denis, do you believe everyone is stupid?

You saying, "Actually Id love that" and giving the reasoning that it would teach people a lesson is not a believable stance.

Example: Many woman say they are pro choice but would never have an abortion. Many of them say that because they arent in the situation. Same idea here.

With everything you've posted, I have a real hard time believing you would "love" a tax hike in the name of balancing the budget

And what you re-posted just goes to show how you blame the people over politicians. As if you and a few enlightened people know how to live within their means, but no one else does.


I bolded the parts where you blame citizens



[/quote]

RPB, you keep telling me you don't believe what I post, so I am not sure how to answer you anymore. You disregard the things you don't want to believe about me, and then quote me on the things that help prove your point. I tell you I blame everyone, you tell me you said you were Kevin Costner. I tell you I would accept tax hikes because a balanced budget is my priority, and you don't believe that either. I believe in fiscal responsibility. I have been firm on that from the first day I posted here.

I am a Libertarian, so of course I prefer spending cuts to tax hikes. I believe in smaller government. I have railed against Republicans for years for being big government crony capitalists. I support Rauner's plan over tax hikes, but I am willing to support a middle ground.

What is clear are my beliefs. What is not clear are yours.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

Where does it say that you can't change pension rules going forward? Clearly it states that existing retirement benefits can't be touched but why not new hires?

SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS
Membership in any pension or retirement system of the
State, any unit of local government or school district, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an
enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which
shall not be diminished or impaired.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

_________________
Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.- JD Vance
If you committed violence on that day, obviously, you shouldn’t be pardoned.- JD Vance on the J-6 insurrectionists

It doesn't say that. The problem is the courts have interpreted it that way. They even went so far as to say the healthcare benefit changes can't be made either.


For new hires, you could change the rules. I am referring to existing employees.


In his ruling, Belz found that the “protection against the diminishment or impairment of pension benefits is absolute and without exception.”

“The Act without question diminishes and impairs the benefits of membership in State retirement systems,” Belz wrote in the ruling, finding the state had no legally valid argument.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-pol ... udge-rules

http://www.wsj.com/articles/illinois-su ... 1404405098

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You

OK. I'll take what you say at face value but you have a history of posts on the subject and IMO they don't line up with what you're saying you believe now

So you are saying you would love a tax hike then? You'd be very happy with that? OK

But why are you allowed to say what you prefer (cuts over tax hikes) and retain your" I just want a balanced budget" stance but when people express thatbthey prefer taxes over cuts you say they "wa t to kick the can down the road" ?

Doesn't seem like you're being fair

I can't speak for Dman but why can't he say what he really wants or believes as well as what he would settle for? Sometimes you guys are so binary. You are either a 0 or a 1 and we will bring up every past post to fucking argue with you.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

It's only wrong and cruel if it doesn't lonebup with what they think.

Ones and zeros.

That is so much of the problem we have now. I hate to admit but Hillary said something about this in some appearance yesterday. We do not need only Red or Blue. We need a lot more Purple.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

When did Denis equate raising taxes with kicking the can down the road? He's made his stance pretty clear. Tax hikes over cuts is being knowingly ignorant about what he was saying. Tax hikes or budget cuts ALONE is kicking the can down the road.

The crux of the argument to me is that some people do not want even sacrifice as far as cuts are concerned. They will always go to the pie or redistribution arguments. Never stop failing policies or programs that affect the downtrodden just demand more from the over 250k crowd.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Donttake out your issues with how message boards work on me


He can say whatever he wants.

He says he prefers cuts over tax hikes

Others say they prefer tax hikes over cuts

Both ways could balance the budget

So why is Denis saying the people who prefer tax hikes want to "kick the can down the road""?

In this thread

The people who have criticized the cuts have said they favor higher taxes but both cuts and taxes are needed

when they complain about cuts Denis says they're kicking the can

Everyone understands cuts and taxes are needed

Some of us prefer taking some of Rauners friend'smoney over cutiing mental health

That probably sounds ridiculous to some and righteous to others.


Its just a difference of opinion but both ways can work numbers wise

I agree with you for the most part. Just not your particular disagreement with Dman it is ok. I have been through the the binary gauntlet. As for your previous post about boards I say whatever the fuck I want and when I want to then deal with the fallout. I do not treat it as some record of congress. I say smart things, dumb things and outrageous things then I just deal with it.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I do.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I'm saddened that there's people out there that are willing to give up a significant amount of their income to cover the incompetence and corruption of our politicians.
And once they take that money, and if they were to manage to bail themselves out, would they then remove the increases and spend within their means?
Doubtful. They did this already, taking another 2% of our income away with the claim they'd use it to reduce debt, but they didn't make the debt payments. They sure don't want the increases to be temporary either. They took more from us and didn't do what they said they'd do and didn't keep the promises to keep the increases temporary.
Is anyone shocked by this? If you are, I don't think you're paying attention.

This state has a very long history of this. The tollways. The income tax increase. Declining property taxes but oddly rising property tax invoices.

Once they see more money, they'll find ways to use it to buy votes or buy more dependence upon the state. Honest people working their butts off will pay for increasing burdens on society.

Hands off my money. I'm working for it. A great deal of it is being taken from me as it is. I can't afford another massive tax increase and keep my property.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

Yes, but you shouldn't take heat or food away from people. They need to look at what's really "bad" and stop that.



I'm with you. The American people are not an endless checking account for the government.

For the record, I meant to say "declining property values" not "declining property taxes".

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I thought the answer to this question was obvious. Just take a look at the history of taxes in this state & the country for that matter. The more of our money the government has, the more they will waste. Raising taxes may be a short term band aid, but it is NOT a long term solution. It is kicking the can down the road.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security spent $150 million on fucking furniture & redecorating in 2014.

See my signature below.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

No bigger waste of resources and space than usdhs. They drive me batty.

I disagree.

Minnesota is a proof of concept that a progressively structured state income tax can do just as well to create surpluses out of deficits as draconian cuts (like the sort in Wisconsin or Indiana).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html

I think we need to shift the state tax burden away from regressive sales and property taxes and toward a progressive income tax. I realize that that would require a constitutional amendment for Illinois (unless it were somehow couched as an increase in the flat rate coupled with an increased exemption or additional targeted tax credits).

But at the same time the pension system in Illinois is full of abuses. There is no reason the pension should be based so much on highest or most recent salary earned instead of some sort of system that is based on total lifetime earnings/contributions. I just don't see targeting the rank and file as the correct solution.

_________________
Look over there! A dry ice factory. A good place to get some thinking done.
Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks.

I don't think it would be easy to make the rates progressive via backdoor exemptions; otherwise, similar things would have been tried with pensions to avoid the constitutional issue.

_________________

Communism plain and simple. There is no place for it in the United States. The whole state needs to be blown up. And soon.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... is/384975/

_________________
Soccer 1,2,3
Spanish Honor Society 1,2,3,4
Forensics 1,2,3,4

"Smiles with Nostrils"

"...no Hmong, go find some blacks"

I cannot think of anything more un-American than a progressive income tax when the alternative can be falt and/or sales taxes.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I agree that doing so would be in violation of the spirit of the constitutional provision. However, there are already numerous tax credits (state EITC, for instance) that have been put in place. Expanding these might work, as the courts would be unlikely to overturn targeted credits as you could then argue that any credit leads to a non-flat effective rate. Further, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know who would actually have standing to challenge such a credit. The King vs. Burwell plaintiffs are only able to challenge the ACA credits because they can claim that eligibility for the credits leads to penalties that wouldn't otherwise apply. But I know of no such penalty related to the exemption or EITC provisions.

_________________
Look over there! A dry ice factory. A good place to get some thinking done.
Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks.

What does that even mean.

_________________
Look over there! A dry ice factory. A good place to get some thinking done.
Did I forget to mention, forget to mention Memphis? Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks.