falsely high evaluations. Again I'd much rather go the sales tax route, I'm just saying the property tax is better than what we currently have where 40% of the people voting effectively pay no federal income tax, and thus have no problem voting for spending other peoples money. That is what I'm looking to correct.

So, my property, like everyone else's, appreciated in the first decade of the century and property taxes rose right along with it as the local government said it was only fair that taxes "reflect fair market value". OK, fine. Now here we are and the property has dropped about 20% (far better situation than most people) and the taxes are exactly the same as they were at the much higher valuation. Shouldn't they have dropped......to reflect "fair market value".

 

Bah. Property taxes are an unpredictable mess.

[Yukon Cornelius]

We are talking about a federal tax, not a state tax, but thanks for playing.

[TimC]

Shouldn't they have dropped......to reflect "fair market value".

 

Why do you hate supporting poor people?

[Perchoutofwater]

So, my property, like everyone else's, appreciated in the first decade of the century and property taxes rose right along with it as the local government said it was only fair that taxes "reflect fair market value". OK, fine. Now here we are and the property has dropped about 20% (far better situation than most people) and the taxes are exactly the same as they were at the much higher valuation. Shouldn't they have dropped......to reflect "fair market value".

 

Bah. Property taxes are an unpredictable mess.

 

Yes your property valuation should be adjusted. Then the government would have to make a decision, either cut spending or raise taxes. And since everyone would be affected by the tax increases (not just the evil wealthy people that provide jobs for other people), it would be more likely that the government would cut spending, or at least do a combination of both.

 

BTW, can you not challenge your property evaluation?

[Ursa Majoris]

Yes your property valuation should be adjusted. Then the government would have to make a decision, either cut spending or raise taxes. And since everyone would be affected by the tax increases (not just the evil wealthy people that provide jobs for other people), it would be more likely that the government would cut spending, or at least do a combination of both.

 

BTW, can you not challenge your property evaluation?

There's nothing wrong with the property valuation - it's just that the associated taxes have not dropped in lockstep with the value, as they did when it was going up.

 

There are other things I don't like about property taxes versus individual taxes, not the least of which is the fact that property taxes are NOT individual. If you can jam 29 people into one house, you still only have the same tax bill.