With another legislative session just around the corner, senators and representatives have no shortage of challenges ahead of them.
Lawmakers plan to convene hearings on gun control in the wake of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT. They’ll review a recommendation from a governor-appointed task force to increase gas taxes and tab fees in response to a projected $50 billion shortfall in transportation funding. The DFL majority and defeat of the marriage amendment in the 2012 election could even prompt the Legislature to take up the issue of gay marriage.
And looming over everything is a projected $1.1 billion deficit that legislators will have to close before adjourning for the year.
With so many issues on the table, Patch wants to know what issues you think should take priority when the Legislature convenes Jan. 8. Should it be tax reform? Transportation? Education? Social issues? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
??????! Let me get this straight. A better person is a weak slave to a big government? You seemingly have a difficult time articulating your positions, so correct me if I'm wrong. If I criticize government, I'm criticizing you most likely because I didn't vote for most of the morally bankrupt politicians who run the state and the country and you probably did. People like you have found that the politicians are more than happy to take from us producers and give to the non-producers just as long as the non-producers continue to cast their vote for them. Capitalism always serves us. How can it not? In a free market, there is no coercion. The market determines the price and availability of a product or service and you as the purchaser can decide if it's worth parting with your government issued green printed paper or not. It is really simple. Walmart is there to make a profit and nothing else. If they don't serve us well, they won't make a profit and someone with a better business model will step in and fill the void. Don't equate capitalism to Washington sponsored crony capitalism and corporatism. They're not the same thing, although Michael Moore would have you think so.
"“reduce government” - meaning you make yourself smaller, weaker, become the slave!" I think you might want a refresher course on a Constitutional Republic. "A Constitutional Republic is a state where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens." "A Constitutional Republic is the current form of government in the United States. However in recent years, many people have criticized the federal government for moving away from a Constitutional Republic, as defined by the Constitution, and towards a pure democracy". Ron Paul (this one was for you, Markus). We are not the government, resident, we vote for people who best represent our personal values, to RUN the government, according and adhering to the Constitution. I understand how and why you are attempting to make this argument, but it does not represent how our government actually works and/or the role the people have in said government.
Yes, it's capitalism, but if the consumers would get wise they would see that saving 50 cents, or even two dollars on something is hurting not only the workers, but the country (in regards to income taxes), nothing will change. Saving the almighty buck is what is driving people to Walmart and until consumers are willing to take a stand, the Waltons will get richer and the workers, although grateful to have a job, will continue to be paid so poorly that they don't have to pay income tax and will continue to be a drain on the government through handouts (that most need to survive). Who benefits here and who is on the losing end? Markus is right in saying that the market corrects itself here, but CONSUMERS need to make the change, not the government.
Government regulation stifles competition? Really? There were no monopolies before the federal antitrust laws were enacted? If not, then why do you suppose those laws were needed? As for no one being 'forced' to shop at Walmart, well, yes, in a sense no one is forced, but when Walmart undercuts all the other local businesses, forcing them to shut down, you can 'choose' to shop elsewhere but you won't have many nearby options. In some less populated areas, Walmart is the only option for many miles. Moreover, Walmart does more than drive out smaller local businesses, creating a virtual monopoly for itself; it also creates a monopsony. That is, as the largest and often the sole purchaser of manufactured goods, it can set the wholesale prices, effectively putting some suppliers out of business as well, making overseas suppliers the only ones available. Then, of course, there is the fact that taxpayers subsidize the billions of dollars the Walton family members get in income; by paying many of their employees so little that they qualify for food stamps, MA and the EITC, the owners of Walmart are able to take in a lot more in profit at taxpayer expense. Nice work if you can get it...
It doesn't take an Austrian Economist to know that antitrust laws were enacted and exist to expand government power and provide nifty ways for the politicians to help their cronies "compete" against companies that supposedly had/have a corner on the market. Businesses corner markets all the time, but it's always only temporary. The market makes sure of that, only when allowed to work of course. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much in the way of a true free market for the last century due to government intervention. We could eliminate corporate income taxes to make US companies more competitive with the rest of the world. That would give Walmart less incentive to go to China for their goods. Here's another good idea. Let's make it a little harder for Walmart to pay low wages by increasing the threshold for collecting all those government benefits that Joyce is so fond of. We used to laud innovation when it came to better ways to distribute products and services. There is always going to be casualties in the free market. Ask the guy who used to work at the typewriter factory. Walmart has only benefited consumers and made a profit. Exactly what they should do.
http://gis.co.dakota.mn.us/ve/foreclosures/map.html And this is just Dakota county's sheriffs. If you want a reality check, go ahead and enable January through December. Also keep in mind the peak was several years ago.
My house is so underwater right now, I can't even qualify for a refinance. And the mortgage is owned by Lehman Bros, so I don't qualify for HARP, either. The more my neighbors foreclose, the more my house value tanks. I dunno. My two cents.
The banks are also strategically foreclosing so as to not flood the market with distressed properties. It's ironic that the government is attempting to re-inflate the housing bubble. It's classic. The government does exactly what caused the problem in an attempt to fix the problem. Sorry to hear you're upside down. You can place the blame squarely on the federal government.
Imagine if we held high standards of our federal/state/local/school government entities like leftists believe businesses should be
If union membership is so great, wouldn't workers be clamoring to join them? Workers in Texas have a choice (I'm willing to bet you're pro-choice in other areas) and choose to exercise it by not joining the union. Why do you think that is? Could it be they see no direct benefit to paying union dues? Could it be that they see most unions are thinly disguised left wing lobbying organizations and they prefer not to participate? You referred to not being able to get your car repaired properly because of the lack of union membership. I owned an auto repair shop for 21 years and we were not unionized. No independent shops in MN are. Many of us belonged to an association of which I was on the board for many years. Our member shops were typically well operated shops with well trained technicians and happy customers. There is a large chapter in Texas that has similar membership. If you can't find a good place to get your car fixed, you're looking in the wrong place. I have literally dozens of acquaintances who are in the construction industry in MN as well, all do exceptional work and none belong to unions. You can't equate quality to union membership. Show us some empirical data to suggest otherwise. If you accept shoddy work, that is on you. There are qualified tradesmen, you have to find them as you do anywhere.
"It is WE who are pathetic and lazy, and don't appreciate what we have in our hands." If you're talking about the 47% I wholeheartedly agree. The producers who fund this system that banksters, corporations, unions and private individuals have found they can vote themselves benefits from at the expense of their fellow citizens would probably resent being lumped into that category. The government has in essence codified immorality (stealing) in tax law. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship” ~ Alexander Tytler 1787
Regarding the elderly, yes, they should get what's been promised to them. However, the elderly expecting a payout on what they paid in should have paid attention to history. Governments are woefully inept at predicting and planning for the future. It was predicted back in the 1960's that Social Security and Medicare were unsustainable but people apathetically continued to pay into a defunct system with some sort of irrational blind faith that the government would fix the problem and they would get theirs. I have been planning to NOT get Social Security or Medicare since I've been in my twenties. I have lived frugally, paid off my house, and saved my money (only to have it earn .15% interest because of federal monetary policy). The government confiscates a large portion of my income at the point of a gun and I get virtually no benefit. What I pay into Social Security funds those currently receiving benefits. I will likely see no benefits. However, I wasn't so ignorant as to expect the federal government to keep its promises and I have a contingency plan. If you expect the government to take care of you, I hope you have low expectations. I have no expectations they will ever do what they say.
you would think they could all be merged into one. But who am i to suggest something as silly as that...
http://www.garynorth.com/public/10521.cfm
Focus on: 1. removing duplicate laws and laws with in the law 2. we have hate crime bill/women against violence/rape/abuse. all under the law of do not harm another. 3. discrimination yet government is the biggest offender and has exceptions to the law. Discrimination law then government should not: 1. allow apps to have age/race/gender just citizen and non 2. aid based not on with or with out family by need only 3. insurance all kinds remove age/race/gender/history of family 4. grants/scholarships not by race/grade/sports 5. taxes flat tax all pay = % of earned income. does not matter rich/poor/middle class married or not married. 6. remove gifting tax unless we tax the money to those who receive aid. this indirectly is a gift. 7. government now wants to know when a person helps someone who and how much. Why? they are not writing it off. When did we allow government to say we can not help or if friend and family paint your house due to lead law you cannot give them money to thank them or buy pizza otherwise your paying for a service. We should not pass laws and have exceptions to the rule.
---that and ANY .gov program is doomed to massive overruns and mismanagement.