Gov. Lynch's toll hike (buy, public school, median income)

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by OCCASparky

How about using the gas taxes for the purpose for which they were intended? Maybe if you stopped spending 2/3 of the gas tax for things OTHER than roads, you wouldn't be having these little problems.

Sorry, you got a toll hike from me a year ago. No more.

Here's something that ought to make all of you folks feel real comfy. California has a population of nearly 40 million. New Hampshire's population is currently about 1.3 million, making California 30 times larger.

California's 2009-10 budget is $112 Billion. NH has just proposed a two-year budget of $11.5 Billion, or $5.75 Billion per year. IOW, kids, by doing some simple math, we find that New Hampshire has a per-capita expenditure of 50 percent GREATER than a state on the verge of bankruptcy.

It's only a matter of time, boys and girls. Don't think it can't or won't happen here.

It is just a matter of time before we are at a point of no return here in NH. Hopefully people will wake up before it is too late.

[BF66389]

Originally Posted by nicolem

[/b]It is just a matter of time before we are at a point of no return here in NH. Hopefully people will wake up before it is too late.

Here in NH? Regardless of political viewpoint (again) this kind of stuff scares the heck out of me at a national level: Green shoots? Feh. Here's truly terrifying data about the real state of the U.S. economy. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
(yes, I know the author's history; but the data is sound)

[OCCASparky]

Originally Posted by BF66389

Here in NH? Regardless of political viewpoint (again) this kind of stuff scares the heck out of me at a national level: Green shoots? Feh. Here's truly terrifying data about the real state of the U.S. economy. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
(yes, I know the author's history; but the data is sound)

Sorry, but Eliot? He pretty much lost any and all credibility with me when he showed his unrepentant hypocrisy. That being said, what this administration is doing is NOT helping the economy, either in the short- or long-term.

[BF66389]

Yes, I know...I know...I know, but it doesn't change the content presented. Nationally this is really not a republican or democrat issue; yet we're focused in this republican vs. democrat battle over hot inflammatory issues rather than understanding complex critically important ones. We (as a people) need to get smarter, work harder, and make wiser decisions (which sometimes fall under what today's democrats support, sometimes what today's republicans support, and usually what neither supports) or we are in a load of trouble.

...there is a lot of money to be made keeping everyone angry at each other over less complex/critical issues.

[nicolem]

Originally Posted by BF66389

Here in NH? Regardless of political viewpoint (again) this kind of stuff scares the heck out of me at a national level: Green shoots? Feh. Here's truly terrifying data about the real state of the U.S. economy. - By Eliot Spitzer - Slate Magazine
(yes, I know the author's history; but the data is sound)

Yes here in NH. We have had an increase of 17.5% in 2007 and the one being floated around is now estimated between 9-14%. We have many new fees/taxes from 2007 and many new being proposed currently. Once new taxes and new fees are implemented they never go away-the tax and spenders only want more.


I never mentioned political viewpoint or party. I have seen the changes in the out of control spending in NH in the past 10 years and it is sad how much NH has changed in regards to that and yes I do believe we are at a point of no return in NH if this is not corrected no later than the next election.

[BF66389]

Oh, that wasn't actually a question; I was doing the "Hear in NH?" with that intonation to suggest that its a larger problem than just NH. I guess such intonation doesn't carry online too well My point is while NH has its issues, we have a greater national issue as well which is broader than the scope and limited focus of the media and political parties.

[Dwatted Wabbit]

Originally Posted by OCCASparky

Sorry, but Eliot? He pretty much lost any and all credibility with me when he showed his unrepentant hypocrisy. That being said, what this administration is doing is NOT helping the economy, either in the short- or long-term.

I'd heard, when Spitzer resigned, there was more to the iceberg than the tip: Why Bush Targeted Eliot Spitzer

Prosecutors tend to create enemies. Aggressive prosecutors going after very big fish tend to create big, aggressive enemies.

"Leaders" of both parties have much to account for. Creating money out of whole cloth just delays the inevitable, and will make the eventual inevitable financial asteroid-strike far worse.

While raising NH tolls is petty cash compared to the national financial debacle they're working up, it's still a standard symptom of the willful delusional thinking of the Masters of the Universe.

[GregW]

I object to "fee for use taxes" just as much as the rest of you cheapskates. I think property and sales taxes do not represent the benefits of law and order a citizen receives from government. I would prefer a 10% income tax with a deductable equal to twice the state mean income. That should provide enough income to run the State without bothering me. You see I am a cheapskate just like you but I am also willing to put the tax burden on those that can afford it.

DW- we will muddle through this crisis because the "Masters of the Universe" own the economy and simply will not let it collapse. A collapse would force them to drink cheap booze instead of the good stuff and send their little brats to public schools instead of the Little Masters prep schools.

[nicolem]

Actually Greg-you are the one propsing a plan so you don't have to pay at all-instead wanting the "rich" to pay your share. I have no problem paying for legitimate and constitutional spending-as I expect every other member of society to pay their share-rich, poor, whatever. The amount of taxation and spending that we have now and what is being proposed is not legitimate nor constitutional. You are the one who thinks he should pay zero-not me. That certainly does not make me the cheapskate.

[sgthoskins]

Originally Posted by nicolem

actually greg-you are the one propsing a plan so you don't have to pay at all-instead wanting the "rich" to pay your share. I have no problem paying for legitimate and constitutional spending-as i expect every other member of society to pay their share-rich, poor, whatever. The amount of taxation and spending that we have now and what is being proposed is not legitimate nor constitutional. You are the one who thinks he should pay zero-not me. That certainly does not make me the cheapskate.

+1