4 ms·

There's s story about Bill Clinton's early years that is similar. He became governor at 32 and had ambitious plans, increasing the gas tax to fix the roads was

by donarb 10y ago

There's s story about Bill Clinton's early years that is similar. He became governor at 32 and had ambitious plans, increasing the gas tax to fix the roads was one of them. The tax passed and subsequently Clinton lost re-election. He was stung at his loss since he was a fairly popular governor despite the gas tax hike. A few years later he decided to run again and went all over the state to talk to voters. In one small town he came across a man and introduced himself. The man said "I know who you are, you're the sumbitch that raised the gas tax!" Clinton replied "I guess I can't count on your vote then." The man said "Oh, I'll still vote for you." Shocked, Clinton asked why? The man grinned and said, "Cause I know you'll never do that again!"

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
That's not really the same though. Did Clinton actually manage to fix the roads? If he did, that wasn't a mistake and voters were simply retaliating for a tax increase.
- ProAm 10y ago
  > Did Clinton actually manage to fix the roads? ... and voters were simply retaliating for a tax increase. Not a great argument because many people view one of the primary responsibilities of local government is to maintain the roads (in USA). If they cannot properly budget and allocate money, regardless if the tax increase worked, it was the wrong way to fix the problem. With this mindset government can fix every problem by raising taxes.... Not acceptable to most people.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
    That argument doesn't necessarily make sense. You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax. If people really think that the government can maintain roads with no money, assuming they don't have that money, I don't know what to say.
    - Nition 10y ago
      More simply, setting tax rates is part of budgeting.
      - ProAm 10y ago
        If every time I did not budget properly would it be acceptable to ask my boss for more money? Every time? Or is it my fault for not budgeting properly. I'd probably be fired if I did this.
        Nition 10y ago
        That seems like an unrelated question. I thought we were talking about Clinton's one-time budget to improve roads that included a tax increase to cover it. Clinton wasn't governor in the previous term, he wasn't the one that under-budgeted the roads originally.
        ProAm 10y ago
        > he wasn't the one that under-budgeted the roads originally. Im not sure who caused the budget deficit in the first place, but he is the one that took more money from citizens to fix a problem that should have been fixed by reallocating existing funds.
    - civility 10y ago
      > If people really think that the government can maintain roads with no money Do you really think they brought in "no" money? That's ridiculous. The government should figure out how to waste less of the existing taxes before demanding more.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      > You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax. If their primary purpose is to take care of the roads, that should be one of the first items that gets funded with taxes they already collect, therein lies the problem people have. It's not like they have no money, it was improperly allocated to the point where they were in the negative to meet the needs required of them. We are not a country with a lot of social services, we have very few. It a case of the government not doing their jobs well and taking more money cover that fact up.

by donarb 10y ago

2muchcoffeeman 10y ago

That's not really the same though. Did Clinton actually manage to fix the roads? If he did, that wasn't a mistake and voters were simply retaliating for a tax increase.

ProAm 10y ago
> Did Clinton actually manage to fix the roads? ... and voters were simply retaliating for a tax increase. Not a great argument because many people view one of the primary responsibilities of local government is to maintain the roads (in USA). If they cannot properly budget and allocate money, regardless if the tax increase worked, it was the wrong way to fix the problem. With this mindset government can fix every problem by raising taxes.... Not acceptable to most people.
- 2muchcoffeeman 10y ago
  That argument doesn't necessarily make sense. You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax. If people really think that the government can maintain roads with no money, assuming they don't have that money, I don't know what to say.
  - Nition 10y ago
    More simply, setting tax rates is part of budgeting.
    - ProAm 10y ago
      If every time I did not budget properly would it be acceptable to ask my boss for more money? Every time? Or is it my fault for not budgeting properly. I'd probably be fired if I did this.
      - Nition 10y ago
        That seems like an unrelated question. I thought we were talking about Clinton's one-time budget to improve roads that included a tax increase to cover it. Clinton wasn't governor in the previous term, he wasn't the one that under-budgeted the roads originally.
        ProAm 10y ago
        > he wasn't the one that under-budgeted the roads originally. Im not sure who caused the budget deficit in the first place, but he is the one that took more money from citizens to fix a problem that should have been fixed by reallocating existing funds.
  - civility 10y ago
    > If people really think that the government can maintain roads with no money Do you really think they brought in "no" money? That's ridiculous. The government should figure out how to waste less of the existing taxes before demanding more.
  - ProAm 10y ago
    > You can't budget properly and allocate funds if you have no funds. Look at all the countries with a high level of social services. They collect a lot of tax. If their primary purpose is to take care of the roads, that should be one of the first items that gets funded with taxes they already collect, therein lies the problem people have. It's not like they have no money, it was improperly allocated to the point where they were in the negative to meet the needs required of them. We are not a country with a lot of social services, we have very few. It a case of the government not doing their jobs well and taking more money cover that fact up.