SoylentNews

U.S. Government Shutdown Agreement Reached, Covering the Next Three Weeks

posted by takyon on Friday January 25 2019, @10:22PM   
from the we're-safe...-for-now... dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Senate Passes Short-Term Deal To Reopen Government, With Trump's Endorsement

President Trump has endorsed a bipartisan deal that would end the 35-day partial government shutdown. The three-week stopgap funding measure would reopen shuttered agencies while negotiations continue.

Trump announces deal to lift shutdown

President Donald Trump has endorsed a deal to reopen the US government for three weeks, after a record-breaking shutdown of federal agencies.

But the pact does not include any money that Mr Trump has demanded for a US-Mexico border wall.

See also: Dem senator unveils 'Stop STUPIDITY Act' to prevent all shutdowns
White House: 'Large down payment' on wall could end government shutdown
35 ways the shutdown is affecting America

---

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2  Original Submission #3  Original Submission #4 

• Re:WhyRe:Why (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @02:11AM (3 children)

  by khallow (3766) on Friday February 08 2019, @02:11AM (#798105) Journal

  Oh, I forgot we justify right and wrong based on amount. So rape is ok if you only rape just a little?

  Indeed we do all the time. You can't rape a little, but you can tax a little.
  
  I don't get the reason you're still posting. You claimed for some reason that property taxes was a particularly bad way to collect taxes. To the contrary, I think it's a good way to impedance match taxes, which I consider a necessary evil, to services used from the local government. That's just a matter of disagreement.
  
  But this over-the-top complaint that your wife will have to sell the house and move somewhere else? I still don't believe the role of society is to protect wealthy peoples' life styles. Your wife would indeed be wealthy because of that property even if she doesn't have liquid assets. By merely selling the house and then moving somewhere cheaper (and possibly with a much lower property tax rate too!), your wife solves all the problems. And if she's stubborn enough that she'll refuse to pay taxes and force the state to take over the house and sell it for whatever. That's just bad decision making which is its own reward.

  Parent

• Re:WhyRe:Why (Score: 1) by darkpixel on Friday February 08 2019, @03:46AM (2 children)

  by darkpixel (4281) on Friday February 08 2019, @03:46AM (#798129)

  Indeed we do all the time. You can't rape a little, but you can tax a little.

  A little rape is wrong. A little theft is wrong.

  But this over-the-top complaint that your wife will have to sell the house and move somewhere else? I still don't believe the role of society is to protect wealthy peoples' life styles.

  *Wealthy* peoples' lifestyles? What does wealth or destitution have to do with it. The government is supposed to be fair and even-handed to *everyone*. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is wrong for *exactly* the same reasons as stealing from the poor to give to the rich. One, it's immoral, and two (in this context) the government has no business doing it. Before the 1900s you could *actually* own your land--no taxes, no one throwing your wife out on the street because she was a homemaker for her entire lifeand doesn't have a marketable skill at the age of 82. Gee...how did the country survive?

  Parent

  • Re:Why(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:52AM

    by khallow (3766) on Friday February 08 2019, @03:52AM (#798132) Journal

    A little rape is wrong. A little theft is wrong.

    But a little rape is a huge amount of harm. A little theft is indeed little. Wrongness is not a bit flag you set.

    Parent

  • Re:Why(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @04:02AM

    by khallow (3766) on Friday February 08 2019, @04:02AM (#798139) Journal

    *Wealthy* peoples' lifestyles? What does wealth or destitution have to do with it.

    A great deal, of course.

    The government is supposed to be fair and even-handed to *everyone*.

    Like allowing the rich and poor alike to sleep under a bridge? I'm using the tropes of socialism here, because there are real issues you aren't considering. Government is used for a number of services. As a result, it needs money. The rich (and property owners in general) use those services to a greater degree than those without.

    Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is wrong for *exactly* the same reasons as stealing from the poor to give to the rich.

    So what of the things we spoke of, is this robin hood activity? Law enforcement, emergency services, roads, education?

    Before the 1900s you could *actually* own your land--no taxes, no one throwing your wife out on the street because she was a homemaker for her entire lifeand doesn't have a marketable skill at the age of 82. Gee...how did the country survive?

    Depends on the region. Property taxes didn't come out of nowhere [eh.net].

    In 1796 seven of the fifteen states levied uniform capitation taxes. Twelve taxed some or all livestock. Land was taxed in a variety of ways, but only four states taxed the mass of property by valuation. No state constitution required that taxation be by value or required that rates on all kinds of property be uniform. In 1818, Illinois adopted the first uniformity clause. Missouri followed in 1820, and in 1834 Tennessee replaced a provision requiring that land be taxed at a uniform amount per acre with a provision that land be taxed according to its value (ad valorem). By the end of the century thirty-three states had included uniformity clauses in new constitutions or had amended old ones to include the requirement that all property be taxed equally by value. A number of other states enacted uniformity statutes requiring that all property be taxed. Table 1 summarizes this history.

    In other words, the use of property taxes by valuation existed before the US Constitution did.

    One, it's immoral, and two (in this context) the government has no business doing it.

    You have yet to present a reason why it's supposed to be immoral. As to your 82 widow getting thrown on the street, she can just buy a home in a cheaper neighborhood and then she avoids that fate.

    Parent