danimal151@ wrote:
Yeah, spending more than you make does not pan out too well.
But what are the charitable organizations you speak of? Would you include then ALL?
Can you get us a list?
Some of the donations go to help the addicted. Which is what you want because in your other blog, you want to make drugs legal and make it a medical problem, thus increasing the need for more TAX $$$ to be tossed away on druggies. Yet you call for smaller government and for people to take responability for themself. All those things don't add up my friend.
I wish I had the garden of Eden in my back yard, like you do, where everything is just perfect all the time, and its the rest of the world that is screwed up.
But what are the charitable organizations you speak of? Would you include then ALL?
Can you get us a list?
Some of the donations go to help the addicted. Which is what you want because in your other blog, you want to make drugs legal and make it a medical problem, thus increasing the need for more TAX $$$ to be tossed away on druggies. Yet you call for smaller government and for people to take responability for themself. All those things don't add up my friend.
I wish I had the garden of Eden in my back yard, like you do, where everything is just perfect all the time, and its the rest of the world that is screwed up.
13 August 2008 03:28:01
heidisgranny@ wrote:
danimal, how much do you think we spend, because drugs are not lawful? Bet we dont spend anything heh? ever think though your comments?
13 August 2008 09:14:05
wrote:
Just curious where you got your $200,000 defecit figure from, Tom. Thanks.
Numbers can always be skewed one way or the other, so I am cautious to accept anything at face value.
Agree with your overall point- we should cut spending if we are to hire more police and fire. OR we could cut spending and give the tax-payers some of their money back.
Numbers can always be skewed one way or the other, so I am cautious to accept anything at face value.
Agree with your overall point- we should cut spending if we are to hire more police and fire. OR we could cut spending and give the tax-payers some of their money back.
13 August 2008 12:53:14
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
All charities. It is simply irresponsible for the government to take your money and give it away to someone else. Perhaps someone hates ArtSpace, yet, through taxation, the government is forcing that person to donate to ArtSpace. It is not government's job to give to charity, it is ours. Let the people decide which, if any, charitable group they wish to give their money to.
Making drugs a medical problem instead of a legal problem would not necessitate the use of tax dollars. However, even if tax dollars were used, it would be significantly cheaper than what we are spending now on the war on drugs.
~tjl~
All charities. It is simply irresponsible for the government to take your money and give it away to someone else. Perhaps someone hates ArtSpace, yet, through taxation, the government is forcing that person to donate to ArtSpace. It is not government's job to give to charity, it is ours. Let the people decide which, if any, charitable group they wish to give their money to.
Making drugs a medical problem instead of a legal problem would not necessitate the use of tax dollars. However, even if tax dollars were used, it would be significantly cheaper than what we are spending now on the war on drugs.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 12:56:10
Lucente wrote:
Average Guy,
It was in the news story in today's paper. Now, of course, just to be clear, the city has money in reserve, so they aren't spending money they don't have. But they are spending more than they are making and you can't maintain that for long. I don't think any level of government, but especially at the lower level, should be spending more than revenue, except in dire circumstances such as war and natural disaster.
~tjl~
It was in the news story in today's paper. Now, of course, just to be clear, the city has money in reserve, so they aren't spending money they don't have. But they are spending more than they are making and you can't maintain that for long. I don't think any level of government, but especially at the lower level, should be spending more than revenue, except in dire circumstances such as war and natural disaster.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 12:58:55
danimal151@ wrote:
DAN, let me just say, you are a complete dumbass. No wonder Tom has such an easy time ripping you up. I laugh everytime you post your stupidity. I rarley resort to name calling, but in your case i am more than willing. Moron. I never said that the war on drugs was not burnning up money hand over foot. Even a childs mind like yours can figure that out.
Per world.std.com the overall war on drugs costs 40-50 billion per year. I used the liberal web site in this case so you would be able to grasp at the straws.
kjrh.com reports the addiction in Oklahoma alone costs 5.8 billion per year. and thats a small population state. But lets just take that number times 50 states. 290 BILLION a year. And thats with drug not being legal. You think addiction will DROP if they we legal?
Check the countries that have legal drugs and see if their addiction rates rose when they legalized drugs. Again, you make idiotic statments with out information. Thats stupidity to me, On a grand scale little man. So please, get some thought in your little patch of gray matter before even trying to debate me. I have learned from the best, and Tom is slamming you pretty good too. Got any chickens? Go suck an egg.
Per world.std.com the overall war on drugs costs 40-50 billion per year. I used the liberal web site in this case so you would be able to grasp at the straws.
kjrh.com reports the addiction in Oklahoma alone costs 5.8 billion per year. and thats a small population state. But lets just take that number times 50 states. 290 BILLION a year. And thats with drug not being legal. You think addiction will DROP if they we legal?
Check the countries that have legal drugs and see if their addiction rates rose when they legalized drugs. Again, you make idiotic statments with out information. Thats stupidity to me, On a grand scale little man. So please, get some thought in your little patch of gray matter before even trying to debate me. I have learned from the best, and Tom is slamming you pretty good too. Got any chickens? Go suck an egg.
13 August 2008 16:26:54
Lucente wrote:
Mark,
One the city negligently killed? Give me a break. It was the city's responsibility.
~tjl~
One the city negligently killed? Give me a break. It was the city's responsibility.
~tjl~
13 August 2008 16:27:37
danimal151@ wrote:
HOLD IT...jury said not guilty. So stop it Tom. You of all people (can have an opinion) but state it as such. No negligence sais the court. BUT yes, I think the city did the right thing to pay that bill. I beleive they would have paid it if she were hit by a street repair truck also.
13 August 2008 16:38:34
page2425@ wrote:
And since the JURY found officer chavalia,therefore the city NOT GUILTY, do you think that the patriarch of the wilson family,darling darla, should be forced to reimburse the city tax payers?
13 August 2008 16:52:25
SgtGideonsDad wrote:
danimal, I went to the website you posted and I couldn't find any information about
addiction costing Oklahoma 5.8 billion a yr. Did the story say if it is drug addiction
smoking, overeating or what? 5.8 billion seems way excessive wonder how much of that 5.8 billion goes to the govenment to crack down on those addicts. I also wonder if kjrh.com got their figures from the government, which in that case I myself would be
sceptical about anything the authorites say!
addiction costing Oklahoma 5.8 billion a yr. Did the story say if it is drug addiction
smoking, overeating or what? 5.8 billion seems way excessive wonder how much of that 5.8 billion goes to the govenment to crack down on those addicts. I also wonder if kjrh.com got their figures from the government, which in that case I myself would be
sceptical about anything the authorites say!
13 August 2008 22:52:08
motorin08@ wrote:
Tom, why are we paying tax money on the civic center???? It isn't much different than Artspace IMO. It holds concerts and plays and symphonies and you can rent it out for wedding receptions and meetings and such. Does the profit go back to the City or County general fund? Why is it that all taxpayers are forced to pay for this place when the average person cannot afford to or doesn't desire to patronize the civic center? Sounds like the average taxpayer subsidizing the wealthier citizens' night time enjoyment. I wonder how many people get it?
13 August 2008 23:00:09
heidisgranny@ wrote:
the jury said no CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, IMO, they were wrong. But that does not mean He and/or the city is not civilily negligennt, ask OJ.
14 August 2008 11:33:11
danimal151@ wrote:
Dan... your uninformed twisted opinion is worthless in here. You never even responded to my last post to you. Chicken ****
14 August 2008 15:26:04
heidisgranny@ wrote:
yada yada yada danimal and wrote , no substance just yak
maybe wrote should learn how to spell or edit, before calling someone a moron?
Whats your questions, knowers of all things, Ill try to help.
maybe wrote should learn how to spell or edit, before calling someone a moron?
Whats your questions, knowers of all things, Ill try to help.
14 August 2008 17:24:07
CBrown519 wrote:
I'm baa-aaacckkk!!! Miss me?!? Yeah, I thought not.
$9,500 (or whatever the amount) is cheap compared to what Chavalia & the City of Lima will be forced to dole out as a result of being responsible for Wilson's death and her son's injury. The civil suit only needs to prove on the mere preponderance of evidence that someone be held responsible, beyond a resonable doubt is only the standard in criminal trials, not in civil cases. Compare simply to the OJ case - he was found not guilty - but he's paying financially for the rest of his life. It won't be as much here, but it's gonna wipe Chavalia - and his family - out. Repercussions for a split-second decision still to come.
$9,500 (or whatever the amount) is cheap compared to what Chavalia & the City of Lima will be forced to dole out as a result of being responsible for Wilson's death and her son's injury. The civil suit only needs to prove on the mere preponderance of evidence that someone be held responsible, beyond a resonable doubt is only the standard in criminal trials, not in civil cases. Compare simply to the OJ case - he was found not guilty - but he's paying financially for the rest of his life. It won't be as much here, but it's gonna wipe Chavalia - and his family - out. Repercussions for a split-second decision still to come.
14 August 2008 20:16:16
Scant wrote:
CBrown,
I think your right, They will lose the civil case. I feel bad for all those involed cause, I don't think there was any intent for anyone to die. It's not good any way you look at it.
I think your right, They will lose the civil case. I feel bad for all those involed cause, I don't think there was any intent for anyone to die. It's not good any way you look at it.
14 August 2008 20:32:23
Susan wrote:
Welcome back, CBown, yes, we missed you.. ok, maybe not so much that you were missed, more like you were envied for getting to go on vacation leaving the rest of us to talk amongst ourselves. 
How was the vacation?
About the civil case. Will Chavalia actually have to pay much at all himself? I would think maybe he'd have insurance through the deptartment for this sort of thing.
How was the vacation? About the civil case. Will Chavalia actually have to pay much at all himself? I would think maybe he'd have insurance through the deptartment for this sort of thing.
15 August 2008 00:02:08
danimal151@ wrote:
DAN...lets see, you siad..."yadda yadda yadda and Danimal wrote, no substance just yak maybe wrote should learn how to spell or edit, before calling someone a moron? Whats your questions knowers of all things, I'll try to help.
OK Dan, first of all none of that makes any sense at all. Missuse of commas, incomplete thoughts and words missing, you asked a question with no question mark too. At least when I misspell some thing it's in a complete sentence, with some thought and research included. You have once again shown how idiotic and moronic you are. You could do us all a favor by just getting out your crayons and going back to what you are best at.
OK Dan, first of all none of that makes any sense at all. Missuse of commas, incomplete thoughts and words missing, you asked a question with no question mark too. At least when I misspell some thing it's in a complete sentence, with some thought and research included. You have once again shown how idiotic and moronic you are. You could do us all a favor by just getting out your crayons and going back to what you are best at.
15 August 2008 04:09:13
bengalbob wrote:
Maybe we can have volunteer politicians! Most are just puppets anyway! That would cut a lot of money out of the cities/counties budget.
15 August 2008 23:43:21
n2it@ wrote:
You're right, Tom. Lean times are ahead if some of our economic development doesn't come through (but I believe it will). With the current state of the economy and the volatility that we see in the market, this is not the time (if ever) to over-extend. I am as surprised as you, that Tom Tebben doesn't get it. He is one of the more intelligent members of Council.
16 August 2008 11:41:24
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Someone please explain economics to Tom Teben, city officials
Tom Tebben sits in his home in this file photo from The Lima News.
Perhaps Steve Cleaves can tell us the secret to having a budget that spends $200,000 more than revenue. I wish I could run my household budget that way!
Seriously, though, what is with Tom Tebben? The city does not even have a balanced budget and he wants to hire more people? That is what is wrong with government. Those tasked with overseeing the public treasury are ignorant of basic economic principals. Well, Mr. Teben, let me explain something to you. It is simply irresponsible to spend more than you make. Private businesses across this country have hiring freezes and they simply do not not ignore their budgets just because it would be nice to have more employees.
Tom Tebben wants ideas for hiring more firefighters and cops? Then stop giving away tax dollars to charitible organizations. Stop spending tax dollars on services beyond the legitimate role of government, i.e., the Civic Center.
That is the only responsible way.
Still, the city doesn't appear to get it. It has a $200,000 deficit and yet, they are still hiring more employees. Simply ridiculous.
category | Big Government
author | Lucente