Because you aren't addressing what I'm asking. You're passing by it. Again. Again. And, again.

There are lots of supposedly GIVEN that is supposed to be government responsibility. I've not challenged that at all. As fiscal needs are NOT MET by the income of the tax base, there are costs that are going to have to be met by other means. This can be by deficit spending (many cities or states cannot do this), drawing on reserves, raising taxes, or cut expenditures. All I have asked is to SAY what or who needs to happen to pay for things. Spending more than you take in and drawing on reserves to cover the shortfalls doesn't work long term. People have decried cutting the spending, so all that is left is raising taxes. If you believe it's RAISE TAXES in some fashion in order to do so, then by all means say so. Or is that too difficult to say, or admit needs to happen? Don't want to be the guy to say the words, raise taxes, because I'm all for it since my broken record hasn't changed for fiscal responsibility.

But you'd rather cop out and "agree to disagree". Again, can you tell me what you are agreeing to disagree on? Specifically what am I saying that you disagree?

Forget it Cyn, they're just looking for an excuse to bash Palin.

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?

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.

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.

Bill is priming the pump for 2012.

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.

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.

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.

personally, cyn, i reject your premise.
that's all there is to it.

BTW, regarding this term, given ...

It's defined as "assumed as actual or hypothetical".

I would assert that there is no given.

Yep... interesting take... it's believable.

He's just a big smarty-pants! The Clintons are political energizer bunnies... they just keep going.
-----Added 24/9/2008 at 09 : 44 : 52-----
Yes, thanks for the sanity check.

ditto.

ah, so the reality of paying for things and balanced budgets is outright rejected.

okay. got it.
-----Added 24/9/2008 at 10 : 14 : 03-----

correct. as we can see Mrs. Palin decided that it wasn't a given.

I don't think you actually get it.

Nobody here think that government has unlimited money, or that rape kits are free. I think what most people find facile is your insistence that your "Who's gonna pay for these rape kits?" is actually useful in the context of any sort of meaningful discussion on fiscal responsibility. Believe it or not, there are some things that people find more important than rigid adherence to specific accounting philosophies.

Who's gonna pay for it? Not the rape victim. Beyond that it doesn't fucking matter.

see again, shortsighted. I didn't limit it to RAPEKITS. but you read what you want and then interepret it as you see fit without the rest of the words surround it.

I get it. You, rb, and dc aren't interested in how the fiscal operations work. It's just a GIVEN that it should be collected and spent.

right, they don't adhere to ANY accounting philosophies or responsibility, which is why the feds have huge deficit spending, state and local governments have shortfalls to FY09 budgets calling for further expenditure cutss, personal credit has topped out, home equity was used as an ATM, am I missing something where money hasn't been squeezed out?

but I've been saying all this time,"someone needs to pay for the rapekits... it's raaaape... rapekits... need to pay for them!" :shakehead:

I think it should be paid for via taxes. Increased taxes if need be.

Don't really see the big logical leap there (no offense intended, it just seems obvious to me).

or it could be that you are trying to pose a general problem through an very bad example.

everyone does it from time to time, but not everyone then refuses to recognize the problems that are caused for the entire discussion by your poorly chosen, badly framed example and then compounds this by acting instead like the responses you are getting say something entirely alien to what anyone who rejects your premise is actually saying.


if you want to argue for "responsibility" maybe you should start with taking some for the problems with your own arguments.

I'll try one more time.

Cyn...as I understand your reasoning, you are suggesting that the fiscal decisionmaking process is or should be same, regardless of whether the program in question is rape kits, trash collection, pot hole repair or summer parks programs.

I simply disagree.

really? a few people do understand what I'm talking about, so it's not as far flung as you're characterizing.

I've tried to get more understanding but people flat out have stated you don't get it, I'm not explaining it to you. Great! Good communication for discussion there!

Closest you've come.

I'm not making it as clear cut as same program for program, service for service regardless since obviously some programs and services outweigh others, but in the absence of inability to communicate, I've had to pare it down to that point.

And, your answer is just that you disagree, novel really, maybe even quaint.

Cyn since as you say "Palin made a decision" don't we also have the right to say we feel her decision was wrong and criticize her on it? That is the crux of the issue. Palin said no to rape kits either because she thought they cost to much (unlikely in my mind), she didn't like the fact that they come with plan B (likely in my mind), or some other reason. Many of feel this was a very bad decision on her part and feel it goes to her character and leadership abilities. We have every right to say we think she was wrong.

here's the material you started with.

here's your premise:

the responses you are getting that you refuse to understand amount to a rejection of this statement.
everything you have done is about you trying to define the implications of this.
and most of the responses have come back to you saying that your frame is not acceptable, your attempts to define the notion of "fiscal responsibility" mis-state the situation, that there are other ways of thinking about and resolving this matter, even in principle---and because there are other ways of resolving it, playing around with the funding concerning these "rape kits" comes back to the matter of the political valence you assign rape victims.

THAT is the problem.
nothing you have said from within your arguments, the premise of which is fucked up, gets back to this level, which is the source of your problems.


then you said this:

at which point you framed yourself as speaking from the position of an ass.

but you are surprised at the responses to your line of argument.
and you're pissy about it.

Never once did I say that wasn't a possibility. In fact in light of that, it's just as jorgelito said, bash Palin.

I said, that notwithstanding the choice made, the reality is there, what is the next step?

rb, that's fine, you can think of it as being as ass. I don't. I look at a $20M budget variance every month and have to see what things need to be looked at as best as possible making sure we don't spend more than we need to on any single line items. If there are increases, the question is why are there increases? Can those increases be mitigated in some fashion. If there are problems the question becomes why are the problems happening? What can be done? Where will the funds come from to continue operations?

But again, you'd rather say I'm being an ass instead of seeing my point of view and where I'm coming from. I've leaned over and bent over backwards to understand each and everyone's points. Few have done the same. Good way to have discussions.:thumbsup:

and you only read the last sentence or two of my post.

you act as though the state was some voluntary association that meets around the woodstove in order to decide whether we should have a fire department this week or whether we care this week about women who are raped enough to not take care of a couple telephone poles or deal with a neighbor's chipmunk problem. and as if the pool of resources that a state works with is the quarters that we all throw into a spitoon or some such.

there's nothing about that which enables a discussion: you set it up so that you either agree with your premise and then there "is a discussion" or you don't, in which case "you have poor communication skills"


there is a broader question that you could ask, which has to do with whether it makes sense to import micro-level understanding to thinking about how a state allocates resources---but you'd have to want to have a discussion about that. and you don't---you assume your way of posing the question is coherent.

not at all. i've asked a simple question, no one said to expand it, mold it, move it to a different level. to address it and say it needs to be more complex, that's called discussion. to say, "i reject it." is petty and doesn't further discussion.

I've been asking to engage in discussion as to a better understanding, but again, "i reject it." is the response. So furthering my understanding is nil.

good way to discuss and impart more information. :thumbsup:

so there's no expectation in your world that logic is of any consequence and no reason to assume that if your logic is a mess then you might not get the responses you find to be interesting or helpful?
and if there is a logic problem with a given argument, the problem lay not with the author of the post, but with the people who point out that there's a logic problem?
is that how things work for you?

this is not a game i am at all interested in playing.

no, I've not said that either. Again, reading too much into the words that are typed here. I've not said, I'm not to blame for anything, nor have I said, someone else should be blamed. I've stated nothing further than one of the first discussions I recall with you, about people talking past each other. Which is what I find mostly here in the politics threads, if you don't agree with someone, you talk past them and there, you don't have to engage in any meaningful discussion. "Pat yourself on the back because you're #1 and that other guy just doesn't get it." Never advocated anything of the sort.

this has been a wonderful waste of time, just as effective as a facebook game. I come back and check every few minutes to see what's changed, type a few things, click a button or two, and then come back again. Wheee!

You're right it isn't fun playing.

here's my last comment: the discussion that has now ground to a halt had any number of possibilities in terms of movement, how and in which direction it could happen. you chose not to take the rest of us up on the questions that were raised about your argument. that was *your* choice, and much of the discussion has, in fact, been shaped by *your* choice and reactions to *your* choices. *you* chose not to reconsider your position, *you* chose to push this thread in the direction it's gone.

buck up, comrade. this is not such a big deal.

right, it's my fault to ask where the monies for something should come from. SHOCKING! SHOCKING! I say. :confused:

that's retarded rb. simply retarded to say that there's no logic to that question, that there's no logic to positing it in any form. that's utter bullshit.

so sorry to disrupt you socialists and your advocation of free social programs where no one pays for anything and everyone owns everything.

i'll leave so you guys can just kumbaya yourselves back to sleepy dreams.

RB, sounds like this has become personal, maybe?

Since this isn't a private correspondence and I was one who did choose to reconsider my initial position (which had been the same as yours) after reading the responses and now understand where Cyth's coming from, why would you accuse him of not reconsidering his position when you still haven't even reconsidered yours?

He asked a question, we all came at him with our positions. Why should he back down from a valid question? WHen I asked the same question (not framed in a rapekit), why was it discounted?

You want to know who pays for things. That's it, right? The problem is that you've manage to take a possibly interesting question and brought it up in a context that not only renders it completely uninteresting, but managed to do so in a way that makes you look like you think that a significant portion of rape kits are wasted on liars.

I understand what you're saying, I just fail to see why you find it even remotely interesting in this context. You want to know who is going to pay for it and our collective response is "it should be the police department, because that is their role." It isn't that difficult. You're asking a question as if the majority of people don't already have an answer for it, and then you're acting like it's somehow insightful.

Clearly, when times are tough, tough financial decisions need to be made. Were times tough when Palin was mayor of Wasilla? I think a brand new sports complex would say no. So what's your point? That tough times in general call for tough financial decisions? Does anyone disagree with that?

I also understand that you said something that made it seem like you felt that there were enough instances of false rape accusations that perhaps rape victims should have to pay for their rape kits.

I think you said something ill-advised and now are so desperately trying to make this discussion about something else entirely. i.e. "It's not that I think that a lot of rape victims are liars, it's that I'm innocently curious about the mundane financial decision making processes of local government." Whatever.

This "fiscal responsibility" tack is bullshit. You aren't the only one who is aware of the fact that money is exchanged for goods and service. It's not a very revelatory point. That you seem to think it is beyond anyone here is silly.


Nope. You actually don't get it, and you actually seem to be very good at not getting it. It's that questions of the inner working of fiscal operations is unimportant in the context of anything anyone in here is saying, with the exception of you.

More tangents?

I don't know why you guys are still playing with this subtopic. It isn't like he's going to admit he's wrong about his assessment of the situation (despite overwhelming evidence). All you will get is self gratifying bs about how he understands fiscal responsibility and nobody else does.

Cyn we have said over and over the government should pay for it. You have created a false dilemma that there isn't money for rape kits. Where does the money for all the other services the government provides come from? Those roads, those bailouts, those student loans, welfare, social security, police, fire, boarder patrol, military, congress, president, governors, food stamps, crime investigation, medicare, research grants, federal buildings, IRS, national parks, coast guard, air force, .... i could continue but you get the point. Hell Alaska pays their population over $1000 a year just for living there, why not take some out of that....

Oh, and about that infamous bridge...

Biden, Obama helped keep 'Bridge to Nowhere' alive - CNN.com


Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, it seems.

nevermind....wrong thread!

Mostly because this is the Palin-vetting thread, which deals with issues surrounding Gov. Palin, one of which is the Ketchikan-Gravina Bridge. The one which everyone keeps attacking her for supporting, but which both Senator Obama and Senator Biden also supported. It's intended primarily to call attention to the fact that very few people's hands are clean in this, and that those who live surrounded by fans probably shouldn't start slinging shit around.

I agree..very few hands are clean on earmarks.

IMO, the difference is that "earmark reform" is not the talking point repeated again and again and again by Obama and Biden as it is with McCain and Palin...particularly with McCain voting against the 05 bi-partisan earmark reform legislation and Palin requesting and receiving more earmarks (per capita) in 08-09 than any other governor.

Ending all earmarks (less than 1 percent of the budget) will have little impact, despite the McCain/Palin claims that it will be the centerpiece of their budget reform.

My feelings and thoughts on her earmarks are held in reserve for the moment. I'm trying to find out more about what these specific earmarks were, and why they existed. The only one I've been able to find much info about is the Bridge...turns out it's to link a fast-growing tourist destination with its' airport, which is on a nearby island. It'd save the city of Ketchikan gads of money in ferry-boat fuel and help relieve harbor congestion. This last is a major problem, since the island is a major port-of-call on Alaska's cruise lines, as well as being a seasonal fishing-industry hub like most places on the Alaskan coast. Palin's objection seems to stem from the fact that the projected cost more than tripled between the time the proposal was submitted and when the plans were finalised. However, it was a pretty obscenely expensive thing to begin with, so I'm holding agnostic on this one as well.

I object to the earmark system on principle, but since it's currently in place (and unlikely to go anywhere) I don't have a problem with congressthingies or governors trying to get some of their constituent's stolen money back and applied to things that the money should be going for anyway. I only truly get outraged when it goes for pointless pet projects, silly nonsense like studies on the IQ of Mayonnaise.

I also agree that all earmarks are not bad, particularly if they are submitted through an open appropriations process.

You can find Palin's $200 million in 09 earmark requests here (pdf)

My issue with McCain/Palin is the hypocrisy of playing the earmark boogeyman card at every turn and the nonsense that ending them will contribute significantly to balancing the budget.

True, but I am at times forced to wonder if there shouldn't be a Cynicism Test for voting: if you don't recognize that 90% of these bastards are lying 90% of the time, no ballot for you!

"Supported" is a little far fetched. Voted for bills that had earmarks for the bridge is the correct way to phrase it. They were part of massive transportation bills. It's kind of

Besides, this issue isn't who supported it or didn't support it. The issue is who denies ever supporting it and claims she said 'thanks but no thanks'

If you are interested in the full story you can read about it here.

Maybe an even more correct way to put it was that Biden, Obama and nearly every other Senator voted for the bill that had the bridge on it as an earmark.

Here is what Palin said when the project was finally killed (one year ago):

The only reason why the project was killed was because Congress wouldn't give them enough money. Her own words clearly show she was for it till the end. Sounds a lot like "Thanks but no thanks" to me :shakehead:

The CNN story is ridiculous. So what if Biden and Obama voted for tranportation bills that included it. They haven't made a campaign about wasteful earmark spending and then went and picked up the governer from the state requesting his example of wasteful earmark spending.

What Palin should have done is admit that it was a bad project and that she shouldn't have supported it. Instead she lies and acts as if she never wanted the bridges. Everyone in the world says, wait a second, right here you actively supported it. She ignores it and repeats the lie a dozen times.


Whatever on the bridge. Palin has bigger problems. She got totally pwned by Katie Couric:

:no::no::no:

This shows exactly why they don't let he talk to the press. She really has trouble when a question doesn't fit the talking points. Honestly it isn't all her fault. She never should have been picked for the job. She is about as unqualified as you can get.

Jewels, you are awesome. Why aren't you a mod yet?

:p Thanks, I guess. I'm concerned about gender backlash. :rolleyes: :lol:

The best line of the day...from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker of the National Review:

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

Paker just ripped Palin wide open:
It will be interesting to see if others follow...or if/how the campaign might somehow try to cancel next Thursday's VP debate? They have to be scared shitless to put her on that stage next week.

Time to wake up sleepy-head... it's here... you'll miss all the fun!

Oh, I've been awake and watching and it is fun!

Seeing the Republican party move even further to the right as a result of the influence of the Tea Party candidates with radical positions that will be ripe for legitimate questioning during the general election campaign.

I'm under no illusion that the Democrats wont lose a significant number of sears this November and possibly the majority in either the House and/or Senate. From Obama's perspective, it is probably the best outcome for the 2012 campaign.

Many of the Tea Party positions play well in the Republican primaries, but simply criticizing, demagoguing and pandering as opposed to offering positive solutions do not make for popular governance among most centrists. One only need look at the positions (and outlandish statements) of folks like Rand Paul in KY and Sharon Angle in NV.

And in the long term, alienating most minorities and many moderates on social issues (as opposed to fiscal issues) is not a strategy for long term success.

But will they lose any "Roebucks?" Sorry I'm no typo nazi but that was just way too easy.

Actually I'm not only expecting heavy loses mid-term I'm welcoming them. Let the GOP vote in a bunch of right leaning loons. It will only show their ideas for what they are- really bad and even worse. Hell I hope Nv goes to Sharron Angle. I'd think after hearing of her "Scientology for prisoners" et el programs people wouldn't vote for her but Reid is a pretty ripe target. At this point Tara Reid might kick his ass.

That should make the field better in 2012. Then maybe they'll (the GOP) put up someone sane in 2012 to challenge Obama. Then maybe we'll have less of a bad choice for those who decide Obama's not worth another term.