Patrick.net

You gotta love prop 13

By Tude   Follow   Wed, 27 Oct 2010, 4:08pm   3,280 views   55 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Helping poor retired old ladies keep their 10,000sf Mansions in Pacific Heights
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/2420-Pacific-Ave-94115/home/1958734

Property Tax
Taxable Value
Land $153,379
Additions $101,291
Total $254,670
Tax (2009) $3,114

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 16-55 of 55     Last »     See most liked comments

1. sam1 Follow Befriend 57 comments Berkeley, CA

   16   11:13pm Wed 27 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Mortgage is only $44k /mo, and that's with 20% down and a 4% rate... The property tax on this is roughly 0.5% of mortgage payment...

2. Tude Follow Befriend 15 threads 356 comments

   17   7:27am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   First, I do have a home in the Bay Area and pay approximately the same taxes on my 1000sf home in a working class neighborhood. I appreciate having been shielded on the way up from insane property tax increases caused by morons overpaying for their homes. That said, I still think prop 13 is a joke, since it applies to all property, including mansions in Pacific Heights owned by family trusts as well as commercial real estate owned by corporations and section 8 properties owned by slumlords alike. That wealthy families are paying less in property taxes on their trophy properties than the average working class family living in a small ranch home in a working class neighborhood with poor schools is a joke.

3. EightBall Follow Befriend 12 threads 495 comments

   18   8:04am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   John Bailo says Right — until this post in Patrick, despite all the political discussions, and fairness arguments, I have yet to hear anyone — Democrat, Republican or Tea Party — to mention unfair property taxes (except for me). Be careful for what you wish for - my property taxes are nearly 15% of the mortgage payment (originally 80% LTV). If I move out and rent it, the tax nearly triples. Reassessment is at the whim of the local tax office. I have to write a letter every few years protesting the increase and only had it changed one time. Most people don't bother and pay increasingly more to live in their house year after year. Years ago my neighbor was paying 1/4 of what I was paying according to the public records. I wrote a letter and mine wasn't lowered - but his was increased the next year to what mine was.

4. Patrick Follow Befriend (54) 5,181 threads 6,153 comments 46 male Menlo Park, CA Premium

   19   8:40am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Tude says First, I do have a home in the Bay Area and pay approximately the same taxes on my 1000sf home in a working class neighborhood. I appreciate having been shielded on the way up from insane property tax increases caused by morons overpaying for their homes. That said, I still think prop 13 is a joke, since it applies to all property, including mansions in Pacific Heights owned by family trusts as well as commercial real estate owned by corporations and section 8 properties owned by slumlords alike. That wealthy families are paying less in property taxes on their trophy properties than the average working class family living in a small ranch home in a working class neighborhood with poor schools is a joke. Yup, that was the whole point of Prop 13: to quietly let the rich evade taxes while claiming it's to benefit the working class. And it worked like a charm! No one noticed that most of the benefits went to people who didn't need it at all.

5. PersainCAT Follow Befriend (1) 145 comments Fairfax, VA

   20   9:26am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   seaside says OK then, Only in CA and WA. Michigan has a simlar thing to this http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,1607,7-238-43535-207881--,00.html you get your taxed value and then it can never go up by more then 5% or inflation every year

6. bubblesitter Follow Befriend (5) 10 threads 2,329 comments

   21   9:42am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I don't want be a pessimist but I sure want to point this out. If you look at history from longer time perspective. Does anyone on this forum thinks excessive taxation(I don't see a way out this mess without tax increases) will be a problem for USA? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire#Theories_of_a_fall.2C_decline.2C_transition_and_continuity .... the empire was forced to raise taxes frequently causing inflation to skyrocket. This in turn caused the major economic stress that others attribute as one of the causes for Rome's decline.

7. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   22   9:57am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   shrekgrinch says They were throwing little old ladies on fixed income out on the street, Patrick. So you're against the free market then.

8. Tude Follow Befriend 15 threads 356 comments

   23   10:00am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   shrekgrinch says Have you ever been employed by a poor person? You know, I get so flippin sick of people saying this. My husband is employed by a working class person who runs the business because he loves it, and pays my husband a good wage because he appreciates his work. He probably has less money than we do, and often pays himself less than he pays my husband. I know lots of people who don't work for rich people. Believe it or not there are people out there, lots of them, running small businesses not to get rich or even make a lot of money, many of them employ people.

9. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   24   10:28am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Tude says You know, I get so flippin sick of people saying this. My husband is employed by a working class person who runs the business because he loves it, and pays my husband a good wage because he appreciates his work. He probably has less money than we do, and often pays himself less than he pays my husband. I know lots of people who don’t work for rich people. Believe it or not there are people out there, lots of them, running small businesses not to get rich or even make a lot of money, many of them employ people. I agree 100%. This is yet another lie created to defraud people into voting for their own destruction. A company like WalMart couldn't POSSIBLY do business in a country like France with high taxes, strong unions, universal health care, and a guaranteed 5 weeks of vacation for every worker. Right Shrek? Isn't that right Shrek?? Never gonna be any WalMarts in France is there Shrek..................

10. Mark_LA Follow Befriend 10 threads 213 comments Pasadena, CA

    25   11:45am Thu 28 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Tude says You know, I get so flippin sick of people saying this. My husband is employed by a working class person who runs the business because he loves it, and pays my husband a good wage because he appreciates his work. He probably has less money than we do, and often pays himself less than he pays my husband. I know lots of people who don’t work for rich people. Believe it or not there are people out there, lots of them, running small businesses not to get rich or even make a lot of money, many of them employ people. I agree 100%. This is yet another lie created to defraud people into voting for their own destruction. A company like WalMart couldn’t POSSIBLY do business in a country like France with high taxes, strong unions, universal health care, and a guaranteed 5 weeks of vacation for every worker. Right Shrek? Isn’t that right Shrek?? Never gonna be any WalMarts in France is there Shrek……………… Wait a minute, it's not fair to ask him about Walmart in France since the Faux News Channel pundits haven't schooled him on that.

11. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    26   10:47am Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says Yeah, and France is poorer for it. The french do not consider a lack of walmarts a serious deficit in their culture.

12. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    27   1:47pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   Protected   shrekgrinch says Yeah, and France is poorer for it. What is the STRUCTURAL unemployment of the low skilled in France — as well a the youth with no real job skills? And why does Wal Mart get far more applicants than it has jobs for? Because there is a demand for those jobs. But hey! Let’s punish the ‘rich’ for providing those jobs! Yeah! That works. You still don't get it. Your entire premise is that a company can't possibly be profitable in our "socialist" environment. (high minimum wages, high taxes, etc) Therefore I gave you an example of a large corporation that is not only profitable in such an environment, but actually thriving and expanding and creating more jobs. Therefore pretty much everything you believe and that you've asserted here is a lie because you can't even BEGIN to explain why WalMart is actually making money in France!!!!! I can think of no other country that "punishes the rich" more than France does, and yet NOTHING you predict is happening. Care to explain why?

13. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    28   8:55pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Care to explain why? I can, in 6 simple words: All. Taxes. Come. Out. of. Rents.

14. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    29   9:15pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says bob2356 says The french do not consider a lack of walmarts a serious deficit in their culture. Good for the French! But whether they like it or not wasn’t the issue. Go back and re-read. You have a serious sense of humor deficit.

15. bob2356 Follow Befriend 2 threads 2,495 comments

    30   9:28pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says France has done an ultra-shitty job at job creation compared to us. Yet, you ignore all that and go off on some Wal-Mart tangent, with out being clear as to why. You think those five week vacations are ‘free’? Nope. The poor snots who can’t find a job in France — mostly French youth as there is an entire generation of people entering their thirties over there who have no real job experience because they could never get an entry level job — are the ones who pay for it, whether it is 5 week vacations at Wal-Mart or the local tourist stand in front of the Eiffel Tower. Of course, you can never look at who pays the consequences of social welfare bullshit, can you? That is not allowed on Planet Iwog. Have you ever been to France other than the "It's Tuesday, this is Paris" typical American with 2 weeks vacation a year stroke job? I've spent a lot of time there, have traveled extensively there, and had the great opportunity to live there almost a year.The French are very happy with their economy thank you very much. Unemployment has hovered around 10% since the 1950's. It is the expected norm. France has done such a shitty job with job creation that it is the fifth largest economy in the world for christ sake. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

16. nosf41 Follow Befriend 6 threads 263 comments San Francisco, CA

    31   10:20pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says shrekgrinch says Yeah, and France is poorer for it. What is the STRUCTURAL unemployment of the low skilled in France — as well a the youth with no real job skills? And why does Wal Mart get far more applicants than it has jobs for? Because there is a demand for those jobs. But hey! Let’s punish the ‘rich’ for providing those jobs! Yeah! That works. You still don’t get it. Your entire premise is that a company can’t possibly be profitable in our “socialist” environment. (high minimum wages, high taxes, etc) Therefore I gave you an example of a large corporation that is not only profitable in such an environment, but actually thriving and expanding and creating more jobs. Therefore pretty much everything you believe and that you’ve asserted here is a lie because you can’t even BEGIN to explain why WalMart is actually making money in France!!!!! I can think of no other country that “punishes the rich” more than France does, and yet NOTHING you predict is happening. Care to explain why? This is no magic, Walmart operates in the same environment as its competitors in France. High minimum wages and high taxes apply to Walmart competitors as well. Therefore, as long as Walmart can obtain goods cheaper than its competition, they will be able to maintain lower prices in their stores, attract customers and grow business in France. It would be interesting to compare Walmart's hiring policies in USA vs France. I think it is reasonable to assume that they hire more people in the USA.

17. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    32   10:21pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Shrek is speaking from pure ignorance. First he asserts that high costs will drive business out of the country. When presented with an example of WalMart actually expanding INTO such a country, he has no explanation. Shrek, I don't know how you missed the fact that my one example is a DIRECT contradiction of everything you're arguing here. HOW can WalMart possibly be expanding into France if ANYTHING you've said is true?

18. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    33   10:39pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says First he asserts that high costs will drive business out of the country. When presented with an example of WalMart actually expanding INTO such a country, he has no explanation. Are you comparing a retail vs non-retail business ? Of course high costs drive business into low cost regions. Every business leader will tell you so, and its everyday reality. Symantec 10K filing, a common statement amoung many. http://investor.symantec.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=89422&p=irol-sec&seccat01enhanced.1_rs=31&seccat01enhanced.1_rc=10&x=36,30&y=5,8 "We reduced our cost structure in order to improve operational efficiencies across our business. Some of the actions included: carefully managing our headcount costs; outsourcing certain back office functions; consolidating facilities; relocating certain research and development functions to lower cost locations; and reducing travel and entertainment expenses and other discretionary expenses."

19. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    34   10:53pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   thomas.wong1986 says Are you comparing a retail vs non-retail business ? Of course high costs drive business into low cost regions. Every business leader will tell you so, and its everyday reality. Symantec 10K filing, a common statement amoung many. LOL......I suggest you stop reading corporate excuses for shareholders and start reading books on economics. If high costs drive business into low cost regions, then why isn't WalMart losing money expanding into one of the highest cost regions on the world? Answer: The assertion is false. High minimum wages don't make WalMart unprofitable. Unions don't make WalMart unprofitable. 5 weeks mandatory vacation doesn't make Walmart unprofitable. High taxes don't make WalMart unmprofitable. It's ALL CRAP! American corporations are driving down wages and outsourcing because they can. Period.

20. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    35   11:27pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Last I checked WalMart is in Bentonville, Arkansas. They have retail and distribution channels across many states and international, just like any other retail outfit. Reason Walmart can thirve is they have an automated distribution system, few if any can match globaly. Your point is what ? Now make the same argument with deflationary industries like the Semiconductor business. Why did we lose our mfg to the Philippines and Tiger Nations when the Japanese cut their prices less than US mfg costs ? Or Autos, Steel, and many other now Japanese dominated industries.

21. MarkInSF Follow Befriend 14 threads 1,118 comments

    36   11:57pm Fri 29 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   shrekgrinch says They were throwing little old ladies on fixed income out on the street, Patrick. So cut old people a break. We give them SS on our dime, why not a break on property taxes for a primary residence? Or at least let the taxes be a lien to be paid on sale or death. Instead, now a huge percentage of long-held properties under prop 13 are commercial properties. And residential rentals. If I bought bought my place from my landlord I'd have to pay 10X the taxes. Or for that matter if I wanted to be landlord I am at an extreme disadvantage because of the preferential tax treatment long term landlords receive. Please explain who is being protected here? These prop 13 parasites are no better that unions that try to stick it to junior members, and yet "conservatives" defend them tooth and nail.

22. thomas.wong1986 Follow Befriend 16 threads 4,426 comments

    37   12:19am Sat 30 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   OK Lets do away with Prop 13 altogether! Now what ?

23. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    38   1:26am Sat 30 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   thomas.wong1986 says OK Lets do away with Prop 13 altogether! Now what ? To break Prop 13 we don't even have to repeal it. The easiest way would be to tax rents. That's not ad valorem so Prop 13 doesn't apply. A second way would be replace the existing ad valorem taxes with a land title tax -- charged on land area at a specified millage set by localities. Not ad valorem either even though it closely resembles the L V T : ) With the added revenues we could restore the two state programs that gave low-income seniors and disabled a break (outright subsidies and deferred taxes that are rolled into liens). Win-win for everyone. Except rentiers.

24. native94027 Follow Befriend 2 threads 100 comments Atherton, CA

    39   8:36am Sun 31 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Rather than come up with more ways to get the profligate CA government to raise taxes "on the other guy"... have any of the geniuses here stopped to question why the fuck we don't ask the government to cut back on all the shit they spend the money on? I don't raise my kids' allowance this week just because she blew most of last week's money on overpriced cotton candy that her school was peddling. I told her she needs to understand how to spend responsibly before she is given control over a bigger pile of money. Why do we not expect the government to display the same self-restraint before allowing it to shake us down for more? It is not about prop 13 - you may think that it only affects the other guy. But it perpetuates and strengthens a government beast that will come after you on some other pretext next month.

25. Landru3000 Follow Befriend (2) 10 threads 84 comments Oakland, CA

    40   9:08am Sun 31 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   I raised my kid's allowance as he needed more books for school, as bus fares went up, as he joined after school sports activities and got move involved in his community. For example. Geeze, what is with the whole "government beast" bit? Sounds a whole lot like a Timothy McVeigh rant. I don't know about you, but this is America for Gods sake. I'm proud of America, most of it anyway. I'm proud of the Social Security system, the National Highway System. National Parks. Howzabout the US Army? Or the National Guard? The CDC? "Government beast" my ass. Just because it needs fixing, doesn't mean it Satan. I want to say "Go fuck yourself and move to Mexico", but this is America, and we are all in this together. Don't be so cray cray and go do something constructive. Volunteer somewhere or something. native94027 says Rather than come up with more ways to get the profligate CA government to raise taxes “on the other guy”… have any of the geniuses here stopped to question why the fuck we don’t ask the government to cut back on all the shit they spend the money on? I don’t raise my kids’ allowance this week just because she blew most of last week’s money on overpriced cotton candy that her school was peddling. I told her she needs to understand how to spend responsibly before she is given control over a bigger pile of money. Why do we not expect the government to display the same self-restraint before allowing it to shake us down for more? It is not about prop 13 - you may think that it only affects the other guy. But it perpetuates and strengthens a government beast that will come after you on some other pretext next month.

26. native94027 Follow Befriend 2 threads 100 comments Atherton, CA

    41   10:56pm Sun 31 Oct 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Landru3000 says “Government beast” my ass. Just because it needs fixing, doesn’t mean it Satan. I want to say “Go fuck yourself and move to Mexico”, but this is America, and we are all in this together. Don’t be so cray cray and go do something constructive. Volunteer somewhere or something. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said. I don't believe raising the allowance is a good thing if the person (or the CA government, in this case) has shown a tendency to spend its current allowance unwisely. Finding new revenue sources to suck from isn't really the answer. It has nothing to do with being proud of america, or fucking oneself or moving to Mexico or volunteering, since none of those things have anything to do with the matter.

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,445 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    42   10:54am Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Your hatred for government is well documented, but it is totally without justification. You've simply been brainwashed to believe that government is bad without actually being able to make an argument why government is bad. This is why such an analysis is totally absent from all of your posts.

28. Mark_LA Follow Befriend 10 threads 213 comments Pasadena, CA

    43   1:44pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I just hit the Ignore button on Shrek, ah...now I can breathe without hearing a Tea Bagger rant in every thread. It feels as good as when I programmed my "Favorites" button on my TV remote to no longer have to flip through the Faux Republican News Channel pundits and all their yelling, slant, and rants.

29. John Bailo Follow Befriend 93 threads 431 comments Kent, WA John Bailo's website

    44   4:15pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   native94027 says Rather than come up with more ways to get the profligate CA government to raise taxes “on the other guy”… have any of the geniuses here stopped to question why the fuck we don’t ask the government to cut back on all the shit they spend the money on? That would be a good question to ask...once Property Taxes are normalized and made equitable again. At that point, people will be taxed in accordance with what they own...which is the only fair way. It is at that point that those with the biggest stake -- the largest asset holders -- will start to scream about government spending. Right now, Government is used to tax the poor and middle classes and funnel it up to the large asset holders.

30. John Bailo Follow Befriend 93 threads 431 comments Kent, WA John Bailo's website

    45   4:18pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   shrekgrinch says MarkInSF says So cut old people a break. We give them SS on our dime, why not a break on property taxes for a primary residence? Or at least let the taxes be a lien to be paid on sale or death. Instead, now a huge percentage of long-held properties under prop 13 are commercial properties. And residential rentals. If I bought bought my place from my landlord I’d have to pay 10X the taxes. Or for that matter if I wanted to be landlord I am at an extreme disadvantage because of the preferential tax treatment long term landlords receive. Please explain who is being protected here? These prop 13 parasites are no better that unions that try to stick it to junior members, and yet “conservatives” defend them tooth and nail. See, that brings up the other part. Whenever there is a revolution — whether blood or peaceful — everything is up for grabs. In this case, conservatives managed to sneak in all kinds of nifty things like giving everyone the break and making it hard for the legislature to vote on further tax increases. And anybody who tries to change it…well, you know what happens. But, if liberal Big Government wasn’t fucking up in the first place to give those folks their ‘in’, none of that would have happened. In other words, if liberal Big Government was as competent as its proponents constantly claim it is, the backlash would not have happened and the resulting revolution called Prop 13 would not have happened. Ditto for the Obamunists in Congress right now. Ditto for the Dems under soon-to-be-elected Gov Moonbeam II — in another two years there will be another backlash after Moonbeam drives whats left of the state into the total shitter. It will be Son of Prop 13. It’s so predictable that it competes with the reliability of the sun rising every morning. As a conservative, I love Prop 13 not because it protects old ladies (although that is a bonus) but because it ’starves the beast’. Whatever can fiscally fuck over out-of-control government is AOK in my book. And 90% of what government spends on (note, that is not the same as ‘what it does’) falls into the category of ‘out of control’. And it is getting worse and worse. The sweat pension deals of the unions will ruin the state just on their own. I am sure as hell not paying for that. Prop 13 will help ensure that. It is even going to get better as property tax assessments will be locked in to the ‘new’ sales prices of all these foreclosures and other falling property values. Then people will challenge their existing assessments by demanding new ones (which will reduce property taxes even more). The Beast will get starved even more. And that is why THIS conservative defends Prop 13. I love it. You call yourself a "conservative" but you're afraid of the Free Market. Not possible. If someone owns something that should be valued at "Fair Use" and taxed as such, then that's the way it is. People have to make adjustments accordingly. Quite frankly, I think fair and value based Property Taxes is one of the few sane and fair ways of normalizing the economy.

31. Vicente Follow Befriend (8) 203 threads 4,403 comments Davis, CA

    46   4:27pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   shrekgrinch says As a conservative, I love Prop 13 not because it protects old ladies (although that is a bonus) but because it ’starves the beast’. Whatever can fiscally fuck over out-of-control government is AOK in my book. Yes, this is the actualilty of "starve the beast". It's not "I want a minimal government", that's just the cover story for the real operation. SABOTAGE ALL GOVERNMENT ending in Mad Max is the goal, because conservatives want to live out their Randist fantasies of being all bootstrappy and able to come out on top in a caveman world.

32. Mark_LA Follow Befriend 10 threads 213 comments Pasadena, CA

    47   4:30pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   John Bailo says You call yourself a “conservative” but you’re afraid of the Free Market. Not possible. That's how silly the Tea Baggers are, since they want to do the following: 1. Slash the Deficit 2. Make the George Bush Tax Cuts Permanent (thereby increasing the deficit by billions that they just "slashed" in #1 above) Not Possible (except to a Tea Bagger).

33. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    48   5:19pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Mark_LA says John Bailo says You call yourself a “conservative” but you’re afraid of the Free Market. Not possible. That’s how silly the Tea Baggers are, since they want to do the following: 1. Slash the Deficit 2. Make the George Bush Tax Cuts Permanent (thereby increasing the deficit by billions that they just “slashed” in #1 above) Not Possible (except to a Tea Bagger). Sure. And democrats want to: 1. Increase or at least keep the existing spending 2. Not increase taxes, or at least by nowhere near to close the gap with spending Continue borrowing to make ends meet, I guess forever. Not possible, expect to O'babies. Which is why I am not voting in this election, again. I will when there is a serious candidate (D, R, and likely neither) who, like Churchill, offers us only "sweat, blood, and tears". Because taxes (or other means of govt. revenue collection) have to go WAY up or spending on NEARLY EVERYTHING (incl. all three "sacred cows" of SS, Med., and DoD) has to be slashed WAY down, and likely both. Pretty soon, I'm afraid. Perhaps that is impossible in a true democracy over the long term, which is why all mature democracies (US, Europe, Japan) end up in the same debt trap, regardless of all the major political and social differences. Then democracy would have to go.

34. tatupu70 Follow Befriend (3) 15 threads 5,606 comments

    49   5:29pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Yes--by all means don't vote. That's definitely the adult way to handle it.

35. middleman Follow Befriend 2 threads 66 comments Poway, CA middleman's website

    50   6:27pm Mon 1 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   edited: I promised myself I'd be a nicer person.

36. native94027 Follow Befriend 2 threads 100 comments Atherton, CA

    51   10:42am Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Many are voting anti-incumbent in this election. And some people may vote with their money on Dec 07. http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/bank-run-being-organized-across-europe-on-december-7-2010/ Not advocating this, just making an observation.

37. Fisk Follow Befriend (1) 8 threads 242 comments

    52   2:27pm Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   shrekgrinch says This entire board is one ObamaCommie Reality Free Zone, I swear. Absolutely, you don't even know how much. I myself have, joining the All-Union Leninist Communist Youth Organization of USSR at age 15, raised my hand and solemnly swore in the presence of my friends and classmates to fight for the great ideals of communism to the last drop of my blood and last minute of my live. And I did it so well that, by age 17, I already was a deputy secretary of the class cell of the same for ideology. Hope you didn't get a heart attack, did you?

38. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    53   2:49pm Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   shrekgrinch says And, the bulk of whatever taxes I pay should go to the local first, state second and feds distant last. I mostly agree with this. It was living in Japan and seeing my city taxes be 15%, national tax at 5%, and national pension at 10% that opened my eyes. That seemed about right. We expend so much energy at the national level and almost nothing at the state level. This is stupid, especially for a state like California which has the GDP of Canada, Russia, or India. I do think we need to "spread the wealth around" which means state-first and local second. Otherwise you just get favelas and enclaves eventually. Speaking of which, I think Norway does a pretty good job running their economy, much better than your desired minarchy will ever be able to achieve. But this comes from having a rational and industrious people perhaps and not the economic system itself. I think there's validity to the argument that people living Up North have to be more conscientious and socialistic communitarians, given their winter climate.

39. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    54   2:51pm Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Or was that tolerant part just a bunch of bullshit as well? Being tolerant of passive-aggressive butthurtedness is difficult, but I'm trying.

40. ¥ Follow Befriend 35 threads 5,700 comments Bellingham, WA

    55   3:27pm Tue 2 Nov 2010   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   I play the ball, not the man.

« First     « Previous comments