|
|
Plan is not a good oneJanuary 26, 2013To the Editor: After reviewing Gov. Mark Dayton’s latest budget proposal, I am disappointed that the governor is moving full speed ahead with his tax-and-spend proposal.... Showing 7 of 7 comments
Post a Comment |
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web |
wildthing
Yup, see, there it is. Thanks Bob for the pointer. The rebate is a one-time deal, the tax goes on and on. Make the rebate an annual thing, and I'm on board with Dayton's plan. I do agree with a consumption-based tax plan ahead of all others, it's far more moral. At least people have some control, they can spend as much or little as they want and pay tax accordingly. But property taxes need to come down, and stay down.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
norseman
What do you expect? We voted in people with the idea they can spend with a unlimited budget! Stop spending and stop taxing!!!!!
4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
jeffkvb1
The GOP economic policy keeps MN in a deficit, and the DFL policy tries to structurally correct that. For those claiming liberals want too much spending and too much taxing (tax and spend), what do you specifically propose to cut? Don't just whine about the people on welfare, because those numbers just don't work. There are proportionately as many people on welfare now as there were 30 years ago.
1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
wildthing
Jeff, the food stamp thing is out of control. Pop & chips. I pay for it. Have a voucher system for C-rations until you can buy your own food. They are quite tasty, I ate many in the Army. Planned Parenthood should be completly cut. PBS/MPR should be completely cut. Plowing roads that don't have snow on them should be stopped. I can go on and on. There will finally be no more other people's money to waste.
3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
realist
The unintended pregnancies that PP reduces doesn't lower the number of people on welfare? Seems to me to be a great trade off, right? If a woman gets screenings and it reduces the numbers of breast and cervical cancers paid for by Medicaid it wouldn't be a cost savings?
1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
FairmontSSG
So, the number of abortions performed paid for by taxes is a good thing? It keeps that future person off welfare, right realist? What about that person that got the abortion, how about once they have the abortion, they stop getting paid welfare?
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
realist
I never denied that PP performs abortions. I was referring to contraception being cheaper than adding to the number of people on Welfare. Cancer screening saves Medicaid dollars by keeping poor women healthier.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »