Money Matters
catsareniice1
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Republican debates tonight
Who's watching? I am. Just starting on ABC news.
Re: Republican debates tonight
I still have to watch it. I wait until a few days later & watch them on youtube, then I don't have to watch any commercials.
@catsareniice1 I live in Ohio and will say this about Kasich. How he "balanced" things in Ohio is by cutting much of the state support to local schools & cities. So in turn the cities and schools have had to go to the ballots asking for levies to be passed. And what choice do we have but to pass them because we want to keep our schools going well and we want to keep our fire & police crews going along with basic city repairs. So as a state, the numbers are looking great. But as residents, even though our state taxes as he claims have gone done, my local taxes have gone up. If he is elected president, how I predict he will balance the budget is by cutting funding to many organizations and cut federal funding to states & cities. When funding to states & cities are cut, they go to the citizens and raise their local & property taxes.
I've been thinking about this thread for a few days. But here on MM, isn't this the basic principle of saving money and/or cutting spending? For those of us who want lower taxes and limited government, this is exactly what would have to happen. Also, to cut the U.S., debt this sort of stuff is exactly what would have to happen. The federal government would make cuts in spending and turn those issues to the individual states. In turn, the states can handle things or they can pass items on to the cities and counties within their borders to handle things.
While it stinks that education had cuts in Ohio, Kasich (and I'm not his supporter, I just understand what he did) and others like him give the decisions BACK TO the local governments and citizens.
I used to live in Northeastern Ohio, actually, in one of the out-skirting suburbs of the eastern side of Cleveland. Up until last year, my parents lived in the home I grew up in, in one of the best school districts in the state. By cutting education, and probably other things that could be handled at the city, township, or county level, the Ohio State government DID cut their debts.
I actually think it's totally fair to allow the local government and their citizens decide via votes in levies or otherwise when, how, and where to spend their money.
On a federal level...
Either here on MM and/or at P&CE, there has been discussion about the turtle tunnels in Florida being paid for with federal dollars. IF that decision had gone back to the state of Florida for a vote of Floridians, then those voters could decide whether or not to build the tunnels. Why should people in Ohio, by way of their tax dollars, pay for turtle tunnels, that will NOT affect those people in Ohio? If Floridians want the tunnels, let them get the issue on the ballot and take it to a vote. If it passes, then the state could figure out a way to pay for the tunnels.
If here in Minnesota, we want to build moose bridges, should a person in Texas pay for that?
I don't think so. States should have the ability and the rights to do what is relevant and right for their regional needs and desires. And, those regional or state issues do not need to be paid for at a federal level.
Also, local and state governments do a way better job of handling their citizens' needs than the federal government. The educational needs of Vermont are very different than the needs of West Virginia.
I support Kasich's ideas and cuts to the spending in Ohio (but I don't support him as a candidate). It makes absolute sense. And, if anybody is actually serious about cutting spending in their own family or in this nation, then this is exactly what has to happen. The voting locales need to decide IF they want stuff in their schools and cities.
Oh they want stuff. They just want someone else to pay for it.
Yep. The politicians and leaders who do the hard stuff and cut costs or pass them onto local governments get the bad wraps. But, anybody here who is MM (truly) in their own lives would see that the same things apply on a greater scale to the government.
Lots of people in California want stuff and they've gotten stuff and now Cali is in serious debt trouble.
When does it stop, or at least when can the appetites of the people be satisfied enough to realize we just cannot afford some things?
Yes, but if it's at the local level, you have more control of it as a citizen and voter. You can vote and/or get directly involved in the process to sway peoples' votes in whatever direction you prefer. You have no say over Moose Bridges in Minnesota if that's what the federal government says.
Plus, if a local government has control and therefore the local voters do as well, there's more up in your face to the politicians who spend the citizens' tax dollars. There is more accountability for the management of funds.
Also, I think there's some psychology in this too. Isn't it a lot easier to justify an expenditure if you have $4.1 Billion at your disposal versus if you have only $100,000 at your disposal? People tend to be more frugal when the number they see makes more "sense." It's hard to mentally comprehend how much money $4.1 billion is actually. It seems limitless. And, with big numbers like that at the federal level goes the attitude, "Oh, well we've got enough, we can do this."
I know property taxes rising isn't great, (ours just went up this year), but I'd much rather have that and see the accountable faces of my local politicians, then have the ever increasing federal debt that is creating problems for the near and distant future of our country.
Yeah I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I still can't believe our federal debt is 19 trillion.
Respectfully, I disagree. You're right on one thing here, I believe. A person's individual or household budget will be based on that couple's or families priorities and direct needs. A government cannot do that because there are too many people, too many desires, and too many needs. The government has to make financial decisions more for the group rather than the individual or family. And, that's where it ends. A government budget is still a budget no matter how large it is. It's MM to spend less and save more no matter if you're a single person, a couple, a family, a town, a state or a nation.
Families sit down and buckle up finances at the kitchen table or living room. Our national "family" is represented by whom we elect. They sit at Capitol Hill and the White House to decide with our family needs. The principles of sound financial management are the same. We can absolutely expect our governments to behave in the same MM ways we do in our own homes.
The bolded actually proves my point. We do not have a "one size fits all world." You're correct. And, that's why the federal government should stay out of the things like education that can be handled best at the local and/or state level. Because we do not have a "one size fits all" world, each locality needs to be able to decide on their own what and how to do something with their own funds.
The preliminary results of "whose to blame for this" in Flint, MI state that the director of the Department of Environmental Quality is at fault because they did not treat the water properly coming from the Flint River in violation of federal law. The Flint River is high in iron and the iron eroded the lead pipes in peoples' homes.
Full story here, for anyone who is interested: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/index.html
According to federal law, there is a way to treat this water to make it safe. But, the DEQ didn't do their job properly.
So, yes the State switched their water supply from Lake Huron to the Flint River...to save money. But, you've got to assume they didn't intend for the DEQ to then not treat it properly to make it safe. They were going to reconnect to Lake Huron in two years.
"In 2011, Flint was declared to be in a financial state of emergency, and the state took budgetary control. Therefore, all the decisions made during the water crisis were at the state level, which state officials confirmed, not by the City Council or the mayor."
My point is proved in this statement....local officials know what's best for their cities, towns and states. Big government stepping in and taking over something is not generally a good thing.
Also, any decision any entity makes could end in a disaster. Do we not attempt to make budgeting savings because a disaster could occur? The root cause isn't a move to save money, the root casue is someone and his agency being derelict in their duties.
I agree that to balance the budget, they have to cut spending and when spending is cut, some areas will lose their funding. The thing I don't like is that they aren't being open with the public about this. He makes it seem like I can balance the budget, I have magic powers. What I would love to hear, I can balance the budget, but it means that we're going to have to cut spending and that means some places that currently receive federal funding support may lose some or all of their federal funding.
And it's just as bad with Bernie Sanders, free college, free other stuff, but someone has to pay for that Teachers still need to be paid, utilities for the schools still need to be paid, the support staff (maintance, janitors, etc) have to be paid. The money to pay them has to come from somewhere.
Your implication by the bolded is that the other side of the aisle doesn't want to and in fact does not help the people who are having a harder time helping themselves. This simply isn't true. And, it is borderline insulting. You may think I'm overly tough and not based in reality but if that were really the case, my DH and I wouldn't have donated $60k in 2015 giving to starving, uneducated, underprivileged kids.
You will find, though, that what the Republican desire is is to empower the grassroots, empower the local people, empower the average Joe and Jane citizens to work together at their local levels, even state levels, and solve their problems in better ways than a big, huge federal government can do. That could be through local politics, but it could also be through other local groups like PTA, local religious groups, etc.. What Republicans also like IS help for the very poor and unemployed, but not just help on the government tab with little or no expected results.
I just read a story that a woman raised $10k or some other healthy amount on GoFundMe for her ill daughter. The government got wind of it and threatened to pull her government financial aid if she took the "additional income." I think this is absurb. But, what wouldn't be absurd are benchmarks put in place for people to check in and demonstrate good faith efforts to become reemployed, to do drug testing for benefits, and/or other things.
Occasionally here on MM, posters write about whether or not to financially help their family members who are struggling. Some posters always do. It seems though, that many do not help if the family members display poor life management skills and poor money related skills. People always go back to the hand that feeds them. MM posters see this in their own families. Obviously, that translates to the greater society. We need to help others. But, the others also have to demonstrate good will in making steps to get out of their situations. And yes, there will always be people who just cannot because they are too ill or too disabled, and for those people, we need to provide compassionate care to make sure they can get their needs met.
The fact remains that even if we want to help 100% of people, 100% of the time, our whole nation simply cannot, we don't have the resources at the federal level to do so. At some point, practicality, as hard as that sounds, has to come in. I say let the states and localities help their citizens, and sure, have the federal government step in when necessary for those dire situations like Hurricane Katrina (FEMA) and Flint, etc..
If that means local taxes do raise, then so be it. I'm happy to have my money go to the elderly who need aid in my community. Or kids needing lunches at schools. Or, increased aid for the people without homes.
You're putting words on the page that are simply not there. At no point did I say that Republicans don't help out the less fortunate. You started to assume and it wasn't my intention to insult anyone. Obviously most of us want to help out those that are less fortunate than we are, but I wasn't talking about personal charities. All I was trying to point out is that the federal government can not and should not be ran like a household budget. Now I'm going to assume, but correct me if I'm wrong: I assume you or your SO want to retire someday. The federal government will never retire, ipso facto we can't expect our government to treat its budget the same way.
PS. I don't think you're overly tough, we are having a debate.