Take a harder look at it. I bleive that the lower income brackets get a credit to help. I looked at it it could be wrong but it's not a horrid idea. What terrifies the politicians and why it will never happen is that they wouldn't control what gets taken automatically, it's amazing the number of people who are oblivious to what gets taken each week. That's why it will nver happen.
I like a flat tax too, only because I think it has a marginally better chance at passage. But we got along without an income tax for over a hundred years and it has become the biggest ripoff the country has ever seen. The worst part is the withholding. If we just repealed that, the country would scream when they saw how much they really pay.
I think people understand withholding. Most, I'm sure prefer it.
To some extent yes. But I can tell you from experience many people don't. Partly it's their fault for not realizing it. But you'd be amazed as I was at the number of people who have no idea about it.
The money to many people is just simply gone, without ever having it in their hands. It makes it easier for politicians to get at it because people never really view it as theirs. Look at how people treat refunds if they've paid in to much. They act like it's manna from heavan and get all excited ususally failing to realize it was theirs to begin with.
How about instead of flat tax etc. we start with having people have to actually write a check every 3 months like some do now? I have to do it and I guarantee you think more about it. Comparing when I had witholding done to having to do quarterly's it was a big difference. The last quarter is always even more fun because you pay for the last quarter PLUS any money you still have to pay in. The change we would see in attitudes would be stark. That's why the politicians and the willing to pay for a better Minnesota crowd don't want it.
Nope nothing that sinister at all. I simply have seen how many people don't realize what they're actually paying is all. It's how we got to spending more on taxes than we do housing and food.
The worst part is the withholding. If we just repealed that, the country would scream when they saw how much they really pay.
If people had to write a check at the end of the year to pay their tax bill there would be more than screaming. I think people would revolt and really start pressuring politicians. If you ask people how much they paid in taxes last year, most would say something to the effect "None, I got some back!" That is how ignorant most people are on the amount of taxes they pay. I like the idea of a flat tax also, it sounds fairer. But I think people should have to write the check themselves. The automatic witholding needs to end. Only then will the people realize what is at stake.
No, so they can see how much in taxes they pay, how much the government needs to be trimmed down and how much money is wasted in Washington. Imagine the day after everyone had to write a check for say over 5 grand to pay their income tax bill. People start talking to their friends at the water cooler and they start to see how much money is involved. Then they start to ask "what do they do with all that money?" I think things would change and government would truely be downsized so people could keep more of their own money.
Why do you want to keep the automatic withdrawl? To help keep the sheep blind and stupid?
Why force that on people? So you can make a point?
Force ? Talk about force, they force most people to have it taken automatically from their checks, that my friend is force.
The point Wolvie I believe was getting at was the same one I was trying to make in that most people or at least many don't realize what is being taken from their checks. All they see is the money that they get back if any and it's like it's a gift from Uncle Sam. It's not it's your money.
For instance let's say everyone had to write checks quarterly. Now let's say the government decides we need to spend more on widgets. So they say, o.k folks, next quarter based on your income you'll need to kick in an extra $200.00 on that check you write. Do you think it might not get challenged more.
It's alot harder to spend money you never had in the first place and that's exactly what politicians want. If you control it from the word go, you tend to notice a bit more if you are actually taking it out of your bank after you've deposited it.
It wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone, it would merely be giving people freedom with their money. Right now most don't have that option and are being forced to have it manually taken out. Odd how you find someone would be forced to do something when the government is the one doing the coerscion, then it's o.k i guess.
Electrical outlets had barely cooled Thursday night when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took to the airwaves to blame the Bush administration for causing the nation's worst blackout ever.
Given her outraged tones, however, one would never know that she's been a leader in opposing energy independence for New York State, preferring instead to champion environmental cause celebs like fighting acid rain and closing the Indian Point nuclear plant.
At times Sen. Clinton's rhetoric bordered on the hysterical as she fought to make it more difficult for energy suppliers to meet New Yorkers' growing demand for their product.
Last year, for instance, Clinton slammed a Bush administration proposal to allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more punishing environmental regulations.
She warned of "dirtier air and rising temperatures" that would expose citizens "to increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain and mercury-tainted fish."
In contrast, her 2000 Senate opponent, then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was arguing that New York needed more power plants as far back as 1999.
"If we don't increase significantly the amount of power in the city of New York, we will have happen to us what happened in California," he warned, after a blackout in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan.
USA Today reported at the time:
"New York City and Long Island could face power shortages because of limited connections to the state's power grid. The city is 400 megawatts short of what it needs during peak usage. The New York Power Authority plans to set up 10 small generators -- turbines that provide 44 megawatts each -- at existing power substations."
The paper went on to note, however, that, "environmentalists opposed to the noise and pollution from these generators fired by natural gas have challenged the plan. Businesses with emergency generators are being asked to supply their own power during times of high electricity demand."
50 million Americans got an up close and personal look Thursday night as to how well the Greenies' energy back-up plan worked.
Still, as recently as two weeks ago, Sen. Clinton was working to limit New York State's electrical generating capacity, joining with the enviro-nuts in a bid to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant.
In a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the former first lady said that she was "deeply disturbed" over the agency's decision to recertify Indian Point over the objections of local nuclear power critics.
Luckily for New Yorkers, FEMA ignored Hillary's complaints, and the plant is expected to be up and running again by Monday.
In the meantime, New York's top anti-energy Democrat continues to complain about Bush administration attempts to boost the nation's power output through deregulation.
"They have continued to try to push deregulation and privatization," she told Larry King as New York slipped into darkness two nights ago. "And to try to undo a lot of the systems [and] changes that many of us thought were important and necessary that we tried to work on during the Clinton administration."
According to at least one account, however, even her husband was a booster of deregulation. What's more, President Clinton reportedly planned to use increasingly frequent blackouts as a strategy to build support for his plan.
"So long as White House air conditioners continue to whirr, President Clinton - who would like deregulation to be an accomplishment of his second term - can afford to sit back and let the political temperature rise," reported London's Independent in 1999. "The hope seems to be that the worse things get, the more pressure will mount on Congress to legislate."
The Independent added:
"[Clinton's] adviser on deregulation, Richard Glick, said this week almost cheerfully: 'We're going to see a couple of tough summers.'"
So far, at least, reporters have declined to question Sen. Clinton about her husband's deliberate plan to leave the U.S. vulnerable to the kind of massive power outage that left eight states in chaos this week.
"At times Sen. Clinton's rhetoric bordered on the hysterical..."
There's a lot of people who want to gain political advantage by portraying Hillary Clinton as hysterical.
The Hysterical Female -- how often have we read that? From what I've heard, she's spent most of the time praising recently New Yorkers for their conduct.
"Last year, Clinton slammed a Bush administration."
LAST YEAR!?!?!?!? WHO WRITES THIS BULLSHIT? And they use it now for political posturing after a disaster. Republican through and through. Rotten to the core.
"as utilities scrambled to buy power from northern states and into Canada" - Fold
First, I'm not criticizing you Fold, just the story. That is the biggest load of crap story I have ever heard. It takes a marketer far less than 2 days to purchase power. Generator failure has little to do with what happened recently, in fact, power plants go down all the time. That is why utilities are required to have a certain amount of "spinning reserve" to handle loss of generation. I may not know what the conditions were that day, but I would gather there is more to that story than is being told.
As far as who is to blame...We are, all of us! Until we stop letting nutballs prevent the expansion of nuclear power, are most abundant resource to date, we are creeping ever so close to the "dark ages".
Never mind. I looked up the blackout in 1989. I suppose you expect power to stay on in a natural disaster? It was the weather, not Republicans, that caused that outage. Unless you are accusing Republicans of controlling the weather?
In the first part of "What Makes a Liberal?" among the points I made -- but could not develop in the space of a column -- was that "liberal" and "left" have become indistinguishable. This is new. And it is a tragedy for the nation and the world.
Good points there, Jethro. And somewhere I have seen a quote from our own Hubert Humphrey, a great liberal, about how important the individual right to bear arms is.
"You don't hear this from AM radio, which is packed with angry men with chain-saw voices chewing into liberals 24/7, or from Ann Coulter, who is selling the old Stalinist line that dissent equals disloyalty. Or from the aging adolescents at Fox News, who enjoy peeing in the political swimming pool."
Keillor wrote: The Body was a troubled soul who, we discovered in the course of four years that got longer and longer, truly despised politics and the limelight and growled and ranted and threw snits and went and sulked in his tent.
Can you take someone seriously that thinks Jesse despised the limelight? He loves the limelight. Unfortunately for Jesse he didn't want the responsibility.
You don't hear this from AM radio, which is packed with angry men with chain-saw voices chewing into liberals 24/7, or from Ann Coulter, who is selling the old Stalinist line that dissent equals disloyalty. Or from the aging adolescents at Fox News, who enjoy peeing in the political swimming pool."
Gee, I thought I remembered someone on another thread admonishing folks for attacking the person instead of what they say.
Then again, he didn't mind making blanket statements about people that voted for Coleman or attacking Coleman himself. Typical liberal atttacking the person.
Then that means I won't read a comment from you on what Keillor said, either, right Rob?
What did he say ? Do you comment on every article posted here ? I mean he attacked talk radio and Fox, wow there's a new and groundbreaking perspective, you never hear that anywhere. As for the rest of it, he can be very funny at times, other times simply condescending.
Everyone knows a new car loses value the minute it's driven off the dealer's lot, but that's nothing compared with what the Metropolitan Council faced.
The council spent $605,737 last year for a model of one of its Hiawatha light-rail cars. Ten months later, it sold it back to the Canadian manufacturer, Bombardier, for $60,000.
"I've heard of depreciation, but this is absurd," Rep. Phil Krinkie, R-Shoreview, said Thursday. "This is an embarrassment that the Met Council would accept such a ridiculously low offer."
Hardly, council officials replied. The mockup was an important step in building the real fleet of 24 rail cars at $3 million apiece, they said, but once the design kinks were worked out its value was next to nothing.
"Our guys felt pretty good that they got anything for it," said Met Council Administrator Tom Weaver. "I can't imagine there's much of a market for these things."
In addition to quality control during manufacturing, the mockup was used to develop training and operations manuals for the real 187-passenger cars.
"This front-end investment allows for more effective orientation and training for staff and more cost-effective maintainability of the vehicles over the long term," Weaver wrote to Krinkie this week. The Hiawatha line will operate with fewer workers and spare cars than those of any other light-rail system in North America, he added.
The mockup, which has real seats and interior panels but no mechanical parts, also helped promote the $715 million transit line via public displays in downtown Minneapolis and at the 2002 State Fair.
Gee, only $605,737 of taxpayers money on a fake choo choo. What a bargain. It's Used to work out kinks and design flaws ? Hey Met council, that's the manufacture's job ! What a bunch of morons. Do you buy a car that's brand new and then expect the consumer to work on the flaws and design ? No. They should have said to Bombardier. Here's what we want. Then they go look at them and test them at the MANUFACTURE'S expense before you buy one, NOT ours, geez. You tell them what you like and what you don't like and they fix it or don't get the contract. They do the training as part of the deal. But to buy one and sell it back at that price ? Thumbs up to the purchasing department over at the Met Council. Good to see they're looking out for us lowly taxpayers. Trains a comin ! Choo Choo ! Chugga Chugga Chugga, oops, there goes another million, the train just moved 10 feet.
The FEC is still in the process of investigating the Minnesota DFL House Caucus and DFL Party. In the letter, the FEC says that it “may still take further legal action concerning the acceptance of prohibited contributions.” Two weeks ago, when GOP officials announced that they had filed a complaint with the state campaign finance board regarding the transfer of funds, DFL officials dismissed the infraction as “old news,” yet neglected to reveal that just a week earlier the FEC had ordered Party officials to return the more than $261,000.
Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in socialist countries give little charity, while Americans give vast amounts (just as Americans in conservative states give more charity per capita than people in liberal ones).
why supporting Churches is such a great thing is beyond me.
Why is supporting a vast burdensome government is such a great thing is beyond me. But then, crabs, you don't care about that either being an anarchist and all.
No you want to do what ever you want whenever you want without any law to tell you otherwise. You do not respect society's rules. That is anarchy and you believe in it.
sure...you don't want to help everyone...just those who believe in YOUR god.
Sorry to tell you this but you are way off on this one.
My church sponsors kids all over the US and the globe, our volunteers help out at the homeless shelters. A group of women from our church do daycare for low income workers, they do so at a loss and our church helps subsidize it. I've done a trip to Mexico with a bunch of the other guys. I took a week off work and 20 of us went down there and in one week built a school and 2 houses. We did it with a bunch of other churches, it was great and I can't wait to do it again. A duplex near the U of M hospitals was donated by one of our members and is a house for parents and their families to stay while their child is undergoing chemo treatments. It's named after one of the girls in our church who died at age 11. We're rennovating it and paying for the upkeep and taxes. Next week a family that we sponsored is moving here from Nigeria and they will now have a better chance at a decent life. Those are just a few of the things we do.
In any of those cases and the other things our church does we never turned someone away because they didn't believe as we do. In most cases it never gets brought up. Of course we tell them the name of the church but that's really about it. Nobody has ever said don't help them they're Muslim etc. In fact the family from Nigeria is Muslim. Perhaps if you spent some time doing things like these you'd have an understanding of it.
It's easy to say we should do or help someone, harder to do it. I could probably do more and I should but at every problem that arises It's too easy to say the government should do something.
why supporting Churches is such a great thing is beyond me.
THX 1138 8/13/03 7:31pm
Take a harder look at it. I bleive that the lower income brackets get a credit to help. I looked at it it could be wrong but it's not a horrid idea. What terrifies the politicians and why it will never happen is that they wouldn't control what gets taken automatically, it's amazing the number of people who are oblivious to what gets taken each week. That's why it will nver happen.
I like a flat tax better personally.
I like a flat tax too, only because I think it has a marginally better chance at passage. But we got along without an income tax for over a hundred years and it has become the biggest ripoff the country has ever seen. The worst part is the withholding. If we just repealed that, the country would scream when they saw how much they really pay.
I think people understand withholding. Most, I'm sure prefer it.
And most companies allow people to somewhat regulate you withholding, don't they?
To some extent yes. But I can tell you from experience many people don't. Partly it's their fault for not realizing it. But you'd be amazed as I was at the number of people who have no idea about it.
The money to many people is just simply gone, without ever having it in their hands. It makes it easier for politicians to get at it because people never really view it as theirs. Look at how people treat refunds if they've paid in to much. They act like it's manna from heavan and get all excited ususally failing to realize it was theirs to begin with.
How about instead of flat tax etc. we start with having people have to actually write a check every 3 months like some do now? I have to do it and I guarantee you think more about it. Comparing when I had witholding done to having to do quarterly's it was a big difference. The last quarter is always even more fun because you pay for the last quarter PLUS any money you still have to pay in. The change we would see in attitudes would be stark. That's why the politicians and the willing to pay for a better Minnesota crowd don't want it.
"Partly it's their fault for not realizing it."
What's their fault? Is this an issue of affixing blame, becasue people aren't sufficiently outraged over something?
I pay taxes quarterly, too. I sit down, write out the checks, say "ARRGGGGH!" I put them in the mail and it's over.
What sort of change in attitude do you want? Does it involve pitchforks?
Rick 8/15/03 8:20am
Nope nothing that sinister at all. I simply have seen how many people don't realize what they're actually paying is all. It's how we got to spending more on taxes than we do housing and food.
The worst part is the withholding. If we just repealed that, the country would scream when they saw how much they really pay.
If people had to write a check at the end of the year to pay their tax bill there would be more than screaming. I think people would revolt and really start pressuring politicians. If you ask people how much they paid in taxes last year, most would say something to the effect "None, I got some back!" That is how ignorant most people are on the amount of taxes they pay. I like the idea of a flat tax also, it sounds fairer. But I think people should have to write the check themselves. The automatic witholding needs to end. Only then will the people realize what is at stake.
Why force that on people? So you can make a point?
No, so they can see how much in taxes they pay, how much the government needs to be trimmed down and how much money is wasted in Washington. Imagine the day after everyone had to write a check for say over 5 grand to pay their income tax bill. People start talking to their friends at the water cooler and they start to see how much money is involved. Then they start to ask "what do they do with all that money?" I think things would change and government would truely be downsized so people could keep more of their own money.
Why do you want to keep the automatic withdrawl? To help keep the sheep blind and stupid?
Force ? Talk about force, they force most people to have it taken automatically from their checks, that my friend is force.
The point Wolvie I believe was getting at was the same one I was trying to make in that most people or at least many don't realize what is being taken from their checks. All they see is the money that they get back if any and it's like it's a gift from Uncle Sam. It's not it's your money.
For instance let's say everyone had to write checks quarterly. Now let's say the government decides we need to spend more on widgets. So they say, o.k folks, next quarter based on your income you'll need to kick in an extra $200.00 on that check you write. Do you think it might not get challenged more.
It's alot harder to spend money you never had in the first place and that's exactly what politicians want. If you control it from the word go, you tend to notice a bit more if you are actually taking it out of your bank after you've deposited it.
It wouldn't be forcing anything on anyone, it would merely be giving people freedom with their money. Right now most don't have that option and are being forced to have it manually taken out. Odd how you find someone would be forced to do something when the government is the one doing the coerscion, then it's o.k i guess.
Where did all those taxes come from in MN?...40 years of the DFL.
"Where did all those taxes come from in MN?...40 years of the DFL."
And if you're not proud of this state and what it's become, I am.
That's why I can't stand seeing it lost.
You mean like conceal and carry ?
It's been complete mayhem since those people got to carry !
"You mean like conceal and carry ? "
Yep
Knock Knock,,,,,,,,,Blam Blam ;)
L2F your post #4084 dead on. Thanks for your comments.
Electrical outlets had barely cooled Thursday night when New York Sen. Hillary Clinton took to the airwaves to blame the Bush administration for causing the nation's worst blackout ever.
Given her outraged tones, however, one would never know that she's been a leader in opposing energy independence for New York State, preferring instead to champion environmental cause celebs like fighting acid rain and closing the Indian Point nuclear plant.
At times Sen. Clinton's rhetoric bordered on the hysterical as she fought to make it more difficult for energy suppliers to meet New Yorkers' growing demand for their product.
Last year, for instance, Clinton slammed a Bush administration proposal to allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more punishing environmental regulations.
She warned of "dirtier air and rising temperatures" that would expose citizens "to increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain and mercury-tainted fish."
In contrast, her 2000 Senate opponent, then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, was arguing that New York needed more power plants as far back as 1999.
"If we don't increase significantly the amount of power in the city of New York, we will have happen to us what happened in California," he warned, after a blackout in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan.
USA Today reported at the time:
"New York City and Long Island could face power shortages because of limited connections to the state's power grid. The city is 400 megawatts short of what it needs during peak usage. The New York Power Authority plans to set up 10 small generators -- turbines that provide 44 megawatts each -- at existing power substations."
The paper went on to note, however, that, "environmentalists opposed to the noise and pollution from these generators fired by natural gas have challenged the plan. Businesses with emergency generators are being asked to supply their own power during times of high electricity demand."
50 million Americans got an up close and personal look Thursday night as to how well the Greenies' energy back-up plan worked.
Still, as recently as two weeks ago, Sen. Clinton was working to limit New York State's electrical generating capacity, joining with the enviro-nuts in a bid to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant.
In a letter to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the former first lady said that she was "deeply disturbed" over the agency's decision to recertify Indian Point over the objections of local nuclear power critics.
Luckily for New Yorkers, FEMA ignored Hillary's complaints, and the plant is expected to be up and running again by Monday.
In the meantime, New York's top anti-energy Democrat continues to complain about Bush administration attempts to boost the nation's power output through deregulation.
"They have continued to try to push deregulation and privatization," she told Larry King as New York slipped into darkness two nights ago. "And to try to undo a lot of the systems [and] changes that many of us thought were important and necessary that we tried to work on during the Clinton administration."
According to at least one account, however, even her husband was a booster of deregulation. What's more, President Clinton reportedly planned to use increasingly frequent blackouts as a strategy to build support for his plan.
"So long as White House air conditioners continue to whirr, President Clinton - who would like deregulation to be an accomplishment of his second term - can afford to sit back and let the political temperature rise," reported London's Independent in 1999. "The hope seems to be that the worse things get, the more pressure will mount on Congress to legislate."
The Independent added:
"[Clinton's] adviser on deregulation, Richard Glick, said this week almost cheerfully: 'We're going to see a couple of tough summers.'"
So far, at least, reporters have declined to question Sen. Clinton about her husband's deliberate plan to leave the U.S. vulnerable to the kind of massive power outage that left eight states in chaos this week.
"At times Sen. Clinton's rhetoric bordered on the hysterical..."
There's a lot of people who want to gain political advantage by portraying Hillary Clinton as hysterical.
The Hysterical Female -- how often have we read that? From what I've heard, she's spent most of the time praising recently New Yorkers for their conduct.
"Last year, Clinton slammed a Bush administration."
LAST YEAR!?!?!?!? WHO WRITES THIS BULLSHIT? And they use it now for political posturing after a disaster. Republican through and through. Rotten to the core.
You can't source this, Wolvie?
Forget about the hysterical part Rick. You picked out the most meaningless issue there. What about the rest of it?
"So who is to blame for power blackouts?" - Fold
"as utilities scrambled to buy power from northern states and into Canada" - Fold
First, I'm not criticizing you Fold, just the story. That is the biggest load of crap story I have ever heard. It takes a marketer far less than 2 days to purchase power. Generator failure has little to do with what happened recently, in fact, power plants go down all the time. That is why utilities are required to have a certain amount of "spinning reserve" to handle loss of generation. I may not know what the conditions were that day, but I would gather there is more to that story than is being told.
As far as who is to blame...We are, all of us! Until we stop letting nutballs prevent the expansion of nuclear power, are most abundant resource to date, we are creeping ever so close to the "dark ages".
Never mind. I looked up the blackout in 1989. I suppose you expect power to stay on in a natural disaster? It was the weather, not Republicans, that caused that outage. Unless you are accusing Republicans of controlling the weather?
The political climate is a bit colder these days. The Republicans control that.
Colder is better.
And they use it now for political posturing after a disaster.
Disaster? Liberals have really bastardized that word.
In the first part of "What Makes a Liberal?" among the points I made -- but could not develop in the space of a column -- was that "liberal" and "left" have become indistinguishable. This is new. And it is a tragedy for the nation and the world.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030819.shtml
Mr. Prager poses this very interesting question: "Ask a liberal to name some major issues on which liberalism and the Left differ."
Good points there, Jethro. And somewhere I have seen a quote from our own Hubert Humphrey, a great liberal, about how important the individual right to bear arms is.
For lovers of all things Fair and Balanced: A few words from Garrison Keillor
"You don't hear this from AM radio, which is packed with angry men with chain-saw voices chewing into liberals 24/7, or from Ann Coulter, who is selling the old Stalinist line that dissent equals disloyalty. Or from the aging adolescents at Fox News, who enjoy peeing in the political swimming pool."
Keillor wrote: The Body was a troubled soul who, we discovered in the course of four years that got longer and longer, truly despised politics and the limelight and growled and ranted and threw snits and went and sulked in his tent.
Can you take someone seriously that thinks Jesse despised the limelight? He loves the limelight. Unfortunately for Jesse he didn't want the responsibility.
You know Rick, I rarely listen to AM radio, and I've never read Ann Coulter.
Just thought I would mention that.
OK
Unfortunately for Jesse he didn't want the responsibility.
Bingo!
Hold your cards, hold your cards...
RE: Hey, Arnold! This Is Serious Stuff
If the voters thought it was serious business they never would have elected an empty suit like Gray Davis.
Rick 8/20/03 7:03am
Gee, I thought I remembered someone on another thread admonishing folks for attacking the person instead of what they say.
Then again, he didn't mind making blanket statements about people that voted for Coleman or attacking Coleman himself. Typical liberal atttacking the person.
Then that means I won't read a comment from you on what Keillor said, either, right Rob?
Triple 1 Joe.
What did he say ? Do you comment on every article posted here ? I mean he attacked talk radio and Fox, wow there's a new and groundbreaking perspective, you never hear that anywhere. As for the rest of it, he can be very funny at times, other times simply condescending.
For sale: Used light-rail car, 90% off
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4055504.html
Gee, only $605,737 of taxpayers money on a fake choo choo. What a bargain. It's Used to work out kinks and design flaws ? Hey Met council, that's the manufacture's job ! What a bunch of morons. Do you buy a car that's brand new and then expect the consumer to work on the flaws and design ? No. They should have said to Bombardier. Here's what we want. Then they go look at them and test them at the MANUFACTURE'S expense before you buy one, NOT ours, geez. You tell them what you like and what you don't like and they fix it or don't get the contract. They do the training as part of the deal. But to buy one and sell it back at that price ? Thumbs up to the purchasing department over at the Met Council. Good to see they're looking out for us lowly taxpayers. Trains a comin ! Choo Choo ! Chugga Chugga Chugga, oops, there goes another million, the train just moved 10 feet.
::slams head on desk::
:::mental note to self:::
Buy THX a cushion or pad for his desk for his birthday or Christmas, before he really hurts himself.
FEC: DFL Party Must Return More Than $261,000 in Contributions Received From DFL House Caucus
http://www.mngop.com/info.cfm?x=2&pname=seltype&pval=1&pname2=infoID&pval2=1772
The FEC is still in the process of investigating the Minnesota DFL House Caucus and DFL Party. In the letter, the FEC says that it “may still take further legal action concerning the acceptance of prohibited contributions.” Two weeks ago, when GOP officials announced that they had filed a complaint with the state campaign finance board regarding the transfer of funds, DFL officials dismissed the infraction as “old news,” yet neglected to reveal that just a week earlier the FEC had ordered Party officials to return the more than $261,000.
That's nearly as much as Pawlenty got fined during the elction, isn't it?
Sorry, I forgot. That's "old news."
Fourth, as a result of this socialist mindset, people in socialist countries give little charity, while Americans give vast amounts (just as Americans in conservative states give more charity per capita than people in liberal ones).
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030902.shtml
while their battle cry is "tax cuts!"
why supporting Churches is such a great thing is beyond me.
why supporting Churches is such a great thing is beyond me.
Why is supporting a vast burdensome government is such a great thing is beyond me. But then, crabs, you don't care about that either being an anarchist and all.
sure...you don't want to help everyone...just those who believe in YOUR god.
wrong.
I support the laws that protect people from others interfering with their rights.
that ain't anarchy.
you have confused freedom with anarchy...I'm not surprised by this try again
No you want to do what ever you want whenever you want without any law to tell you otherwise. You do not respect society's rules. That is anarchy and you believe in it.
sure...you don't want to help everyone...just those who believe in YOUR god.
More baseless accusations.
Except violate someone else's rights.
just the one's that protect other people's rights.
this is not anarchy, it's freedom.
how much of that charity went to Churches?
Crabs,
Sorry to tell you this but you are way off on this one.
My church sponsors kids all over the US and the globe, our volunteers help out at the homeless shelters. A group of women from our church do daycare for low income workers, they do so at a loss and our church helps subsidize it. I've done a trip to Mexico with a bunch of the other guys. I took a week off work and 20 of us went down there and in one week built a school and 2 houses. We did it with a bunch of other churches, it was great and I can't wait to do it again. A duplex near the U of M hospitals was donated by one of our members and is a house for parents and their families to stay while their child is undergoing chemo treatments. It's named after one of the girls in our church who died at age 11. We're rennovating it and paying for the upkeep and taxes. Next week a family that we sponsored is moving here from Nigeria and they will now have a better chance at a decent life. Those are just a few of the things we do.
In any of those cases and the other things our church does we never turned someone away because they didn't believe as we do. In most cases it never gets brought up. Of course we tell them the name of the church but that's really about it. Nobody has ever said don't help them they're Muslim etc. In fact the family from Nigeria is Muslim. Perhaps if you spent some time doing things like these you'd have an understanding of it.
It's easy to say we should do or help someone, harder to do it. I could probably do more and I should but at every problem that arises It's too easy to say the government should do something.
See above.
it's call advertising