I Thought Taxes Paid For This

The third largest school district in Colorado is asking parents to pay for their children to ride the school buses to school. The cost would be $1.00 per day, per child. The buses would have GPS systems and the children would have electronic devices or cards that get read when they ride the bus. Evidently the district is having trouble making ends meet.

But don’t taxes already pay for school bus service? The taxing authority for this district collects taxes from all wage earning residents in order to pay for the school system so what makes it right to charge the riders additional money to get to school?

If we collect taxes for a service how is it right to then charge for the service? Suppose the school system did not have enough money to pay for education. Would it then be OK for the district to charge families to send their children to school? What if there is not enough money to pay to fix the roads. Can they then add a fee to each driver’s license renewal to pay for the road repairs?

If government is not capable of collecting taxes and spending the money efficiently and must resort to charging additional money for services the taxes are supposed to provide then it is time to rethink the way we allow government to do business.

Allowing government to charge additional money for services it provides could end up being a slippery slope where people are charged for countless items that they already pay for as part of the oppressive tax scheme that has evolved in this country.

This kind of nonsense is what gave birth to the TEA Party movement.

Source:
Denver Post

Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

16 Responses to “I Thought Taxes Paid For This”

  1. Bunny Colvin says:

    Speaking of the TEA [Shepard Smith] movement, it looks like it wasn’t a big sell in PA-12. That’s Murthas old seat, Dog. I thought the TEA [George Rekers]s were gonna carry Mr. Burns to victory? Looks like the Johnstown area ain’t down with your revolution, Dog. Tough one.

    PEACE

    • Big Dog says:

      Spin that how you want but people with brains know differently. The guy who ran did so with all positions being ANTI OBAMA. That means a person who said he would oppose Obama’s agenda and would have opposed it before was elected. He will have to run again in November so i doubt he will show his liberal stripes by then.

      The people voted anti Obama.

      • Bunny Colvin says:

        Your reply is what has me spinning. Let me get this straight…the democrat anti-Obama’d the TEA [Rekers] candidate? That’s gangster. I think your revolution might be in trouble, Dog.

        PEACE

  2. Blake says:

    This is yet another attempt to grab our money, when we have ALREADY paid-
    I find it incredible that my generation was able to take the bus, have classes in PHYSICAL EDUCATION, not to mention music and arts, and now the school districts cannot afford these things?
    Perhaps if the teacher’s unions did not have their cadillac health plans, or gold card retirement, THEN our children could be educated well.
    Of course, it would ALSO help if the progressives would quit trying to re-write history, or eliminate religion from our lives.

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog- the Democrat is in a district where people liked him more? No sh!t, that’s why he won the election. I gotta ask you again..did the Dem out anti-Obama the TEA [Rekers] candidate? Because that would be gangster. And it could be a problem for your imaginary revolution.

    PEACE

    • Big Dog says:

      I don’t believe he out did the Republican candidate. I also am not sure that person had the backing of the TEA Party or any other group. It was one that we would like to have picked up. And you can be in a district where there are more of one party but the other party wins. That is how your party took control, by sending people in conservative districts to pretend they were moderates or so called Blue Dogs. After Republican fatigue they received votes in areas that voted for John McCain. In the next election they will be gone and there are 54 such districts.

      You want gangsta, look at the WH. There is a Mac Daddy gangsta living there.

  4. Bunny Colvin says:

    You are not sure if “that person” (Burns) had the backing of the TEA [Rekers] Party or any other group? Well, I’d hate to be the bearer of bad news, but he did have the backing of the TEA [Rekers]. And he lost. To a Democrat. Your revolution is in trouble.

    PEACE

  5. Bunny Colvin says:

    I just watched Sister Sarah try to peddle the same line of bullsh!t you did on FauxNews. Great minds must think alike.

    PA-12 was won by a Democrat. A pro-life, pro-gun, anti-healthcare reform candidate. If you’ve ever been to Jawns-tahn you know it isn’t exactly Mulholland Drive. So whats wrong with the Dem more accurately reflecting his constituents views? Murtha was pro-life and pro-gun, too. He was endorsed by the NRA, for God’s sake. I thought the GOP was supposed to be a big tent party. That’s what Ken Mellman told me. Clearly, it is the Democratic party that welcomes a more broad range of viewpoints.

    Your logic (and Sister Sarah’s) goes like this… PA-12 elected a congressman with similar views to Murtha only because you categorize these views as “ANTI OBAMA”. Stevie Wonder could see (one of Dog’s favorite lines) that this happened as much because the voters wanted a continuation of Murtha-like views on abortion and gun control as because Sister Sarah or TurdBlossum says they are “ANTI OBAMA”.

    You’re the one spinning the results of the race, Dog. And your line of argument makes about as much sense as trying to sell a state jet on ebay. What a joke. Never surrender, never submit to Dog’s idiocy.

    PEACE

    • Big Dog says:

      Since the guy in PA held views that are radically different than Obama he ran on an anti Obama agenda. Then throw in that the district is 2:1 Democrat and you can see why he won.

      He basically had the same values as the TEA Party so the Dems there had a Dem with TEA Party values to vote for. If he had run as a liberal with Obama’s positions he would have lost.

      We are seeing Dems run away from their pro Obama record trying to pretend they are something they are not in order to get reelected.

      Murtha was a big government big spending liberal who insulted our troops and accused them of murder. He was a blowhard and his death was a blessing. If a few others could take the Kennedy Murtha way out of office, and real soon, I would be happy.

    • Blake says:

      PA-12 was won by a Dem who ran FROM Barrie’s positions- and then you have the fact that that district is 2-1 democratic, and with the primary on the same day as the special election, a lot of dumbocrats came out of the woodwork- it REALLY is that simple- but he will have to do that in November, and I do not think it will be that easy then.

  6. Bunny Colvin says:

    Wow, Dog. Creepy. Murthas death was a blessing? I don’t stoop that low. Even I didn’t view fat@ss Falwell’s death as a blessing. You are one strange character.

    Let me explain this to you two. Just one more time. PA-12 was won by a DEM who ran on positions similar to John Murtha’s on key issues like abortion and gun control. One would think that you wackos would be pleased with this result. After all, these are the positions you take on these same issues. But that would be logical, so of course it is not the case here.

    PEACE

    • Big Dog says:

      Yes, his death was a blessing. The only way to get rid of them is for them to die off so when they do it is a blessing.

      PA 12 was won by a Dem who said he opposed cap and tax, health care takeover and nearly all the Obama agenda. Murtha voted for those things and fully supported them. He voted for the bailouts and stimulus and the other bills (he was dead before the health care final vote but he voted for the bill in the House). The other guy said he did not support any of it so in a 2:1 Democrat district he spoke against Obama and against a lot of Murtha and he won.

  7. Bunny Colvin says:

    Yeah I’m just gonna leave all the death blessing stuff to you. The more you repeat yourself, the more you sound like a creep. The only way to get rid of them is for them to die? I’d hate to tell you, but most reasonable folks vote to get politicians they don’t like out of office. And/or encourage others to do so. You take the shortcut and just wish them death. How patriotic!

    PEACE

    • Big Dog says:

      I never wished death on anyone. However, people do not vote them out of office and they end up there for decades. We all die so if they will not leave office then it is eventually better for them to die off. There is no reason Byrd should still be in the Senate and we will be better off if he were to resign or not run again. Since he has shown he will do neither then it is time for nature to take its course.

      I am not sad Murtha died. He was a scumbag who dishonored the military. He was a criminal and should have gone to jail with all the others.