Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I was being provocative to an extent, but I think there is a bit of a difference between asking a question and expecting a defense of why people support something and the rhetoric implying I want all AIDS patients to die.

"Wanting"... perhaps not. Supporting policy that would lead to the deaths of thousands... Yes.

[Moonliner]

There is a report today that your Gov is suggesting a 15% flat tax.

I was just wondering, what percentage are you good citizens paying now?

(15% sounds high for a state tax)

[wolfy999]

Here in OC 8.75%

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by wolfy999

Here in OC 8.75%

That's sales, Moonie's talking income.

Though I wonder, did that flat tax proposal include nixing sales tax? That would make 15% seem a more reasonable #.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

That said, I have no doubt that picking some of the highest profile most-likely-to-outrage things to cut is part of the game. That is always part of the game. If a city needs to cut $100 because they can't raise taxes then it will come out of the police or fire department budget, not the secretarial Christmas party budget. You cut the things that piss off the most people because that is how you get them to give permission to increase revenues.

As someone who has 1) assisted the library manager regarding budget cuts, 2) been part of a project to ferret out what areas can be cut, and 3) actually read our budgets when they are introduced, I can safely say that this is not the case in our city. Last winter's Christmas party was nothing compared to the year before and it was noticeable - I'm sure not because they saved a ton of money, but because it shows our commitment to cutting the fat.

Police and Fire do not get cut, so the library takes hits, including a 75% book/media budget cut. No joke. We understand, since we don't want to cut Police or Fire either. We're also closing our branches for an extra day each week.

I believe that our city has no real way to raise taxes - we get the county sales tax and the state money - so perhaps that's why there are no controversial cuts.

We only had to cut our city budget by 5% (this is only regarding sales tax revenues, as no one is even doing the numbers regarding the state shortfalls yet, and we'll probably have to cut more later). This is nothing near the 40% that Alex mentioned. If our city had to cut 40%, it would be hard to keep the library open at all. Would I take to the streets in outrage? I don't think so, mostly because I'd sound like an idiot.

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that money grows on trees.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

That's sales, Moonie's talking income.

Though I wonder, did that flat tax proposal include nixing sales tax? That would make 15% seem a more reasonable #.

Nixing the sales tax would be great for tourism.....

An 8.75% Discount on the entire state

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by JWBear

"Wanting"... perhaps not. Supporting policy that would lead to the deaths of thousands... Yes.

There are approx 37500 traffic deaths in the US annually. I propose a 5 mph speed limit and a governor on every vehicle to ensure it is followed. This would practically eliminate all traffic deaths. Anyone who does not agree with this must therefore be put in the box of supporting the current policy, which leads to 37500 deaths per year.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that money grows on trees.

Technically, of course, it does. It's been a long time since it was based on anything of supposed value (such a gold). It's just paper.

Printing lots of it would devalue it greatly. But it has no inherent value, nor is it based on anything of inherent value. It's paper. Ok, it's made of trees, not grows on them.

[€uroMeinke]

I thought our dollars were linen

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

There are approx 37500 traffic deaths in the US annually. I propose a 5 mph speed limit and a governor on every vehicle to ensure it is followed. This would practically eliminate all traffic deaths. Anyone who does not agree with this must therefore be put in the box of supporting the current policy, which leads to 37500 deaths per year.

This scenario does not correlate at all. Let me give you one that does:

Say we got a list of the names of those 37500. By some means we have indisputable proof that each and every one of those people will die in a traffic accident in the next year; and only the government has the resources to make the necessary modifications to their cars (only their cars need the modifications, as only they are affected) to keep that from happening. Would you still insist that saving their lives is no business of the government's? Would you really advocate that the government just let them die so your taxes don't go up?

Now suppose that some of the people on that list are friends and relatives of yours - people that you care for. Would you really tell your loved ones on that list "Oh well, it's not my problem. We need to cut the budget. Tough luck."?