mreye

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 5, 2009 -> 07:39 AM) It would seem that way. But I think what Mr Eye was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that prosecutors already have way more cases to try than they have time for. You probably won't cut prosecutors - they'd just spend more time on other things. Which, by the way, is not a bad thing. Exactly.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:18 PM) what changed between the first time they voted (and if failed).. and now? Wheelin' and dealin'! Welcome to Washington.

QUOTE (santo=dorf @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 06:30 PM) What about the taxpayers' cost of housing non-violent offenders (just noticed you mentioned it) and people waiting longer for trials? My dad is a prosecutor and tells me how pissed he gets because he has to waste the court's time and money to show up to see a woman ask again for an extension on the $75 fine she owes for possesion. It's so stupid. The war on drugs costs at least $20 billion a year. Look back. I brought that up. Here I was responding to someone suggesting we would save on the cost of prosecutors themselves.

Bare

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:57 AM) Two different jobs, two different skill sets. I can see that. Many great CEOs of corporations would be terrible on the campaign trail and never be elected, that doesn't mean they would not be excellent picks to run a large bureaucracy. Gates comes to mind. So not getting elected doesn't concern me too much. QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) The president thought he was the best man for a job and a specific goal he had in mind. Yeah, I get that, but I still don't like it. It's like the people of my church voting down an usher and then we introduce him as our new Deacon. (No, we don't vote for ushers. Just saying)

Just to throw this in the mix as well: I disagree with the pick of Daschle on different grounds...if the people of South Dakota didn't want him to represent them anymore, why should he be elevated to a position of leadership for the entire United States?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:36 AM) And I would consider the public as part of the process. The names are released and all of a sudden many, many, people get involved. I always like the public getting involved. Bottom line for me, and ymmv, I'm done expecting any vetting process to be 100% fool proof. No administration has managed it for a very long time. To me it becomes silly partisan b.s. which flips each time the party changes. And in the back of my mind, I knew this would happen, and when I was saying the same thing for Dubya, I knew the day would come when I could come to a Dems defense as well and it is going to happen for the next Rep President. So, I ask my fellow American GOPs, why not be consistent today and say, at least it was caught before the nominee was confirmed. Because y'all know this will never end. OK. I hear ya. I thought you meant the "official" process. For the most part, I'm with you, I believe. I don't sit hear and believe that Obama knew that Daschle didn't pay his taxes and decided to nominate him anyway. My main problem, and this is a problem I have with both sides, is that he still defended the pick once the tax "evasion" was made public. And continued to defend until Daschle pulled himself out.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:31 AM) It isn't so much cheating, but the average American can not truly understand the totality of the tax code. Errors are made, and corrected. And usually with penalties and late fees.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) Agreed. But we have had these sorts of surprises for 20+ years. Are we seriously going to believe any administration can solve this? We have an entire process, including the hearings. I'm not going to blame any President or staff when the process turns up these sorts of issues. When these sort of issues are not discovered until the person takes office, then we can look at the process and begin to see where mistakes were made. So while some go flipping based on who the President is, I'm staying consistent. It's kind of nice I get your point, Tex. But, did the process find this out or was it some blogger or the like? (It's a legit question, I don't really know)

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:40 AM) Oh its definitely Dems right now, its a Dem President. Well, Geithner is really neither, and might lean GOP, from what I have read. And he actually got in. Daschle is definitely a Dem, I know nothing about the Performance Czar person. I just think that things like tax evasion, which aren't about the political job per se, shouldn't be framed by party. Wrong is wrong, and you see people in both parties doing things wrong. By making it about a party, if its isn't actually the party itself doing it, is dangerous. Its similar to indicting any other group of people based on the conduct of some people in that group - could be a religion, for example. Like Catholic Priests?

It does seem to be a lot of Dems lately, though. You'd think Larry Flint would have paid someone to dig up some GOPers that didn't pay their taxes by now, which, of course, makes it OK.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Sorry about that, I think I overreacted a bit. Its hard to tell sometimes, in here, what is just someone being funny, and what is someone finding an excuse to b****. Carry on. Accepted. Looking back, I could have commented with my link to emphasize my opinion. FWIW, I laugh at everything Pelosi has to say.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) It's funny, but maybe better to post in the catch-all Republican thread? Maybe. I don't usually go in there, though. I didn't realize we were trying to keep down our 106 pages of different topics in the 'buster.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 09:47 AM) Does this really need a thread? Did the tax/patriot parallel need one? Threads are for discussion. These aren't discussion-starters, these are just venting bitterness. Not venting bitterness at all, NS. I just thought it was funny. It's obviously a misspoken statement. If Rush would have said the same thing I would have had the same reaction. Delete it if you want. Just realize not everyone on the right is in here to flame and cause problems. Some of us can disagree and still see the humor in things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 08:47 AM) Don't forget prosecution costs. But they work on a salary, don't they? We would still have those costs, but the prosecutors would just be working on real cases. And people wouldn't wait for a trial for so long and be able to spend time going on the View or Letterman.

You're right, NS. Very slippery slope we're heading down. Maybe I'm a naive idiot, but I'd rather have a bunch of failed banks than a bunch of banks propped up by a government that can't budget themselves, telling the banks how much they can pay their employees, what kind of bonuses they can pay, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2009 -> 07:47 AM) The taxes on cigarettes bring in something like 7 billion dollars a year in revenues. Granted I am not in law enforcement, but it really doesn't seem like we spend a whole lot of money on dope law enforcement, and when you add to it the fraction of revenues that it would bring in, I don't see it being worth nearly as much as it is being made out to be. Seriously what are we talking about, $10 billion tops in savings and added revenues? Don't forget you would still need to subtract out the added revenues being made from fines for posession, and added death rates from cancer and the like. Sure its something, but once you factor in the lawsuits, and everything else under the sun, I don't see it being worth it. I'm not saying I'm on the side of legalizing it, but... Is that 7 billion in Federal dollars? The state and cities also tax cigarettes. And the savings would not only be from dope law enforcement, but how many people are in prison, draining tax dollars just for possession that would in turn be free to go?

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Feb 2, 2009 -> 03:02 PM) My dad used to program those cards and sell them lol

QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 05:50 PM) If we're talking about getting money for schools and such, the states should be doing that. But I agree that the evils of pork and earmarks are way overblown. Last summer there were times when McCain made it sound like all Congress had to do was "stop putting pork in their bills" and the federal budget would be magically fixed. Yes, schools. I'm basically talking about the 10th Amendment. No, not to a "T", because you have to have federal money for Interstates and such.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Feb 3, 2009 -> 12:59 PM) It's a Senator's job to get pork for their state. That's the whole point of representative democracy. It is why our system is the way it is. But it doesn't have to be. I disagree with pork coming to my state / town. My Congressman just arranged for money to come to my town to fox a minor intersection with street lamps, benches, pretty faux brick crosswalks. Why? This money should come from the state. It should come from local tax dollars. Why should someone in California or Washington or Hawaii pay for an intersection in Cedar Lake, IN, population 9000?? Federal taxes are too high! Most of our tax dollars should go to the state. It's bass ackwards. The state knows better what we need than a bunch of guys in DC. That's the way it was supposed to be. We sent people to Washington to protect our interests, not get us money. Edit: I realize I'm probably in the minority with this view, unfortunately.

OK, I'll say it. How can you have so many tickets? Slow the hell down, you're going to kill someone! I haven't had a ticket since 1996 and I'm not some senior citizen driver (Like Tex and FlaSox).

I hate Nazi zombies.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 29, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) Correct. Used TV. I assume these aren't rich people just using bunny ears to screw the cable companies out of profit. So, if 40 bucks is too difficult, let's assume as well that newspapers are too difficult, and that they have no internet. I don't think it's a smart move to isolate such a large portion of the pop. for market values. There already is a large knowledge gap, lets not take away another source where they could still be knowledgable in this democracy. This really isn't that big of a deal. Oh, I agree. My argument isn't that we shouldn't have the coupon program. My argument is it was grossly mismanaged (Imagine that). They should have limited it to one coupon and then there wouldn't be this complaint about all these people that will be in the dark on Feb 17. I think many people got 2 even when they only have one TV that needs it, or have very little need for a converter, period. I got two coupons for two of my garage TVs that are on an antenna in the attic. I rarely watch TV in there (It's mostly used for karaoke and DVDs), but I figured if my tax dollars are going to pay for $40 of the $55 converters why shouldn't I take advantage of that.