Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Vetting the GOP VP Nominee Online, in Realtime

Cynthetiq · 09-24-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

another problem is that many of the responses to your question, cyn, respond by implicitly saying your scenario is not good so far as they are concerned. over and over there are suggestions about other places where expenditures would be cut and the money used. you don't seem to want to recognize these as responses, for whatever reason, so you say they aren't responses. beneath this is a *political* evaluation about the matter of whether rape is a serious enough crime that ancillary servicese which are made available are worthwhile public expenditures, enough so that confronted with a scenario like yours, they *would not* make the same choice as you seem willing to make.

that's the problem.
i think alot of folk--myself included--are not willing to agree with what either is or appears to be a judgment that rape is less that serious which *has* to be in place for your conclusion to follow.

It's not about RAPE. It isn't about RAPEKITS. This isn't about a victim vs. victimless crime. It is about there being a choice made like Mrs. Palin did. I've not ever once said "Pick this over that." I've only said, "This one wasn't being paid for, how will we pay for it?" I'm not making any choices or decisions to remove something. This is something that was removed by someone else.

So you're saying that people in this thread aren't willing to make a decision to look at how things are to be paid for? They just think there's is a money tree that grows and the government harvests bills from it?

Again, people are reading many extra words into my brief statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thats a very helpful contribution to the discussion....from one who suggested the need to stop with the condescending posts.

Jewels....It is a given that some governmental functions at all levels are not "put on the table" when there are other programs that can be cut. It doesnt come down to laying off cops or paying for rape kits. It hasnt anywhere that I know of and, despite budget constraints that cities are facing, there is nothing to suggest that such a choice must be made anytime soon. There are always less extreme alternatives. Particularly with federal assistance in the mix.

Cyn.....IMO, your "fucking real question" would be like asking how the federal government should pay for a standing military and supply it with the basic necessities (not expensive new untested weapon systems) to perform its core function of protecting and defending the US.

It is not a "fuckng real world" question that is subject to discussion...like how to pay for trash collection or repair potholes. We are talking about a local government's primary responsibility to uphold the law and protect and defend its citizens. IT IS A GIVEN.

I've not disagreed that it shouldn't be the responsibility of the local governement to protect and defend it's citizens. I've just asked how to pay for such things? You keep saying it's a given. Expenditures may be pared down but at some point programs and services get hit, I am asking you should local governments raise taxes? You just keep saying, It's a GIVEN. So that answer is YES?

In the 70s when NYC was broke, the police force was at it's lowest levels. Crime was extra rampant, there were many unsolved cases. It's a given, they SHOULD have done more but again, the REALITY was they couldn't. The more taxes they raised the more business and residents fled the city further eroding the tax base.

You know what happened post 9/11 in NYC? They suspended plastic/glass/aluminum recycling for several years because while it's a GIVEN that the government should be taking care of it, but sometimes it can't.

But I'm still waiting to know what is it that you disagree with that I've said. Please specifically quote my post and highlight the words and sentences you are disagreeable to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jewels

The point is that the times are trying the "given".

As much as we don't want to hear it, some governments, local and otherwise, have begun extreme cutbacks. If it comes down to laying off cops or passing along the cost of the rape kits, hopefully the cops can keep their jobs and we can find another way to cover the cost of them.'

Instead of saying it can't happen, 'cause it just might, can't we all get together and figure out a way to pass the cost along fairly? If it was YOUR city and you had to decide whether or not to lay off some cops, how would you handle it?

I think we're trying to work towards bipartisanship here. Let's let go of the pitbull mentality and see if it's really plausible to work together towards a solution, without being blinded by the irrelevant.

I ask again, how would you handle this situation?

thanks. I think you are the only one here who understands what I'm talking about. I'd like to be all noble and say, "It's a given, just spend it." But that isn't reality, the tax bases are suffering and strained as it is. Further pushing more taxes onto people may cause the downturn to deepen.