kat2cute wrote:But was the town even willing to give the $13 extra per year a chance, or did it immediately get written off because people assumed they would just keep raising it every year cause they could?
I think you have a few threads mixed up. The $13 was something I was replying to. However, I can respond to this by saying (and in no way
am I advocating violence against animals, this is just a saying.) "if you kick a dog enough times, he learns to fear you." The same type of situation applies with government of any level in terms of hoping for the best and always being disappointed. I have low expectations that someone is going to spend my(our) money wisely as a government employee or representative because I have far to much history to base the bad opinions on and far to few cases to base good opinion on.
kat2cute wrote:Taxes are not evil. They pay for the roadways (so there are less toll-roads), they pay for the police officers, teachers, fire stations, and yes, some even goes to planned parenthood, welfare, and other services only a small portion of the populous uses.
In no way should anything I have said or shall say should imply that I think taxes are evil or that no one should pay taxes. What should be taken from my words are everyone should pay a fair and equal share of taxes and no one should be forced to pay an extra share because that person makes more money and someone else. Progressive tax rates are anathema to a free and open society in my opinion. Excessive WASTE of someone else's money IS EVIL.
kat2cute wrote:So your state setup a lottery that gives a bit of extra money to education and you expected that to solve all the education problems? Really??? First off, the lack of enough money coming from this could be because there aren't many people with gambling problems in your state (you can always hope). If it is a new lottery, it probably isn't very popular yet. Thirdly, new school construction costs a LOT of money, more than a couple thousand a month extra the lottery would be able to provide. Thankfully these new constructions only occur every 20 years or so, because you wouldn't want your children learning in schools filled with asbestos, leadpaint, and no AC.
Nope, our County leaders have fallen short on growth projections pretty much for the past 15 years. Not by 30 or 40 students, but buy 3-4 thousand
each year. Kids enroll and there are not enough classrooms. Actually, the lottery did do semi ok in it's first year, far short of projections but over all, I would not complain to have 300 million in profit in a year as they did (projected 450 million.)
kat2cute wrote:I agree with dorpond. You have to look at the big picture. Not just with single issues like only voting on abortion and not our crumbling economy (which you sure complain a lot about for only caring about abortion), but also about the locations in the US less fortunate than you. You might have high property tax making some people not able to afford a home, but I'm sure your area has nice affordable apartments and low crime.
kat2cute wrote:Neither political party is beyond corruption, but this isn't the fault of the party, but the people. The "secret" late night lottery vote is a person fault, not the governments fault. Plus, couldn't the missing people have sent proxies to cast their vote for them? Our system of government is in general fair, it is the implementation that has trouble.
You are right about that. But, in our state for example, the same party has held both branches of the state legislature for over 100 years and likewise holds the Governors office the vast majority of the time. As for the proxies, I have no idea if our state allows such things, but I rather doubt it otherwise a) the two missing would have used it and b) the leaders who did the underhanded technique would not have chanced it. The minority party can't even prove they are better as they are never given the chance to take the leadership role. There have been 10+ trials in the past 10 years or so and everyone of the offenders belonged to the same political party. I am not about the say the other party can do no wrong as that would just be a silly assertion, but the fact remains that our citizens keep putting crooks into office. Another example is 2 years ago, the speaker of the house was under investigation for misconduct. He was voted back into office and then 4 months later was pleaded guilty to several charges. And this was after 4 other corruption allegations of unrelated nature had surfaced (and yet no evidence could be produced) over the previous 4 years.
kat2cute wrote:I sort of believe we should move to a direct democracy now that we are nearly at the technology to safely be able to have every citizen cast their vote online (getting rid of the electoral college). However, then I remember that in this country, half the people have below average IQs and Millions would not consider the constitution when casting their vote, only their personal morals. You can be a racist in your own home, but trying to pass legislation on it (or ban gay marriage) like so many people would try to do makes me think direct democracy still wouldn't work, even if the technology were up to par.
Like you, I would not trust 80% of the people to know what day of the week it is, much less vote on any issue with any type of intelligenly formed opinion based on facts.
kat2cute wrote:PS. It is not in a president's ability to overturn Rowe-vs-Wade, so why make that your top requirement for the presidency? Only the supreme court can overturn that, and those aren't people you can vote for. In essence, it is fine with me that you are against abortion, and ignoring the fact that not everyone agrees with your <i>opinion</i> embryos are humans with rights ( and forcing this opinion on them would require the Mind Control or telepathy), the president's office is not the correct venue to state your dissatisfaction with this. Senators and Congress has much more power over this issue than the president, but even they can't overturn your hated law.
Yes and no. Presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Your choice for President is critical to the appointment of justices who share your view of the world or Constitution. One side views the Constittion as a maliable document and believes we should do as the world does and the Constitution be darned, and the other sees the Constitution to mean exactly what the worlds say. I fall into the later camp.
Abortion is not the only issue upon which I vote. I will go into the polling booth on voting day hold my nose and vote for a candidate who at least more closely aligns with my viewpoint on many things. Mainly, because I feel the other candidate is polar opposite to my viewpoints on 99% of the issues instead of any real like of the one I am voting for. It just so happens that the candidate I am voting for "says" he agrees with around 60% of the issues I think are important.