Obama lawyers want the military to continue to bar openly gay people!

[BT]

Taxes versus fees

When we think of government revenues, we tend to immediately think of taxes. But government also levies many fees and direct charges. N.C. State University economist Mike Walden describes the difference between taxes and fees.


?Taxes are paid for government services that are supposed to really help everyone. So the idea is ? we pay taxes and they go into a pot where they are funding things like K-12 education (and) roads," says Dr. Walden, a professor of agricultural and resource economics. "Those would be two good examples of where all of us directly or indirectly benefit."

"Fees, on the other hand, are paid for government services that directly help that specific person. So, for example, a college student pays tuition, that?s a fee, and the college student obviously is getting the direct benefit of the education," he adds. "Or a driver who parks at a municipal garage pays a few because they are using that parking space. Or a household pays a fee to the city for city water.

"So the difference here is whether the person who is paying the charge directly benefits: In that case, it?s a fee. Or if they benefit as well as everyone else benefits, that?s a tax.

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/calscommblogs/economic/archives/2007/05/the_difference.html

[sirs]

And in both cases, they're payment to the Government, mandated, or else.  But yes, it was answered.  Whether you wish to accept the answer or not, is your choosing, but the "pendulum" at this juncture is not likely to swing back, until there's a complete collapse in the states economic structure

But as I said before as well, under Democrat control, we are very much on the right path for that to happen.  and under Brown, we may get there that much faster, as well

[BT]

And in both cases, they're payment to the Government, mandated, or else.

The payee doesn't matter, the definition does. Otherwise there was no need for Proposition 25 or the numerous court cases challenging the misuse of fees to generate general fund revenue.

By saying that fees are the same as taxes shows that you agree with the misapplication of fees by the politicians you rail against, ie making moot your argument against taxes hidden as fees.

Whether you wish to accept the answer or not, is your choosing, but the "pendulum" at this juncture is not likely to swing back, until there's a complete collapse in the states economic structure

But as I said before as well, under Democrat control, we are very much on the right path for that to happen.  and under Brown, we may get there that much faster, as well

Perhaps the real difference between Californians and Texans is that Texans are willing to fight for what they believe in.

I am really surprised by your defeatist attitude.

[Xavier_Onassis]

sirs likes to grumble rather a lot.

[sirs]

I'd rather grumble accurately than those who would piss & moan inaccurately

[BT]

Considering that we have had three Presidents and one Chief Justice from California and all 4 were Republicans, I'm not sure if your claim that the Dems have a stranglehold on California is completely accurate.

Your claim that gerrymandered election districts designed by the dem majority in the legislature to perpetuate their majority is not accurate.

Demographically speaking, California is about the same as Texas, so demographics is not the problem.

Perhaps the problem is with the candidates that conservatives field. Perhaps they are not effective in delivering the message that not only differentiates them from the opposition but also convinces the voting public that their vision is the best way forward.

[sirs]

Considering everything i'm referencing stems from the legislature, and just "coming" from CA means pretty much squat, I'd say my reference to a perfect example of what can happen to a society when left in near total control of liberal Democrats, is spot-on

And you're absolutely right, Demographics isn't the problem.  GOVERNMENT is.  And when rigged to keep the same party in power of the pursestrings, you get what you see here in CA.

I know you really want to harp on the supposed lack of a good conservative message.  As I keep trying to explain, and providing copious examples of such, it's not the message, its the messenger

[BT]

Then i suggest California Partisan Conservatives concentrate on taking back the legislature one district at a time.

And if, as you claim, the message is not the problem, then i suggest California Partisan Conservatives improve upon their selection of their messengers, which i'm pretty sure the dem controlled legislative body in Sacramento, has zip to do with.

[sirs]

Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions

And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General

But your suggestions are appreciated

[BT]

Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions

What do the unions have to do with an independent redistricting commission made up of 5 dems, 5 gop's and 4 independents?

And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think proper messenger selection can be helped. And certainly the opposition party is not to be blamed for your parties mistakes.

But your suggestions are appreciated

You're welcome

[sirs]

Hard to take back a Dem strong gerrymandered district, backed by the unions

What do the unions have to do with an independent redistricting commission made up of 5 dems, 5 gop's and 4 independents?

It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be.  And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place. 

And can't be helped when GOP candidates sermonize the proper conservative message, then throw it aside in the General.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office

I think proper messenger selection can be helped. And certainly the opposition party is not to be blamed for your parties mistakes.

You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party.  I'm an Indep with no party affiliation. I do tend to support conservative candidates & policy, which finds prescious little in any other party, outside of the GOP & Libertarian

[BT]

It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be.  And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place.

Why not? Proposition 11 was passed 2 years ago.

Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office

The candidate doesn't have to run twice. The party has to nominate them.
Are you saying the GOP is a terrible judge of character? Or that they don't pay attention to the track record of folks they nominate for district level office. Most of these folks come from the ranks of city councils, mayors or county commissioners.

You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party.

Then what are you complaining about? If you aren't in the game, you are in the bleachers.

[sirs]

It has to do with the fact that said commision has yet to be put together and function in how it was designed to be.  And there are decades of gerrymadering already in place.

Why not? Proposition 11 was passed 2 years ago.

IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place.  That's why not.  The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades

Cite me 1 Calif GOP candidate than ran "twice" for the same high office

The candidate doesn't have to run twice. The party has to nominate them.

The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase.  You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.

Are you saying the GOP is a terrible judge of character?

A little, but more so the Candidate was all Uber-Reagan running in the Primaries.  Arnold was a Rhino, but said the right things, and we had just endured a disaster of a Democratic Governor.  Whitman was a complete unknown, and she said the right things.  What are you proposing....polygraphs??

You keep forgetting, I'm not a Republican, so its not my party.

Then what are you complaining about? If you aren't in the game, you are in the bleachers.

I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game.  Nice try, though

[BT]

IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place.  That's why not.  The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades

Why not? Proposition 20 was an extension to the duties proscribed by Proposition 11. Perhaps they are awaiting 2010 census data upon which to act and form the commission then.

But in the meantime, with the present system, didn't the GOP have the same ability to gerrymander if and when they held majorities?

The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase.  You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.

The party backs the primary winners, the party apparatus also signals which would be the preferred candidate, presumably with prior vetting. Not saying that is always the case, see O'Donnell and Miller.
Were Meg and Carly backed by the tea party?

I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game.  Nice try, though

Then perhaps you should let the GOP worry about who their candidates are. Not sure that you have standing to do more than vote for the presented candidates that best suit your interests. 

[sirs]

IIRC, the Commission has yet to be put in place.  That's why not.  The Gerrymandering has been going on for decades

Why not? Proposition 20 was an extension to the duties proscribed by Proposition 11.

ASKED and ANSWERED.  IIRC the commission is STILL not been put together.  So, your question as to why hasn't been done yet lays squarely on.....you guessed it.....THE GOVERNMENT.  Whether they're waiting for 2010 census data is speculation.  The point is there's no commission yet to even start addressing the severely gerrymandered districts

But in the meantime, with the present system, didn't the GOP have the same ability to gerrymander if and when they held majorities?

On paper, yea.  And.........?  Wouldn't have made it right had they done so as well

The issue was the famous fool me once/twice phrase.  You can't fool me twice if the same candidate doesn't run twice, so it's not an applicable phrase.

Were Meg and Carly backed by the tea party?

Not publically.  I liked Carly.  I do believe Palin had some fine things to say about Carly, as well.  She stayed consistent, and on message.  Meg was all over the ball park, but pulled a hard right to win the primary.  Point being, they ran on a conservative platform, that one them the primary.  If they were to run a 2nd time, I'll know what to expect, and won't be "fooled twice"

I VOTE, therefore I'm in the game.  Nice try, though

Then perhaps you should let the GOP worry about who their candidates are.

Perhaps, I'll focus on getting the GOP to push candidates I think are more appropriate for the state, if you don't mind