Going-to-the-Sun road may not open this year

[houndawg]

Part of it is spending, but when your corporate taxes go from near 40% of receipts in the 60's to less than 10% today, you have to make that up somewhere or suffer the consequences.

A Few Points:
1) You're talking percentages, how does it look when you consider actual dollars. Sure corporate taxes have dropped considerably as a percentage of total fed govt revenue but what how has the actual amount of dollars collected in corporate taxes trended?
2) It's a global economy and countries are competing for corporate investment so there is a cause and effect. Raise the corporate tax rates and you give companies more incentive to keep profits overseas and/or to relocate their headquarters overseas. Corporations are meant to make money not necessarily to be patriotic. Raising the corporate tax rate could have a negative impact on tax revenues.
3) Higher corporate taxes just mean less money for salaries/bonuses, R&D, etc. which impacts other tax revenues in both the short and long term (that cause and effect thing can be a b!tch).

This doesn't mean that the corporate tax code couldn't use a little real reform. You don't set corporate tax rates based on what they were 50 years ago, you set them based on what it takes to compete in a global economy now and in the future.

Chizzang is right - we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Down by $430,000,000 in Facebook's case.

[death dealer]

And that has what to do with sequester???

Wouldn't be a sequester if those who most benefit from our system paid their fair share.

Exactly! Those assholes sit on their asses all day doing nothing, they get free housing, free medical care for their kids, free food, free cell phones, and don't pay a fucking red cent in taxes. Of course 100% of butkiss is still buttkiss.

[houndawg]

Part of it is spending, but when your corporate taxes go from near 40% of receipts in the 60's to less than 10% today, you have to make that up somewhere or suffer the consequences.

A Few Points:
1) You're talking percentages, how does it look when you consider actual dollars. Sure corporate taxes have dropped considerably as a percentage of total fed govt revenue but what how has the actual amount of dollars collected in corporate taxes trended?
2) It's a global economy and countries are competing for corporate investment so there is a cause and effect. Raise the corporate tax rates and you give companies more incentive to keep profits overseas and/or to relocate their headquarters overseas. Corporations are meant to make money not necessarily to be patriotic. Raising the corporate tax rate could have a negative impact on tax revenues.
3) Higher corporate taxes just mean less money for salaries/bonuses, R&D, etc. which impacts other tax revenues in both the short and long term (that cause and effect thing can be a b!tch).

This doesn't mean that the corporate tax code couldn't use a little real reform. You don't set corporate tax rates based on what they were 50 years ago, you set them based on what it takes to compete in a global economy now and in the future.

Chizzang is right - we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Maybe we could get SCOTUS to redefine corporations as unpatriotic persons.

[houndawg]

Wouldn't be a sequester if those who most benefit from our system paid their fair share.

Exactly! Those assholes sit on their asses all day doing nothing, they get free housing, free medical care for their kids, free food, free cell phones, and don't pay a **** red cent in taxes. Of course 100% of butkiss is still buttkiss.

And then they prostitute themselves to the highest bidder when they can no longer get elected. Ah for the good old days when the Red Brigades kneecapped scum like that.

[kalm]

Part of it is spending, but when your corporate taxes go from near 40% of receipts in the 60's to less than 10% today, you have to make that up somewhere or suffer the consequences.

A Few Points:
1) You're talking percentages, how does it look when you consider actual dollars. Sure corporate taxes have dropped considerably as a percentage of total fed govt revenue but what how has the actual amount of dollars collected in corporate taxes trended?
2) It's a global economy and countries are competing for corporate investment so there is a cause and effect. Raise the corporate tax rates and you give companies more incentive to keep profits overseas and/or to relocate their headquarters overseas. Corporations are meant to make money not necessarily to be patriotic. Raising the corporate tax rate could have a negative impact on tax revenues.
3) Higher corporate taxes just mean less money for salaries/bonuses, R&D, etc. which impacts other tax revenues in both the short and long term (that cause and effect thing can be a b!tch).

This doesn't mean that the corporate tax code couldn't use a little real reform. You don't set corporate tax rates based on what they were 50 years ago, you set them based on what it takes to compete in a global economy now and in the future.

Chizzang is right - we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

1) I repeat...Facebook received a $429 million refund on 1.1 billion in profits.

2) Agree. Also, corporations are ingrates. Since they are people, they should feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude and patriotism toward the country that gave them their start.

3) United Healthcare CEO Bill McGuire made $1 billion dollars in his decade at the helm. Could he have survived off only $100 million? Tough to say, but think of all the R&D that could have been done with the extra $900 million. Hell, probably could have afforded to keep a couple extra people on insurance!

It's tough to argue with your points. Maybe we can't afford to fund things like the GTTS road. Too bad, as preserving nature and recreation have an immense intangible value to a society. Recreation starts with access - for people of all incomes and physcial capabilities...at least it used too.

But at least corn is still subsidized.

[kalm]

A Few Points:
1) You're talking percentages, how does it look when you consider actual dollars. Sure corporate taxes have dropped considerably as a percentage of total fed govt revenue but what how has the actual amount of dollars collected in corporate taxes trended?
2) It's a global economy and countries are competing for corporate investment so there is a cause and effect. Raise the corporate tax rates and you give companies more incentive to keep profits overseas and/or to relocate their headquarters overseas. Corporations are meant to make money not necessarily to be patriotic. Raising the corporate tax rate could have a negative impact on tax revenues.
3) Higher corporate taxes just mean less money for salaries/bonuses, R&D, etc. which impacts other tax revenues in both the short and long term (that cause and effect thing can be a b!tch).

This doesn't mean that the corporate tax code couldn't use a little real reform. You don't set corporate tax rates based on what they were 50 years ago, you set them based on what it takes to compete in a global economy now and in the future.

Chizzang is right - we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Maybe we could get SCOTUS to redefine corporations as unpatriotic persons.

[kalm]

If Congress doesn't get it's shit together and avoid the Budget Crisis.

National Park funding has dropped over 15% in the past 10 years. Further cuts would mean the Park Service could not afford to plow the road, or fix it from winter damage.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-natio ... 16300.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The road should be clear when nature clears the road.

As far as park funding goes...some of that spending really needs to be cut. I love parks, and believe we should preserve even more land, but the parks should fund themselves.

This is certainly more equitable than blanket taxing everyone including people who will never use the park.

While we're on it, I think farmers, insurance companies, pharma, defense contractors, hospitals, and gay therapy clinics should fund themselves as well.

[kalm]

I think the Federal Government owns way too much land. I don't know how much it should own. Can't put my finger on that. But you look at a map and you can see that it's out of control. Especially in the West.

If the overall proportion of land owned by the Federal government was like it is in the East maybe that'd be OK. But you look at a map and it looks like it owns like 90% of the land in the West. To me there should be no State where the Federal government owns more than half the land. And really I don't think it should be more than maybe 10%. Like I said it's hard to put a finger on it but what's depicted below is, to me, clearly too much.

You're smarter than this.

[grizzaholic]

I think the Federal Government owns way too much land. I don't know how much it should own. Can't put my finger on that. But you look at a map and you can see that it's out of control. Especially in the West.

If the overall proportion of land owned by the Federal government was like it is in the East maybe that'd be OK. But you look at a map and it looks like it owns like 90% of the land in the West. To me there should be no State where the Federal government owns more than half the land. And really I don't think it should be more than maybe 10%. Like I said it's hard to put a finger on it but what's depicted below is, to me, clearly too much.

You can stop right there. So I need to ask someone to go hunt if I don't own property? Go fuck yourself. You really need to get a CT scan to see if your head is filled with shit.

[houndawg]

I think the Federal Government owns way too much land. I don't know how much it should own. Can't put my finger on that. But you look at a map and you can see that it's out of control. Especially in the West.

If the overall proportion of land owned by the Federal government was like it is in the East maybe that'd be OK. But you look at a map and it looks like it owns like 90% of the land in the West. To me there should be no State where the Federal government owns more than half the land. And really I don't think it should be more than maybe 10%. Like I said it's hard to put a finger on it but what's depicted below is, to me, clearly too much.

You can stop right there. So I need to ask someone to go hunt if I don't own property? Go **** yourself. You really need to get a CT scan to see if your head is filled with ****.

Stupid conk fvcks always want a hand out.

[BDKJMU]

A Few Points:
1) You're talking percentages, how does it look when you consider actual dollars. Sure corporate taxes have dropped considerably as a percentage of total fed govt revenue but what how has the actual amount of dollars collected in corporate taxes trended?
2) It's a global economy and countries are competing for corporate investment so there is a cause and effect. Raise the corporate tax rates and you give companies more incentive to keep profits overseas and/or to relocate their headquarters overseas. Corporations are meant to make money not necessarily to be patriotic. Raising the corporate tax rate could have a negative impact on tax revenues.
3) Higher corporate taxes just mean less money for salaries/bonuses, R&D, etc. which impacts other tax revenues in both the short and long term (that cause and effect thing can be a b!tch).

This doesn't mean that the corporate tax code couldn't use a little real reform. You don't set corporate tax rates based on what they were 50 years ago, you set them based on what it takes to compete in a global economy now and in the future.

Chizzang is right - we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

1) I repeat...Facebook received a $429 million refund on 1.1 billion in profits.

2) Agree. Also, corporations are ingrates. Since they are people, they should feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude and patriotism toward the country that gave them their start.

3) United Healthcare CEO Bill McGuire made $1 billion dollars in his decade at the helm. Could he have survived off only $100 million? Tough to say, but think of all the R&D that could have been done with the extra $900 million. Hell, probably could have afforded to keep a couple extra people on insurance!

It's tough to argue with your points. Maybe we can't afford to fund things like the GTTS road. Too bad, as preserving nature and recreation have an immense intangible value to a society. Recreation starts with access - for people of all incomes and physcial capabilities...at least it used too.

But at least corn is still subsidized.

If he made 1 billion before taxes then Uncle Sam would have taken several hundred million in taxes. So there wouldn't have been anywhere close to 900 million for R&D.

[93henfan]

I really don't care as much about plowing a road in the middle of a bunch of glaciers as much as I do about the 20% pay cut I'm about to take if they don't avoid sequestration.

[JohnStOnge]

You can stop right there. So I need to ask someone to go hunt if I don't own property? Go **** yourself. You really need to get a CT scan to see if your head is filled with ****.

I don't know about the whole East but around where I live nobody has ANY problem finding places to hunt. There is extensive State wildlife management area. And of course there are hunting leases on private lands. I guess you don't like that but I've never heard anybody complaining about it. In fact people that have leases love it. It basically means they've got prime territory and they're going to kill stuff.

[JohnStOnge]

You're smarter than this.

Explain.

[kalm]

1) I repeat...Facebook received a $429 million refund on 1.1 billion in profits.

2) Agree. Also, corporations are ingrates. Since they are people, they should feel an overwhelming sense of gratitude and patriotism toward the country that gave them their start.

3) United Healthcare CEO Bill McGuire made $1 billion dollars in his decade at the helm. Could he have survived off only $100 million? Tough to say, but think of all the R&D that could have been done with the extra $900 million. Hell, probably could have afforded to keep a couple extra people on insurance!

It's tough to argue with your points. Maybe we can't afford to fund things like the GTTS road. Too bad, as preserving nature and recreation have an immense intangible value to a society. Recreation starts with access - for people of all incomes and physcial capabilities...at least it used too.

But at least corn is still subsidized.

If he made 1 billion before taxes then Uncle Sam would have taken several hundred million in taxes. So there wouldn't have been anywhere close to 900 million for R&D.

God your a dork.

[BDKJMU]

If he made 1 billion before taxes then Uncle Sam would have taken several hundred million in taxes. So there wouldn't have been anywhere close to 900 million for R&D.

God your a dork.

[BDKJMU]

I think the Federal Government owns way too much land. I don't know how much it should own. Can't put my finger on that. But you look at a map and you can see that it's out of control. Especially in the West.

If the overall proportion of land owned by the Federal government was like it is in the East maybe that'd be OK. But you look at a map and it looks like it owns like 90% of the land in the West. To me there should be no State where the Federal government owns more than half the land. And really I don't think it should be more than maybe 10%. Like I said it's hard to put a finger on it but what's depicted below is, to me, clearly too much.

You can stop right there. So I need to ask someone to go hunt if I don't own property? Go **** yourself. You really need to get a CT scan to see if your head is filled with ****.

I see what you're saying, and on the one hand I agree.

But on the flip side of the coin, if the govt only owned 10%-20% of the land out west as opposed to 80%-90%:
-There would still be ample public land to hunt on.
-There would be tens of millions if not several hundred million more acres available to be sold to the public, and you could go buy your own several hundred (or maybe several thousand acre patch) for a fraction of which it would cost you now. Bottom line is the less land there is available to the public, the more expensive it is, and the less people that can afford to buy their own land.
-You'd have it all to yourself (and family & friends) for outdoor recreation including hunting.
-You wouldn't ever have to worry about running into strangers (or being accidently shot by one) while hunting.
-You wouldn't have to deal with the restrictions & regulations that you have to deal with now hunting on fed land.

[JohnStOnge]

I really don't care as much about plowing a road in the middle of a bunch of glaciers as much as I do about the 20% pay cut I'm about to take if they don't avoid sequestration.

The sad thing about that is that there's all this stuff about the sequester and it doesn't even address the problem anyway. Non-military discretionary spending accounts for about 13% of Federal expenditures. They could eliminate it entirely and that wouldn't solve the problem. If you add the military discretionary spending goes to 31%. Eliminate it entirely as well and we're still running a deficit.

Meanwhile the elephant...entitlement spending...goes untouched.

It's not that there are no problems with discretionary spending. But the big problem is entitlement spending. And it goes on unfettered.

[houndawg]

You can stop right there. So I need to ask someone to go hunt if I don't own property? Go **** yourself. You really need to get a CT scan to see if your head is filled with ****.

I don't know about the whole East but around where I live nobody has ANY problem finding places to hunt. There is extensive State wildlife management area. And of course there are hunting leases on private lands. I guess you don't like that but I've never heard anybody complaining about it. In fact people that have leases love it. It basically means they've got prime territory and they're going to kill stuff.

You can take white tail with a baseball bat around here. The orchard owners get nuisance permits for the asking, hard to believe the wolves aren't here for the smorgasboard. Hunting must be great for them in montana.

[andy7171]

Colossal waste of money. Dig 5 1/2 months, open the park at the top for 6 weeks, starts snowing again, road closed for next 5 months.

Here's an idea....PUT THE PARK AT THE BOTTOM!

Going to the Sun Road is within Glacier Park, not the road that takes you to the park.

I only keep up with the Missoula resturant scene. Go fuck yourself, and put the swing set and the base of the mountain!

[houndawg]

Going to the Sun Road is within Glacier Park, not the road that takes you to the park.

I only keep up with the Missoula resturant scene. Go **** yourself, and put the swing set and the base of the mountain!

Both of them?

This week's special: Dogshiit on Rye straw.

[grizzaholic]

Colossal waste of money. Dig 5 1/2 months, open the park at the top for 6 weeks, starts snowing again, road closed for next 5 months.

Here's an idea....PUT THE PARK AT THE BOTTOM!

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WEST GLACIER – Automatic federal budget cuts will not delay the opening of Glacier National Park’s Going-to-the-Sun Road, but campgrounds and visitor centers will close earlier in the season, trails will receive less maintenance and some full-time positions will not be filled, park administrators announced Tuesday.

With the permanent federal spending cuts looming on the fiscal horizon last month, park officials proposed delaying the opening of the iconic Sun Road by two weeks in order to save costs. However, last-minute funding from the Glacier National Park Conservancy will allow the plow crews to run on schedule.

[CAA Flagship]

I really don't care as much about plowing a road in the middle of a bunch of glaciers as much as I do about the 20% pay cut I'm about to take if they don't avoid sequestration.

Yes but it will create more time for plowing a VC.

[andy7171]

Colossal waste of money. Dig 5 1/2 months, open the park at the top for 6 weeks, starts snowing again, road closed for next 5 months.

Here's an idea....PUT THE PARK AT THE BOTTOM!

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WEST GLACIER – Automatic federal budget cuts will not delay the opening of Glacier National Park’s Going-to-the-Sun Road, but campgrounds and visitor centers will close earlier in the season, trails will receive less maintenance and some full-time positions will not be filled, park administrators announced Tuesday.

With the permanent federal spending cuts looming on the fiscal horizon last month, park officials proposed delaying the opening of the iconic Sun Road by two weeks in order to save costs. However, last-minute funding from the Glacier National Park Conservancy will allow the plow crews to run on schedule.

Great. However because of the delayed start, they'll get to the top at the beginning of snow season and have to plow themselves back! Costing taxpayers twice as much! More government waste.

[grizzaholic]

http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-re ... 963f4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WEST GLACIER – Automatic federal budget cuts will not delay the opening of Glacier National Park’s Going-to-the-Sun Road, but campgrounds and visitor centers will close earlier in the season, trails will receive less maintenance and some full-time positions will not be filled, park administrators announced Tuesday.

With the permanent federal spending cuts looming on the fiscal horizon last month, park officials proposed delaying the opening of the iconic Sun Road by two weeks in order to save costs. However, last-minute funding from the Glacier National Park Conservancy will allow the plow crews to run on schedule.

Great. However because of the delayed start, they'll get to the top at the beginning of snow season and have to plow themselves back! Costing taxpayers twice as much! More government waste.

You don't read good, do ya? Plowing will start on time, it is a couple of the trails and campgrounds that will open a little late.

Damn EC(b) schools.