SAVE $2,000.00 in TAXES !!!

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: particularly since I probably make 3 times what you do...

No wonder you defend bloated government so venemously.

Yeah, we're like KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater... Free enterprise at its finest, and government IS our business...

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: particularly since I probably make 3 times what you do...

No wonder you defend bloated government so venemously.

Yeah, we're like KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater... Free enterprise at its finest, and government IS our business...

The blame for any company making obscene profits from government contracts lies with the government - the source of the funds.

Which, if we had lawmakers and administrators with morals and good financial minds, we'd find that the situation would be rectified quickly.

And that has WHAT to do with 60, 61 & 101?

I don't suppose it occurred to you that sometimes the government funds are spent in contracts with private firms so that the private firms can do some of the essential work more efficiently and cheaply so that in the long run it saves the taxpayers money?


...............Nah..................

It's more fun to bitch about ALL government work being unnecessary.

Nobody that matters wrote: Ok, I'll admit it. If I didn't have kids in school I might have voted for 60.

But, I do have two kids in school and I think it would be better to address administrative waste in the schools before chopping the funding out from underneath 'em.

It isn't often a selfish person is this honest. I applaud you for your honesty. But you perfectly make my point about the self-sufficient vs parasite mindset that has swept over the country. It takes control of your hard drive and you don't even know when it happened. Just that one day you woke up and thought the idea of others paying for your benefit was the norm. But somewhere deep inside you still know it's wrong. Hopefully your will power will overwhelm it and do the right thing.

LadyJazzer wrote: And that has WHAT to do with 60, 61 & 101?

If the government at all levels had been smarter with their money and had not rightfully earned a reputation of being a bloated financial pig, these measures would not have been created and would not need to be debated.

They attempt to reign in out of control government. Unfortunately, they are the wrong solution. You don't slow down a runaway horse by cutting off it's legs.

See how I did that? pulled it right pack around to the topic... pretty dang smooth, huh?

No, sometimes governments don't have the expertise to do the job on the payroll, and if they did, once the job was done they wouldn't need them on the payroll any more.

But you just keep on thrashing about, mouthing off about crap you know nothing about. It's a great form of entertainment.

Teddy wrote: It isn't often a selfish person is this honest. I applaud you for your honesty. But you perfectly make my point about the self-sufficient vs parasite mindset that has swept over the country. It takes control of your hard drive and you don't even know when it happened. Just that one day you woke up and thought the idea of others paying for your benefit was the norm. But somewhere deep inside you still know it's wrong. Hopefully your will power will overwhelm it and do the right thing.

I already voted.

If 60 had specified an alternate method of funding schools, I would have gone for it even with kids in school - but some nebulous language saying in effect "pass this and it will come" is not good legislation.

Again, I blame the author. I'd love to see school's budgets brough back to sanity, but this doesn't address that issue. It just shifts the burden from the property owners to the general fund. Nothing is solved, and nothing is saved.

If the measure had specified which programs were to be cut in order to replace the funding, it might have had a lot more traction.

If I was single and I voted for it, It would have been a symbolic vote only - 60 is not realistic enough to pass.

LadyJazzer wrote: No, sometimes governments don't have the expertise to do the job on the payroll, and if they did, once the job was done they wouldn't need them on the payroll any more.

But you just keep on thrashing about, mouthing off about crap you know nothing about. It's a great form of entertainment.

I have been on several government contracts. I'm not thrashing, I do know about the crap going on.

Yes, contractors are short term and should be paid more per hour than full time employees... but as you pointed out, some private contractors are allowed to take advantage of that and profit to excess. It's pretty well known in the business world that government contracts are basically a cash cow - if you can find a minority or a woman to run your company so you can get the contract.

Some are...Some aren't... And some are on a fixed-bid, and therefore the amount cannot be inflated or changed beyond what was agreed to by contract in the first place...

(Obviously, we aren't talking about KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater...who can continue to screw the government and continue to charge open-ended obscene profits while doing it.)

Rave on... I'm done.

LadyJazzer wrote: Oh, I realize $2,000 will buy a lot of cigarettes, beer, pay-per-view NASCAR & wrestling programs...But sometimes the government CAN take that money and put it to better use--like making sure roads & bridges are in good repair, schools are in good repair... Yeah, sometimes government CAN spend it better than you.

But I don't expect the Party-of-Selfish to "get it."

...

Oh, I almost forgot: :bash :Koolaid: :bash :Koolaid: and: rofllol rofllol rofllol rofllol

I agree with Looney Jerk. Imagine all the roads and bridges and illegals California could have educated had the homosexuals been taxed more so could not raise opposition to prop 8.