Glad there is at least one exception to the property tax growth across the country. But as you pointed out, once TV stops building 3000 new homes a year to add to that tax base the problem I stated will return. In fact it might even be worse then other places. The county government is by now probably addicted to the tax base increase and spending the money almost as fast as it comes in. When compared to most other places in the country, the counties that make up TV should be providing great service at very low rates. The biggest portion of county taxes in the rest of the country go for schools. Don't know this, but my guess is the per capita student to resident ratio in those counties is much lower then the national average. Unless there is something going on there I don't know about.

Finally some good news
Boy we could use much more.

Kahuna, given your analysis of our nation's fiscal dilemma, is it prudent and good government to be implementing Obama's National Health Plan at this time?

Never thought I would post a Jon Stewart video but the link was on a conservative site:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...ix-the-economy

Without commenting upon the people who understand the economy far better than I, may I say that link was hilarious. The Daily show is a national treasure, not because of the views of Jon Daily, but because of his wonderful sense of humor. I try to learn to laugh at myself as much as I should. When I do not, JD provides a perspective that we need.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Kahuna, given your analysis of our nation's fiscal dilemma, is it prudent and good government to be implementing Obama's National Health Plan at this time?

I don't know. I haven't studied the content of the proposed bill enough to understand it.

On second thought--yes, I do know. As much as I think there should be healthcare for a bunch of people who don't currently have it, unless our Congressional geniuses can come up with a way to make the proposed legilslation "deficit neutral", then enacting it now is a lousy idea.

From the little bit I'm hearing on the news coverage, that seems to be the direction it's going. I don't think even the huge majority of Congressional Democrats would have the guts to pass a bill that added over a trillion dollars to the national debt right now. Then again, maybe I'm giving them too much credit for their intelligence. If we don't already know that we need a new "435", that move would put the icing on the cake.

P.S. Keedy, that was a good segment from The Daily Show. I try to watch him as often as I can. Believe it or not, I think he often presents a view of the news in a way that a whole lot of people often agree with. And he makes you laugh while doing it. From the times I've watched him, he doesn't seem to lean left or right. If some politician does something really dumb, he leans on them. Like he said in the segment you linked that was critical of President Obama's "renaissance man" mentality, "...that's nice, now fix the economy."

The best way to determine where a nation is on the capitalist/socialist scale is to measure how much of it's economy is in the public sector. In other words, what percentage of its GDP comes from government spending.
The USA is 9th on the list with 36.4% and Sweden is the highest, number 1 on the list with 57.0% of their GDP that goes to their government.

Total U.S. GDP $ 14,000 billion
Total government spending $ 5,096 billion (36.4%)

Additional government spending under Obama


Stimulus package $787 billion
Supplemental appropriations 410 billion
Estimated health care spending 625
------------------------------------------------
Total new Obama spending $1,822 billion
New percentage of GDP from government 49.4%


Where U.S. government once accounted for 36.4percent of our economy, it is now rising to 49 percent---sending us soaring past Britain and Germany and nestling right under France---the very model of a modern socialist democracy!

So, when it comes to Barack Obama's spending programs "socialist" is no political slur. It is a simple description.

TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP

Sweden..............57.0%
France................54.0%
Italy...................48.6%
Netherlands..........47.1%
Germany...............47.5%
United Kingdom......43.7%
Canada................40.1%
Japan...................37.5%
United States........36.4%

Originally Posted by Keedy

Where U.S. government once accounted for 36.4percent of our economy, it is now rising to 49 percent---sending us soaring past Britain and Germany and nestling right under France---the very model of a modern socialist democracy!

So, when it comes to Barack Obama's spending programs "socialist" is no political slur. It is a simple description.

C'mon, Keedy. Let's be fair with the numbers.

The financial stimulus was passed at the end of the Bush administration and would have almost certainly been necessary regardless of who was President at the moment.

Similarly, the Supplemental Appropriation, which covered only a couple of months of federal spending, was needed to pay for the items also budgeted by the Bush-Cheney administration. How much of that was to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama included in his budget but Bush did not, is another source of your "socialist spending".

And it's a bit too early to lay a $675 billion bill for the healthcare changes on the Obama doorstep just yet. There's still a lot of negotiating going on in the House to make the proposed bill more "deficit neutral". Then there's the Senate, which will probably have their heels dug in even more than the House on wild-eyed spending.

I think it will only be fair to look at the spending of the Obama administration after a year or two passes. Even then it still wouldn't be totally fair to blame him for spending that was authorized and started by his predecessor.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

C'mon, Keedy. Let's be fair with the numbers.

The financial stimulus was passed at the end of the Bush administration and would have almost certainly been necessary regardless of who was President at the moment.

Similarly, the Supplemental Appropriation, which covered only a couple of months of federal spending, was needed to pay for the items also budgeted by the Bush-Cheney administration. How much of that was to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama included in his budget but Bush did not, is another source of your "socialist spending".

And it's a bit too early to lay a $675 billion bill for the healthcare changes on the Obama doorstep just yet. There's still a lot of negotiating going on in the House to make the proposed bill more "deficit neutral". Then there's the Senate, which will probably have their heels dug in even more than the House on wild-eyed spending.

I think it will only be fair to look at the spending of the Obama administration after a year or two passes. Even then it still wouldn't be totally fair to blame him for spending that was authorized and started by his predecessor.

Hey, hold your horses!!!!! My post is a wake-up call not an Obama bashing.
The figures I posted are to show people where were heading if we continue down this path. The more of the GDP that the government has...the more socialistic we will become and that will stagnate business. The more the government has...means less vested for buiness which means less jobs and a push away from a capitalistic economy which has been very good for us for over 230years.

Wow...Didn't realize that I was spitting on your hero. My bad.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

C'mon, Keedy. Let's be fair with the numbers.

The financial stimulus was passed at the end of the Bush administration and would have almost certainly been necessary regardless of who was President at the moment.

Similarly, the Supplemental Appropriation, which covered only a couple of months of federal spending, was needed to pay for the items also budgeted by the Bush-Cheney administration. How much of that was to fund Iraq and Afghanistan, which Obama included in his budget but Bush did not, is another source of your "socialist spending".

And it's a bit too early to lay a $675 billion bill for the healthcare changes on the Obama doorstep just yet. There's still a lot of negotiating going on in the House to make the proposed bill more "deficit neutral". Then there's the Senate, which will probably have their heels dug in even more than the House on wild-eyed spending.

I think it will only be fair to look at the spending of the Obama administration after a year or two passes. Even then it still wouldn't be totally fair to blame him for spending that was authorized and started by his predecessor.

It does not matter whether all of this spending can be laid at the feet of Bush, Clinton, Obama or the Easter Bunny. They are all guilty to some degree, with one exception (guess which one). The only thing that matters is that it's happening, our representatives (our elected agents!) irresponsibly authorized the spending without any idea what the bill contained, and our agent-representatives are still spending public money (that doesn't even really exist) like intoxicated conventioneers with the Administration's encouragement (and yes, the prior administration also encouraged it).

At some point this money-printing and spending spree has to stop, before the dollar becomes virtually worthless in the world exchange and inflation a-la-Venezuela occurs here.

So, until we get our economy back, creating more public programs without and until creating more taxpayers to help pay for them is utter lunacy. Bankrupting the remaining taxpayers still left in our economy is not the "change" anybody wants.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...mouse-project/



Gee..doesn't this just make you feel warm and fuzzy inside? (while your standing in the unemployment line)

[quote]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

It does not matter whether all of this spending can be laid at the feet of Bush, Clinton, Obama or the Easter Bunny. They are all guilty to some degree, with one exception (guess which one). The only thing that matters is that it's happening, our representatives (our elected agents!) irresponsibly authorized the spending without any idea what the bill contained, and our agent-representatives are still spending public money (that doesn't even really exist) like intoxicated conventioneers with the Administration's encouragement (and yes, the prior administration also encouraged it).

At some point this money-printing and spending spree has to stop, before the dollar becomes virtually worthless in the world exchange and inflation a-la-Venezuela occurs here.

So, until we get our economy back, creating more public programs without and until creating more taxpayers to help pay for them is utter lunacy. Bankrupting the remaining taxpayers still left in our economy is not the "change" anybody wants.[/QUOTE]

Steve...I totally agree. The polls indicate voter regret. If we don't change direction soon, well, it could take us decades to pull out of this.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gd4zuznzkU

Originally Posted by Keedy

...Hey, hold your horses!!!!! My post is a wake-up call not an Obama bashing...Wow...Didn't realize that I was spitting on your hero...

I voted for President Obama and I like some of what he's accomplished in a short time. But while he's my President, he's far from "my hero". As I explained in an earlier post, it's not likely that he'll even get my vote in 2012. I just think it's fair to give the new President more than 170 days before we decide that he's changed the fundamental system of governance of the country. (I know that Joe Biden says they've only been in charge for 140 days, but sometimes Joe has 'senior moments' and forgets a few days here and there.)

Regarding who's responsible for what, I agree with SteveZ on the culpability of the U.S. Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit and the power of the veto, but the pattern of significantly outspending the revenue stream is and has been the result of a special interest-driven and irresponsible Congress moreso than either of our last two Presidents. I'd be happy to begin with replacing 'the 435' even before I got to the other 100 that make up 'the 535'.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I voted for President Obama and I like some of what he's accomplished in a short time. But while he's my President, he's far from "my hero". As I explained in an earlier post, it's not likely that he'll even get my vote in 2012. I just think it's fair to give the new President more than 170 days before we decide that he's changed the fundamental system of governance of the country. (I know that Joe Biden says they've only been in charge for 140 days, but sometimes Joe has 'senior moments' and forgets a few days here and there.)

Regarding who's responsible for what, I agree with SteveZ on the culpability of the U.S. Congress. Yes, the President has the bully pulpit and the power of the veto, but the pattern of significantly outspending the revenue stream is and has been the result of a special interest-driven and irresponsible Congress moreso than either of our last two Presidents. I'd be happy to begin with replacing 'the 435' even before I got to the other 100 that make up 'the 535'.

I most take that back about your hero VK. My bad. I just read a bunch of old posts from last Sept.-October and your posts are rather mild compared to the real Obama cheerleaders.
Where are they? From what I read, if you dared to say anything about Obama they would jump you you like flies on sh**. Why aren't they here defending their idol today? Just curious...that's all....