Me too.Now why would anyone run if no one's chasing him?
Seriously, I don't think I'd ever run for office. But if there were a party of "Nope" I'd join it.
Me too.Now why would anyone run if no one's chasing him?
Seriously, I don't think I'd ever run for office. But if there were a party of "Nope" I'd join it.
Autopsies and light houses.If you get aome benefit from that trail. Why can’t you pitch in? Was it paid for with state funds? I’m not using it. It doesn’t increase my property value. If it’s paid from tax dollars I’ve paid in, why should I have to pay for your ****?
If you get aome benefit from that trail. Why can’t you pitch in? Was it paid for with state funds? I’m not using it. It doesn’t increase my property value. If it’s paid from tax dollars I’ve paid in, why should I have to pay for your ****?
99% of the people won't do anything, they just bitch about those that do.Now why would anyone run if no one's chasing him?
Seriously, I don't think I'd ever run for office. But if there were a party of "Nope" I'd join it.
So any driving for recreation should be billed to those drivers or not allowed as that might cost taxpayers? Seems binary…It’s a recreational path. Take up a collection.
My only complaint is that there's no trail out here in Aboite to connect to the rest of the city. Waaaa!I live close to the Pufferbelly Trail and ride it regularly, and often to work and back. It's a huge boon to everyone around including home owners as it increases their property value. It's a massive factor in the quantity of life for our denizens.
This thread proves that INGO can complain about anything.
Yee-haw! I can't wait to see what my share of *that* monumental tax break will be.Or not spend any on trails and lower the tax rates.
How far do we extend this argument? I'll start. My adult kids never use schools anymore, so why should my taxes pay for them? You want a school in your neighborhood? Take up a collection.It’s a recreational path. Take up a collection.
Good point. How about the people who don't use public ranges for shooting, public land for hunting, or rivers and lakes for fishing? Should they pay taxes supporting those activities?How far do we extend this argument? I'll start. My adult kids never use schools anymore, so why should my taxes pay for them? You want a school in your neighborhood? Take up a collection.
Yes! Something something Common Good something somethingGood point. How about the people who don't use public ranges for shooting, public land for hunting, or rivers and lakes for fishing? Should they pay taxes supporting those activities?
Okay. You asked the question, so how far can you take your argument? Self defense is a right. Ammo’s too expensive. It oppresses poor people because they can’t afford to defend themselves. Government should provide ammo. How about this one? Government should help subsidize rich people's Teslas.How far do we extend this argument? I'll start. My adult kids never use schools anymore, so why should my taxes pay for them? You want a school in your neighborhood? Take up a collection.
My point was that I think tha there are things that governments should provide; in this case, subsidizing bike trails. Your stated opinion is that, since you don't use them, the government, through your taxes, shouldn't pay for them. From that position, I inferred that you believe that we, as taxpayers, should be able to pick and choose where our tax dollars go, something like a line-item veto for all 200 million or so of us. It sounded good to me until I told a pro-abortion coworker that I shouldn't have to fund Planned Parenthood, because that is forcing me to pay for something that is morally abhorrent to me. They said that they were morally against war, and shouldn't have to pay for the military. I guess I lost that one.Okay. You asked the question, so how far can you take your argument? Self defense is a right. Ammo’s too expensive. It oppresses poor people because they can’t afford to defend themselves. Government should provide ammo. How about this one? Government should help subsidize rich people's Teslas.
Instead of trying to reduce my point of view to absurdity, maybe it would be more fruitful for you to acknowledge that there is a point at which government should not fund a thing that some people want. But I'm sure you're not really wanting to say that, even though that's where your argument leads. What can't be justified with that?
So we likely can have a good faith discussion. But you need to reset your expectation of what the discussion really is. It's not about whether there should be a line. It's not even about about whether you or I have the line in the right place. I do, of course. It's about people's opinion on the internet about what the government should or should not pay for.
What can't be justified with common good? Is there a line where something can't be justified? I'm arguing that there is and that the line is short of $30M recreational trails, only of use to a relatively small portion of those who had to pay for it, and the use of eniment domain to acquire it.Yes! Something something Common Good something something
I think the “common good” has been corrupted as badly as “general welfare”.What can't be justified with common good? Is there a line where something can't be justified? I'm arguing that there is and that the line is short of $30M recreational trails, only of use to a relatively small portion of those who had to pay for it, and the use of eniment domain to acquire it.
You should have inferred that there is a line to be drawn for justifying the use of the power of the state against those who don't want the thing. Like I said. I'd love to have the Monon South trail in my back yard. Your school argument doesn't fit because everyone has neighborhood schools, now. Were you tacitly saying the state should fund $30M trails in every community, and forcefully acquiring the land? No. I assume you're not making that argument.My point was that I think tha there are things that governments should provide; in this case, subsidizing bike trails. Your stated opinion is that, since you don't use them, the government, through your taxes, shouldn't pay for them. From that position, I inferred that you believe that we, as taxpayers, should be able to pick and choose where our tax dollars go, something like a line-item veto for all 200 million or so of us. It sounded good to me until I told a pro-abortion coworker that I shouldn't have to fund Planned Parenthood, because that is forcing me to pay for something that is morally abhorrent to me. They said that they were morally against war, and shouldn't have to pay for the military. I guess I lost that one.
Unfortunately, they are part of the Left that is in bed with part of the Right on this issue, and would say "No".About that. Get into that same argument again and ask whether they want their tax dollars to fund the war in Ukraine?
I think the “common good” has been corrupted as badly as “general welfare”.
If you don't stand in firm, overt support of Ukraine, you're literally Hitler. If you don't have Ukrainian colors on your profile in any social media, you're literally Hitler. People I know who are left wing pacifists are pushing for the US to keep sending money and arms. People are broken. Their side has taken over their model of the world. They don't have a worldview now. They have a side.Unfortunately, they are part of the Left that is in bed with part of the Right on this issue, and would say "No".