39 Comments:
Yes, raise the gas tax. Now. By a lot. In fact, raise it enough for it to cover all highway and road expenses. Then we can take the huge chunk of the general fund that goes towards covering the rest of highway costs not currently covered by the gax tax and use them for transit.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:03 AM on February 21
Couldn't they have taken the pot out of the tank before getting it fixed? And how much room does 150 pounds take up? I have a hard time imagining that that much weight would only fill half the tank.
»» Submitted by »»» matt at 11:10 AM on February 21
I guess pot hidden in a gas tank will never be hard to burn.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:13 AM on February 21
I would love to ride my bike behind that car.
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 11:14 AM on February 21
I'm tired of being told if we don't spend X amount of tax dollars, we won't get X from the federal government as if it's some sort of win-win situation. It's like your mom trying to save money by having dad kick-in for $10 of your $20 allowance. Either way, your parents are still out $20.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 11:20 AM on February 21
Not exactly, Kevin. I'm imagining it's more like having $5 to invest in something, vs. putting in $10 and actually getting $20 to spend on it. Think of it like employer matching for your 401k, but instead of only going up to a certain threshold it only STARTS at a certain threshold.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:36 AM on February 21
Oh and just in case anyone doesn't think suburbs breed asshattery, this guy is a potent reminder of exactly what kind of jerks you can find out there.
Yeah, those 'jackass' homeless people! Ship them all away! In fact, grind them up and feed them to cattle! Haw haw haw, ship them to east saint paul! LOLZ! Everybody knows homeless people don't belong in the suburbs!
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 11:47 AM on February 21
If I had a dollar for every time we have had a topic about coffee in the last week, I would have enough money to buy a cup of coffee
»» Submitted by »»» mndude at 11:51 AM on February 21
I would have enough money to buy a cup of coffee
Heh!
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 11:54 AM on February 21
Not exactly, Kevin. I'm imagining it's more like having $5 to invest in something, vs. putting in $10 and actually getting $20 to spend on it. Think of it like employer matching for your 401k, but instead of only going up to a certain threshold it only STARTS at a certain threshold.
That's not how it's sold. Not to start a transit fight, but one of the main reasons the state "had to" pass funding for the Northstar commuter rail was because otherwise it couldn't get federal funding. As if federal funding is some sort of free money. (Incidentally, now the feds have become quite skeptical about the project, but that's another topic.)
It's all tax dollars, just like you get $20 from your parents no matter how much each chips in. It's just another piece of the endless shell game our government puts on. Transfering tax dollars from one unit of government to another and calling it "investment" or "tax relief." Pffft.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 12:14 PM on February 21
I sat through a school board meeting last night, where the board was hit with some harsh numbers. I was surprised to hear that 40% of the homes in Minneapolis are 1-person households. The Strib wrote about the need to close schools. I'm interested in what all the single people/1-person households means for city policy, etc. It's just interesting to think about.
»» Submitted by »»» jderusha at 12:23 PM on February 21
It's all tax dollars, just like you get $20 from your parents no matter how much each chips in. It's just another piece of the endless shell game our government puts on. Transfering tax dollars from one unit of government to another and calling it "investment" or "tax relief." Pffft.
Except in the case of federal dollars, you're staking a claim to money that would be flowing out of state otherwise. I'm not sure about Minnesota's status in particular, but I *think* it's one of the states that pays more to the feds than it gets back. Any help in keeping more of that money in-state is good for the local economy, especially if it's spent on infrastructure improvements. Would you rather have the 'shell game' take your money and give it to alabama or take it and give it to something you might use someday?
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:41 PM on February 21
Oh and to use your own analogy, it's like if all the parents in the neighbourhood chipped in 10 bucks each and you were wrangling more than $20 of it for yourself. Not all tax dollars are the same! Even if it's 'all just money,' it's not the same when it comes to how its spent. Unfortunately accounting practices don't always make sense. Even where I work we 'pay' different parts of the company from our operating budget. Same company, the money doesn't really go anywhere, but it still gets shuffled around internally like monopoly money or something to keep track of what we're *really* paying for.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:44 PM on February 21
how it's* spent. I almost never make the its/it's mistake, but my fingers of fury missed the apostrophe key.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 12:46 PM on February 21
"Would you rather have the 'shell game' take your money and give it to alabama or take it and give it to something you might use someday?"
- - -
Substitute "Louisiana", and then try to remember if you've made any nasty comments about the FedGuv's efforts after Katrina.
Getting federal money simply means we forced Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, South Dakota, Tennessee - you know, the wealthy places - to kick in for our trains and bike trails.
Noble.
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 12:57 PM on February 21
I'm pretty sure we're not giving any money to Louisiana already, so that won't make much of a difference. Plus we're just talking about transportation funding that will be spent on transportation no matter which state it goes to. There's supposed to be other parts of the budget to help out with the cleanup and rebuilding down there, but the budgetmakers seem to have kind of forgotten about all that after the tv news stopped talking about it.
But no, really! Try to say transportation funding directly impacts the gulf coast cleanup! You've got seperate buckets there, and their relative sizes are not the issue here. I can bitch about how one is too small and still kvetsch about how the money in the other one is spent.
Shit, I should have been an accountant.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:01 PM on February 21
"I'm pretty sure we're not giving any money to Louisiana already."
- - -
MN is a net payor. LA is a net payee. Ergo . . .
- - -
"Try to say transportation funding directly impacts the gulf coast cleanup! You've got seperate buckets there, and their relative sizes are not the issue here. I can bitch about how one is too small and still kvetsch about how the money in the other one is spent."
- - -
Right. The dollars in the buckets come from separate, different, totally unconnected dollar trees! I forgot.
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 1:06 PM on February 21
My whole point was that how much goes into each bucket is a seperate issue from where the buckets go. It's not hypocritical to bitch about congress shorting them on reconstruction aid and still want to reclaim a chunk of transportation dollars. Just because the money all comes from taxes doesn't mean it's all the same once it's in the treasury. Try to run any sort of operation with a budget larger than a few thousand bucks without any real accounting strategies. Seriously, try it. You'll be pissing dollars in no time becuase you have no idea how you're money's being spent. It might seem absurd that money gets differentiated after you pay your taxes, but hey, that's even how corporations do it! And they can do no wrong, right?
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:11 PM on February 21
No, I understand what you're saying, and agree about the accounting aspect of it all. My only point was, we wring a finite number of dollars out of people as tax for the federal g9overnment to spend, and if we spend X dollars in one place, that's X dollars fewer that are left for everything else.
But that may be a conservative v. liberal distinction, because I'm probably less eager or willing to boost taxation to make up the X. I look at it as more of a finite pool than do most liberal.
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 1:14 PM on February 21
Just had to comment - I couldn't force myself to read any more of the City Pages school board article once I read their characterization of Chris Stewart - "he's a conservative African American evangelical . . ."
.
»» Submitted by »»» bobby_b at 1:20 PM on February 21
That's funny, because the war spending seems to be coming out of an infinite pool they call "debt." I think the government forgot over the years that the amount they spend is supposed to be finite and tied to what they bring in in taxes. "Tax cuts for all! More war spending!" Wait, uh ... spending up, income down ... uhhhh
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:33 PM on February 21
I sat through a school board meeting last night, where the board was hit with some harsh numbers. I was surprised to hear that 40% of the homes in Minneapolis are 1-person households. The Strib wrote about the need to close schools. I'm interested in what all the single people/1-person households means for city policy, etc. It's just interesting to think about.
When I closed on my condo, the title company told me everyone that had bought so far was single. Not sure why or if it's still true, but I was kinda shocked.
My guess for policy repercussions would be continued declining enrollment, which I think they already know.
Am I the only one who loves demographic trends?
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 1:33 PM on February 21
hey if families want the suburbs, they can have 'em! I'm going to be bitter and single forever anyway.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:51 PM on February 21
I love demographic trends too! Glad I'm not the only one.
I'm also a fan of demographic trends, because they're a pretty useful tool in urban policy planning. And I love me some urban policy planning.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 1:57 PM on February 21
I couldn't force myself to read any more of the City Pages school board article once I saw Chris Stewart's face.
Yay for demographic trends!
»» Submitted by »»» ericam at 2:13 PM on February 21
why would anyone be surprised that 40% on mpls households are single people. is the surprise that it's so high, or so fast?
you'd have to be a real lone ranger to stick your kid in the mpls public schools, unless you had no choice.
i know some people do it on principle, but for your everyday russ, no frackin' way!
»» Submitted by RUSS at 2:22 PM on February 21
Now is that 40% single people living in single-occupancy units? Or 40% single people living together and alone?
I'm also curious what the student population of the city proper is.
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 2:34 PM on February 21
Don't most students have roommates?
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 3:11 PM on February 21
Someone really should study the high percentage of demographic trend-lovers on MNspeak. Are those who are predisposed to love trends drawn here? Or is MNspeak the causation of the trend lovin'?
»» Submitted by »»» miller at 4:43 PM on February 21
This will keep you busy during the storm of the century this weekend.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 6:09 PM on February 21
OBERSTAR YOU GOD DAMN AMBULANCE CHASER! YOU ARE HOLDING HOSTAGE TO EACH AND EVERY MAN, WOMEN, AND CHILD IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR AN UNJUST GAS TAX IN EXCHANGE FOR FEDERAL MONEY TO ROADS AND HIGHWAYS! THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE VOTERS KEEP ELECTING CONSERVATIVES INTO OFFICE DURING AN ELECTION YEAR CYCLE BECAUSE OF YOUR NANNY STATE, BIG GOVERNMENT, NARROW-MINDED, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL AGENDA THAT NOBODY WANTS IN LIFE; YOU'RE NOT HELPING THE AVERAGE JOE OUT THERE, BUT TO PUNISH HIM AT THE WHEEL FOR SOMETHING THEY CAN'T AFFORD IN THEIR WALLETS!
GOD, I WANTED TO VOMIT TO ANYONE THAT TIRES TO DEFEND HIM ON THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
»» Submitted by Big G at 8:13 PM on February 21
Wayne, I was told that 40% of households are 1-person households.
The student population here also skews the median age of Minneapolis residents. According to the demographer, the city apparently is much older than most would think. Also not good for schools.
»» Submitted by »»» jderusha at 10:20 PM on February 21
I guess a lot of the students still live at home, Kevin, and it's jerks like you and me that make the 40%!
So then Minneapolis is both old and young. Big U curve!
Shouldn't all those single 20somethings be married and having kids in a couple years, though?
»» Submitted by »»» wayne at 10:11 AM on February 22
I should send you guys the report that this demographer gave at the meeting. Apparently there's a large flight of people out of the city after birth and before kindergarten. So children being born to Minneapolis residents are not living in the city when it comes time to go to school.
»» Submitted by »»» jderusha at 10:19 AM on February 22
Yeah post it on DeBlog.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 10:32 AM on February 22
GOD, I WANTED TO VOMIT TO ANYONE THAT TIRES TO DEFEND HIM ON THIS BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll never "tire" of defending Congresman Oberstar and the state gas tax he supports, or of seeing conservatives vomit.
Oberstar spoke French during his news conference.
This drives conservatives even crazier.
»» Submitted by Milton at 10:33 AM on February 22
I've always thought the best school to close would be Jefferson. If it's possible, the school could sell that land and get themselves some decent one-time funding. Top-notch in-demand location like that.
»» Submitted by »»» kwatt at 12:50 PM on February 22
Apparently there's a large flight of people out of the city after birth and before kindergarten.
I hope these youngsters are taking the bus or light rail to escape the city...I'm guessing it's hard to see over the dash and reach the pedals at age 3.
»» Submitted by SpellsGood at 1:10 PM on February 22
»»» = registered user. click on it to see the user's profile.
|
|
|
