Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i think you give her too much credit. you're saying she actually had an idea that would raise revenue. it's not even that. it would cost a fortune. i bet if you did analysis, the $10 fees and the $100 fines wouldn't cover the costs of having the program.
it's actually just a blatent display of idiocy. some stupid concoction she thought of maybe cause she was sick of hearing idiot senior citizens complaining about kids in their front yards. or, even worse, she actually thought it was something that needed to be addressed, and honestly believed this was a good way to address it.
god - there's no route you can take that leads you to believe any intelligence was involved here...
i think you give her too much credit. you're saying she actually had an idea that would raise revenue. it's not even that. it would cost a fortune. i bet if you did analysis, the $10 fees and the $100 fines wouldn't cover the costs of having the program.
yes, i was going to throw in the words "and grow the size of government" because of that point. what happens is you say you will raise $x million in revenue, you spend 3 or 4 times that before you ever see the revenue based on the expecation of the revenue (spending not related to that regulation), and in the end the program costs more to operate than it brings in. thats government.
yes, i was going to throw in the words "and grow the size of government" because of that point. what happens is you say you will raise $x million in revenue, you spend 3 or 4 times that before you ever see the revenue based on the expecation of the revenue (spending not related to that regulation), and in the end the program costs more to operate than it brings in. thats government.
what are you talking about? what you said is right there in the end when i said "and in the end the program costs more to operate than it brings in." i just expanded on that point by saying that they will spend the expected revenue and then some before they even collect any fees. so you end up even deeper in the hole.
what are you talking about? what you said is right there in the end when i said "and in the end the program costs more to operate than it brings in." i just expanded on that point by saying that they will spend the expected revenue and then some before they even collect any fees. so you end up even deeper in the hole.
i just simply was showing that the program would be expensive to implement, and $10 fee and $100 fines wouldn't cover the costs. yours sounded like government would spend money on other things before even getting this revenue, cause that's how government works. maybe i read it wrong, but that's what it sounded like, and it's not what i was saying.
i just simply was showing that the program would be expensive to implement, and $10 fee and $100 fines wouldn't cover the costs. yours sounded like government would spend money on other things before even getting this revenue, cause that's how government works. maybe i read it wrong, but that's what it sounded like, and it's not what i was saying.
entirely possible. so we said the same thing then. she's an idiot. voters should vote her out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
