livendive 8 #26 October 17, 2008 QuoteWhere exactly did I say anything about Bush? Nowhere. I was just letting your exact quote stand there out of context, and then deliberately distorting what you meant by it. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #27 October 17, 2008 >Where exactly did I say anything about Bush? We all knew perfectly well who you meant. And I'm certainly no genius who has a deeper understanding of things than most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #28 October 17, 2008 QuoteHowever I *have* pointed out that in 6 years as mayor of Wasilla, she increased spending by 127% and turned zero long-term debt into $20 million dollars of long-term debt. I consider that bad. People do understand that efficient cities and businesses issue use long-term debt to fund projects that make improvements or increase profit in the long run, right? There is such a thing as "good debt". In fact, it's a great way for cities to raise money without taxes and is usually a pretty solid investment for people who buy it. No, that's not saying that it's good to always and only borrow for everything.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #29 October 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhere exactly did I say anything about Bush? Nowhere. I was just letting your exact quote stand there out of context, and then deliberately distorting what you meant by it. Blues, Dave Oh I get it. Rather than dispute Ayers, a known Obama associate, is dispicable, you try to deflect by arguing his comment is being taken out of context by the GOP. But yeah forget the fact the WUO's strategy was the bombing of political targets and 'more' would have meant more bombings....yeah nevermind that.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #30 October 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhere exactly did I say anything about Bush? Nowhere. I was just letting your exact quote stand there out of context, and then deliberately distorting what you meant by it. Blues, Dave Oh I get it. Rather than dispute Ayers, a known Obama associate, is dispicable, you try to deflect by arguing his comment is being taken out of context by the GOP. But yeah forget the fact the WUO's strategy was the bombing of political targets and 'more' would have meant more bombings....yeah nevermind that. I think it's entirely likely that Ayers actions nearly 40 years ago were despicable. I also understand that he's not been convicted of anything and that he's been trying to do some good for children over the last decade or so. I've not seen that he's more than tangentially associated with Obama. I do think it matters when statements are misrepresented. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #31 October 17, 2008 QuoteQuoteHowever I *have* pointed out that in 6 years as mayor of Wasilla, she increased spending by 127% and turned zero long-term debt into $20 million dollars of long-term debt. I consider that bad. People do understand that efficient cities and businesses issue use long-term debt to fund projects that make improvements or increase profit in the long run, right? There is such a thing as "good debt". In fact, it's a great way for cities to raise money without taxes and is usually a pretty solid investment for people who buy it. No, that's not saying that it's good to always and only borrow for everything. Please note she also increased spending by 127% in six years. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #32 October 17, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Where exactly did I say anything about Bush? Nowhere. I was just letting your exact quote stand there out of context, and then deliberately distorting what you meant by it. Blues, Dave Oh I get it. Rather than dispute Ayers, a known Obama associate, is dispicable, you try to deflect by arguing his comment is being taken out of context by the GOP. But yeah forget the fact the WUO's strategy was the bombing of political targets and 'more' would have meant more bombings....yeah nevermind that. I think it's entirely likely that Ayers actions nearly 40 years ago were despicable. I also understand that he's not been convicted of anything and that he's been trying to do some good for children over the last decade or so. I've not seen that he's more than tangentially associated with Obama. I do think it matters when statements are misrepresented. Blues, Dave What does a conviction matter when he admitted to his involvement? What difference does it make when he readily admits no regret? You know....giving Obama a pass is one thing but this guy? Come on bro....www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 October 17, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Where exactly did I say anything about Bush? Nowhere. I was just letting your exact quote stand there out of context, and then deliberately distorting what you meant by it. Blues, Dave Oh I get it. Rather than dispute Ayers, a known Obama associate, is dispicable, you try to deflect by arguing his comment is being taken out of context by the GOP. But yeah forget the fact the WUO's strategy was the bombing of political targets and 'more' would have meant more bombings....yeah nevermind that. I think it's entirely likely that Ayers actions nearly 40 years ago were despicable. I also understand that he's not been convicted of anything and that he's been trying to do some good for children over the last decade or so. I've not seen that he's more than tangentially associated with Obama. I do think it matters when statements are misrepresented. Blues, Dave What does a conviction matter when he admitted to his involvement? What difference does it make when he readily admits no regret? You know....giving Obama a pass is one thing but this guy? Come on bro.... He has also denied doing any of the bombing at other times. In any case, I think he was probably involved to one extent or another. I'm glad he didn't kill anyone and that he seems to have turned to more constructive methods for trying to change things, but he doesn't seem like someone I'd want to meet or be friends with. The facts that he runs in the same political circle as Obama and that they both worked on the same board trying to raise money for improving education matters very little to me. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #34 October 17, 2008 QuotePlease note she also increased spending by 127% in six years. Well, if you're going to spend more, you have to raise more. Hence, the debt being issued. Now if it were just for completely ridiculous things, that'd be an argument. If she's building roads, fixing things, improving utilities, hiring cops, etc... it's no big deal. Is the city bankrupt now because of it?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #35 October 17, 2008 The majority of it went to pay for a sportcenter. The rest was for roads. Nearly every dime spent was voter approved.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #36 October 17, 2008 >The majority of it went to pay for a sportcenter. The rest was for roads. OK, cool. So she will continue the long US tradition of tax and spend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #37 October 17, 2008 Quote>The majority of it went to pay for a sportcenter. The rest was for roads. OK, cool. So she will continue the long US tradition of tax and spend. Heh yep. Is that a problem for you? Mr. Democrat?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #38 October 17, 2008 I am surprised that as a far right winger you'd support the tax-and-spend paradigm! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 October 17, 2008 It's the NEWSPEAK that they have come up with compliments fromthe idiots who have been in charge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #40 October 17, 2008 lol I'm not a far right winger and what I support doesn't exist in todays politics thanks to those two parties.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #41 October 17, 2008 >lol I'm not a far right winger . . . And I'm not a democrat. You know what they say about assumptions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #42 October 17, 2008 Sometimes you take things too seriously billvon.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #43 October 17, 2008 Quote What does a conviction matter when he admitted to his involvement? What difference does it make when he readily admits no regret? You know....giving Obama a pass is one thing but this guy? Come on bro.... Selective in what you believe, aren't you? You choose to believe his admission of involvement, but choose not to believe him when he said that a reporter deliberately distorted his words in a newspaper article.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #44 October 17, 2008 Not really. I'm just not so blinded by the light from the heavens surrounding Obama that I'm willing to give Ayers a pass on his domestic terrorism. Terrorism that did not kill anyone only by pure luck. Not until the nail bomb, built to target humans, went off killing 3 or 4 WUO members in Greenwich Village did they decide human casualties were not acceptable. So good job defending the guy.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #45 October 18, 2008 QuoteNot really. I'm just not so blinded by the light from the heavens surrounding Obama that I'm willing to give Ayers a pass on his domestic terrorism. Terrorism that did not kill anyone only by pure luck. Not until the nail bomb, built to target humans, went off killing 3 or 4 WUO members in Greenwich Village did they decide human casualties were not acceptable. So good job defending the guy. He wasn't on trial, and has never been found guilty of anything. I take it that you don't believe in due process. In addition, you cherry pick which of his statements you believe and which you don't, to suit your own agenda.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #46 October 18, 2008 Quote>The majority of it went to pay for a sportcenter. The rest was for roads. OK, cool. So she will continue the long US tradition of tax and spend. I think were missing something here Bill. This spending isn't considered wasteful. Its considered an investment, because the tax revenue gained from having a sportcenter will more than pay for its cost and the city/state will profit from it. Wasteful: taking out a loan on a brand new car that will depreciate to nothing Smart spending: taking out a loan for a business or house that will appreciate in value and give you a return in more than the loan amount Its not necessarily all about the amount spent as to what its spent on, which I think you don't need me to explain to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #47 October 18, 2008 >This spending isn't considered wasteful. Its considered an investment . . . Pretty much everything is. Money to poor people via tax credits? It gets people above the poverty line, encourages them to work and gets money into local communities. It's an investment in our future. Education? Investing in our future. NASA? Same; the technologies and transportation systems we develop might well pay for themselves. The Iraq war? Well, hey, if it prevents another two 9/11's it will pay for itself! Urban development projects? They are an investment in communities that will pay off in more tax income from posh shops and high-end restaurants. National Endowment of the Arts? Hey, if it produces the next Renoir, Cezanne or Picasso it's worth the investment! PBS funding? A great investment in children's education and independent news services. That works for nearly any expense. >because the tax revenue gained from having a sportcenter will more than >pay for its cost and the city/state will profit from it. Then let a private investor make all the money. He'll enrich the local economy, hire thousands, pay taxes etc etc. Personally I think such monies are better off spent on things that benefit the community but are _not_ attractive to investors, like libraries and parks. But this is getting off topic. If she wants to spend money on sports centers and raise people's taxes to pay for it, well - they elected her. Just don't expect her to change when she gets to the White House. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverborg 0 #48 October 18, 2008 Quote>This spending isn't considered wasteful. Its considered an investment . . . Pretty much everything is. Money to poor people via tax credits? It gets people above the poverty line, encourages them to work and gets money into local communities. It's an investment in our future. Education? Investing in our future. NASA? Same; the technologies and transportation systems we develop might well pay for themselves. The Iraq war? Well, hey, if it prevents another two 9/11's it will pay for itself! Urban development projects? They are an investment in communities that will pay off in more tax income from posh shops and high-end restaurants. National Endowment of the Arts? Hey, if it produces the next Renoir, Cezanne or Picasso it's worth the investment! PBS funding? A great investment in children's education and independent news services. That works for nearly any expense. >because the tax revenue gained from having a sportcenter will more than >pay for its cost and the city/state will profit from it. Then let a private investor make all the money. He'll enrich the local economy, hire thousands, pay taxes etc etc. Personally I think such monies are better off spent on things that benefit the community but are _not_ attractive to investors, like libraries and parks. But this is getting off topic. If she wants to spend money on sports centers and raise people's taxes to pay for it, well - they elected her. Just don't expect her to change when she gets to the White House. Well, I think the idea is that it will pay off the debt itself and then some, so it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, then the extra revenue as well as what they have already will still be used to fund libraries and such. Anyway this is really irrelevant to her spending habits considering the sportcenter is something the people voted on rather than a few govt officials wasting our money without our say. If the govt did invest its resources properly, whether that be education, NASA, urban development, then we wouldn't have the national deficit that we currently have. Therefore either we are investing in areas we shouldn't be, or we are investing improperly in the areas that we should be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #49 October 18, 2008 Quote National Endowment of the Arts? Hey, if it produces the next Renoir, Cezanne or Picasso it's worth the investment! OOPS You are probably going to get an arguement here for sure... I get the feeling there are plenty of people here who think anything beyond black velvet paintings are just unnecessaryI am sure they will point out all that horrible pornographic stuff that the Endowment for the Arts has paid for. The only endowment most of those kinda guys think is necessary is in the form of blue pills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,485 #50 October 18, 2008 >Well, I think the idea is that it will pay off the debt itself and then some, > so it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything, then the extra revenue as well >as what they have already will still be used to fund libraries and such. That is a great idea! It's the idea behind the bailout, for example. The bailout will save the economy and we'll get more income so we can start paying off the deficit. Unfortunately, history has shown that a lot of those investments don't work. Which is why we now have a ten trillion dollar deficit. That, I think, is one of the bigger problems of treating the government like a for-profit corporation with no risk of bankruptcy. >If the govt did invest its resources properly, whether that be education, >NASA, urban development, then we wouldn't have the national deficit that >we currently have. Therefore either we are investing in areas we shouldn't >be, or we are investing improperly in the areas that we should be. Or the nature of investment is that it's risky. I guess I have a slightly different view of it than you do. Instead of using taxpayer money to invest in things hoping they will pay off, we should instead have the government do what is best for the US. That might mean a library instead of a sports center, even if the library will not be a profit center. It means less money back in, but (more importantly in my mind) less money out. Case in point - San Diego. Years ago, San Diego financed the construction of Jack Murphy Stadium so we could attract an NFL team. It was built with government funds and attracted the Chargers, and then later the Padres. In 1997 San Diego had a shot at a Superbowl but the stadium wasn't big enough, and San Diego was kind of sore about not seeing much of the 30 million or so they paid for it coming back in taxes. Indeed, the city was _losing_ money on the stadium; they had agreed to a "ticket guarantee" such that the Chargers would get good money even if they couldn't fill the stadium. To get the Superbowl (which would presumably mean lots of money for San Diego) my company put up the 18 million needed to expand the stadium. San Diego got the Superbowl and all was well. The city estimated that it made about 16 million in increased taxes (primarily hotel taxes) for the event. Didn't break even, but it was a private company putting up the money, and surely now that the stadium was bigger and better they would start making money again! After the Superbowl the stadium went back to losing money for the city - about $10 million a year, much of it from those ticket guarantees. The Padres, meanwhile, grew tired of the new stadium. They asked for, and got, their own new stadium, which cost around $450 million. Fortunately part of that was paid for by a semi-private nonprofit corporation called the Center City Development Corporation. San Diego paid for $225 million via municipal bonds, to be paid back via higher taxes. The Chargers, meanwhile, grew tired of their new stadium too, and have said they will leave unless the city builds them an even newer stadium. Cost estimates for that stadium are close to $1 billion. Needless to say, Jack Murphy/Qualcomm stadium did not make its money back in taxes, and indeed has cost a lot of money over the years. Petco Park might, but it will take decades. And from the looks of things we will soon be spending nearly a billion to build the Chargers yet another new stadium. Now, all that construction was sold as a great investment, just as you describe. It didn't turn out that way. Multiply that story by thousands and you have big deficits and higher taxes, all of which can be solved (of course) by building just a few more stadiums. I don't think that's a good use of government funds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
