archenemy

I think it's great that they are looking into this, but I wonder if folks who like to say that no one can legislate morality are going to pipe up here...

Thanks, I've been living in this one.

Wow. There is a site called bouldering.com I never even considered the possiblity. I wonder if chuffing.com is taken?

That's "No rest for the wicked"

Interesting that it looks just like a galaxy.

Either that or maybe there was more government pockets to be lined in the Stadium deal than the Monorail gig?

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed today.

Have I ever, ever, ever posted anything on this board that implored people to trust the government? Ever? Do I sound like a pro-Bush supporter to you? Ever?

Thank you for mentioning that!!! I was wondering if I was the only person who found that as unacceptable as writing something like "I hate niggers" as a signature. Not acceptable.

This type of program has worked in other situations. It helped many companies in the 90's cut air pollution. Companies were able to buy/sell shares of "pollutant" allowances. These allowances were limited, so they were expensive. As was more cost effective for larger companies to fit their factories with air cleaners (big catalytic converters basically), they did so. This freed up more allowances which they sold to other companies. Each year the total allowances available was lowered. The pollution level also lowered during this time. So I don't understand this: But the move to give fishermen private property rights to a public resource, along with the administration's overfishing plan, angered many environmentalists who say Bush's proposal does not do enough to protect overexploited fish stocks. Isn't air a public resource? The gov't managed it like a private resource and improved the situation. Sure, it didn't fix everything, but least it was a start. Why don't folks let this program have a start--it is better than doing nothing while arguing about the situation. Isn't it?

I thought you said Matt WAS a good lawyer joke?

I think you should read up a little before you go a spoutin'. This country hasn't been in the black for decades. Including the Clinton years. You are making the (too) common mistake of confusing deficit and debt. True, there was ONE year at the end of Clinton's term when the US government ran a budget surplus, but rather than dedicate any portion to retiring the then-5trillion dollar national debt, both sides began plotting how to either spend it on social programs (Clinton), or cut taxes(Republican congress). That said, Bush's fiscal policy is an absolute fucking mess. I still think his first tax cut was necessary to stimulate the lagging economy left by Clinton, but the second tax cut was not necessary. Additionally, I think both of his tax cuts should be now repealed, or at least allowed to sunset. I am now certain that ANY administration, Dem or Rep, will continue to spend this nation toward economic collapse....and all in the name of giving us what we want in return for our vote. The only way to avoid this is to reduce our national debt to a managable 2(?) or 3(?) trillion dollars. The economic growth...that brings in the extra revenue...that just keeps getting squandered by all! Spending cuts and/or higher taxes. Seems like the only answer. ....And please spare me the cost-of-Iraq blather. While it aint cheap, it accounts for only about one-fourth of last years total budget deficit. The rest? Entitlements/social programs. It is a little hasty to blame our country's economic state on whatever president is in office. Alhtough the president submits a proposal (along with the cabinet dept and all the independ agencies), it is the House and the Senate that draft the resolution. Then it goes through the appropriation process. So a lot of people besides Bush have influence on the budget, its not just up to one guy who believes in supply-side economics. Our 2006 mid year budget was something like 2600 billion. 990 bil was for discretionary spending and 1,400 for mandatory (the rest goes to interest). So we don't even spend double the amount on social entitlements that we do on war, security, etc. Sure, the percentages between them waver from year to year, but that follows need and makes sense. I think how government spends money is not nearly as big of a problem as the fact that the increase in their spending has outpaced the increase in household income. I think this fact makes tax increases less possible as time goes on (assuming we stay in the same trajectory). Spending cuts occur frequently, and don't seem to do enough. What about increasing our GDP?

Okay, then strike my last comment from the record. Light rail is a great idea. It works well in many, many countries. They all seem to possess one characteristic that Americans don't seem to display: They plan ahead. Oh, and the interviews I read were in the Puget Sound Business Journal. Not a hotbed of activism mind you, it was just a financial impact article. I added the outrage.

You argue for a living. I don't. Fuck you and the red herring you rode in on.

My mom also told me to ride my bike on the freeway--and that was just last week. I don't want to sound like a total extremist here, and I think I am letting myself get painted into a corner somehow. I don't like to see the little guy get stepped on, but we all make sacrifices for the good of the group in one way or another. I am not proposing what MattP posted, and I am not saying that roads, mass transit, right of way, etc are bad. All I am saying is that it bothers me when I read about everyday folk like you and me getting coerced into something they don't want to do. That's all Nothing more I am not running for office I am not an extremist And I am not going to run around with a sign in my hand. That's it.

You lucky dog.

How about a dog swap? Let's get all the bitches involved.

Government in general vs. the market.

However, market value fluctuates depending on inventory, time of year, etc; tax assessments do not. In some areas, tax assessments are able to keep up with market values for time, in many areas they do not. If someone is to sell their property, they should get what the market will pay, NOT what the government says they are worth. Keeping the process of setting the value in the same office as the people who want to buy the property just seems a little too close for comfort, don't you think?

Good point.

or just a jerk

Yep. They used to asses once every 4 years, now they do it every year. I've lived at the same place 7 years. I just read Snohomish county tax assessor's site. The property taxes for that area average 1.5%. Furthermore, raising property values does not increase taxes. Taxing districts' budgets are limited by how much their budgets can increase under the 1% Levy Limit. And, if you somehow DID get an 11% raise in taxes, you can appeal. Here is the link to your information: web page Obviously, someone made a mistake.

and they raised your property taxes 11% last year?

do you own property? my taxes are raised every year now. and the price is damn accurate. Yes, a fair amount. My tax assessments have not kept up with the 10+% increases I have seen yearly. Maybe you invested in the wrong property, the wrong place, the wrong time. I don't know what to tell you, but sorry you have not seen the same increases almost everyone else in Seattle has.

just clarifying...