Lucky...

As usual, your point is irrelevant. This illustrates the fiscal help each state will receive (in millions): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3258 - California $3,070 - Florida $1,339 - New York $2,835 - Texas $1,688 - Arizona $563 Now let's look at each of their population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population - California 36,961,664 - Florida 18,537,969 - New York 19,541,453 - Texas 24,782,302 - Arizona 6,595,778 - California $83 per person - Florida $72 per person - New York $145 per person - Texas $68 per person - Arizona $85 per person So you see California is not that much higher than some red states, lower than Arizona, an extreme red state. New York has inherent budgetary costs and is a much more complex society than the rest of the country. By the data, it appears wherever immigration ports are, budgets are worse, more aid is given.

Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before. Heritage is unashamedly right wing, while Cato is genuinely libertarian as far as I can tell. Cato is at least honest, which is more than can be said for Heritage. Basically agree, but Cato posted that FDR tripled taxes when it was Hoover who raised income tax from 25% to 63%, so for that fact Cato is dishonest. But I agree, Heritage is a ridiculous rag that only the most naive neo-con would find as objective.

Or your practice of 39.6% doesn't = 40%. Rounding is common and typical. Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Look at my chart, taxes, since WWI minus Harding/Coolidge/Hoover have been 70% minimum and we still ran a deficit. So 40% or 39.6% or even 48% is a recipe for disaster. We need them back to the 50's at a minimum. But continue picking apart 39.6 vs 40 and enjoy / entertain yourself. Look at the graph and show me where < even 70% has been a good idea? I could overlay the debt mess and it would further prove my point. http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg So never mind your semantics of 39.6 to 40 being worlds apart, other than the 90's when we had teh assistance of the computer age/dot.com revolution leading to massive economic activity, show me where

Oh, of course...which is why you regularly provide rebuttals to info from places like heritage or cato, right? (obviously HUGELY sarcastic) My point stands. Good to see you've finally admitted they are RW garbage sites. You've asked us to acknowledge them as moderate before.

No, I'm suggesting that taxes be kept high and write-offs be kept generous to ensure reinvestment by the wealth-holders. Profit-taking and stashing cash is a real problem for a healthy economy, it stagnates spending. The underhanded BS is your lame attempt, the rest is mine. Are you saying tax rates are not largely responsible for the economic state of the nation? Come on back with your non-responsive rhetoric; I'll be wating.

Dodged and ran Put Lucky's idiotic argument in the dirt several times, previously. Fixed it. I just made it even more correct. Yea, let's use the majic ruler and attribute beneficial doings to whom we like, forward or backwards. Even if true, which it's not, but is tripling the debt, or as you say, doubling using your other majic ruler, really a good trade-off? Wait, wa sthe nominal GDP or real? You're great, Mike, I haven't seen anyone as good as you, able to make the Repub messes look minimal in all my years. I mean that seriously. Kennedy and Reagan cuts were no where near each other. Kennedy inherited a 91% top brkt, all he could do was to cut them; he took 91% and dropped it to 70%. Fasict pig, however, took 70% and ran the fucker to 28% and you want to compare teh two? Hope it was a good party, sounds as if it was. No, I'm not a conservative, I have several goals. I would like to illustrate a concept of low taxes = trouble, high taxes = bliss: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg And it's not a partisan concept, it just has played out mostly that way. Show me where low tax periods have been economically good. NOt at all, I cite data, I don't really care about economic pundits. You can dodge taxes or various state rules WITHIN the US, but no matter where you go federal taxes are the same in all 50. Make a little sense here, playing intra-country dodgeball has ZERO to do with federal taxes.

I agree with 99% of that article. Our government, on both sides of the aisle, have run the train of the tracks big time. I am glad I don't have any kids, I would have a tough time passing this sinking ship off to them. I am 99% sure that we no longer have the ability or the will to get things going in the right direction. As a summation of yourlong string of posts that basically say the same thing, All I can ask is how you've forgotten about the Clinton Amin already? He cut spending, raised taxes and left a surplus; the debt would have actually fallen the following year had he been president for another year or his policies been maintained. So what were his policies? - Raise taxes, esp on the top few % - Cut spending, esp military - Try to get uni HC - Give incentive for education How do Obama's policies differ from Clinton's? Obama inherited the downswing of the Great Republican Recession, so he can't institute tax increases as Clinton was able to as GHWB's tax increases/military spending cuts started a healthy recovery, but he will probably allow the GWB tax cuts to expire and go from there. We see the same garbage coming from the Republican Party hammering things, same recovery from the D's fixing things. Look at this graph I cut from another site and lined to illustrate Republican trends: http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx141/Br549x123/TopMargTaxBrktanddetails.jpg Tupically, for the last 100 years the right has followed a pattern of cut taxes, increase spending esp military. The left has raised taxes and cut spending, incr social spending. There are deviations to this, Eisenhower kept taxes high and tried to get us out of proxy wars; the debt fell under him 3 of his 8 years. GHWB raised taxes a tiny bit, but what else could he do? I give him cedit but not that much. Kennedy / LBJ cut taxes but LBJ raised them; the top brkt was so high that all they could do was to cut them. Of course Hoover raised taxes from 25% to 63%, but that was after 2.5 years of thinking low taxes and apathy would fix the GD. So to say these parties all do the same is complete lunacy. It's just an endorsement for a frimnge party like the Libertarians, who do the same things Republicans do but with irrationality. So other than typical cronyism with politics, illustrate how the protocol is the same.

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it. Yeah, whatever you say, Chief Justice Lucky. Thx Mike, that was educational.

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today. Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean? I guess I have to slow it down for you to understand. The R's were the progressives, the liberals in Lincoln's days and for 50 years, they turned to shit in the 1920's and traded places with the Dems. It was EXTREMELT liberal to emancipate and end secession. The D's were traditionalists, the Whigs old elitists and the R's the progressive saviors; glad we had them, too bad they turned to shit.

Will this be the next apology? Should be, killing 300k mostly women and children with both bombs to terrorize the men into surrender is right in line with, well the definition of terrorism. Of course the RW likes to selectively use the word.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In the event of militias are these rights supported. And even then, the militia must be well regulated. Totally diff context, they didn't have standing armies then. The 2nd gives you the right to own firearms in conjunction with militia activity, and it must be well regulated. Fortunatley the justices have interpreted it to include personal firearm onwership.

Well, there's always this: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://therealrevo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/turkey-baster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://therealrevo.com/blog/%3Fp%3D10453&h=300&w=300&sz=9&tbnid=K5DWvaQbHlBGZM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bturkey%2Bbaster&usg=__kEV_zxtO8kRcq13tAnTw8jO2xIE=&sa=X&ei=5q9cTNLXJIj2tgPIpenDDw&ved=0CBoQ9QEwAg

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Oh, like the reconcilliation bills to pass GWB's tax cuts? Oh wait, I get it, that was good, you mean all teh bad stuff.

Yea, status quo is pretty good; wealth disparity growing, limited HC, debt growing, yea, I see your point, all is good now so let's not change.

Or your practice of 39.6% doesn't = 40%. Rounding is common and typical. Actually, Clinton's 39.6% didn't yield the results it could have and when your heroes tax cuts expire, Obama won't see teh same results. The economy was so active during the 90's that if Clinton had raised them to 50% or higher they would have seen substantial debt drop. Look at my chart, taxes, since WWI minus Harding/Coolidge/Hoover have been 70% minimum and we still ran a deficit. So 40% or 39.6% or even 48% is a recipe for disaster. We need them back to the 50's at a minimum. But continue picking apart 39.6 vs 40 and enjoy / entertain yourself.

Fixed that for you. Why don't you present some statistically valid evidence in support, then? Dodged and ran, previously - note the red text. Fixed it. How is it when Republigarbage politicians get in, cut taxes (Harding / Collidge, Reagan, GWB), hammer the dig piss out of the economy, you claim they didn't fuck it up? Citing partisan idiots who don't provide data and are talking state issue opinions ISN'T the same as arguing federal tax issues. NEWSFLASH: No matter which state they live in, they have to pay federal tax, so your point is so ridiculously off teh mark that even your cronies can't dig you out. Well, maybe math genius Timmyfitz can come argue that state tax and federal tax are the same.

Hmmm, wonder why you didn't visit my taxation thread, "History repeats itself?" Oh yea, it illustrates how your uber Capitalist nightmare comes to life when taxes are cut. Total fucking disater wrapped in denial in the name of greed. So it's your hope that all the directives mandatied in the HC law will fall to shit as soon as the Nazis chip away at provisions. Neither your or I have read all 2k+ pages, but it is your burden to illustrate how funding and mandates are absolutley tied. Not to mention the pre-existing clause, taht isn't a funding mandate. I don't see this as the boy with his finger in the dyke where if 1 drop leaks the entire thing breaks and all the water leaks out. That's your dream unsubstantiated with anything but conjecture.

WHat says that? The funding provisions don't hinge on each and every element. On a state level, the Cardinal football stadium was funded via an election for a bond, then 911 happened and the FAA decided the stadium was too close to the landing patterns for it, so the venue was crubbed but the funding stayed. Then they voted on the venue as I recall. You assertion is hope compounding hope, but keep up the good work, maybe your dream of status quo millions w/o HC will stay a reality.

At the same time, it's the most credible source the RW has come up with for years.

Yea, LOL.

Indeed! In fact, this is the reason why so many people out there view themselves as libertarians. We understand "living within our means." We understand "belt-tightening" and "austerity." Honesty from this guy meant laying blame everywhere. Note that Page 2 does not even have the word "tax" or "revenue." The last two paragraphs of Page 1 described it: Yep. Note, also, that the 1986 Tax Reform Act was bipartisan. Remember Daniel "Write Rosty" Rostenkowski and Bill Bradley? I think he's correct. Our situation calls for "austerity." It calls for change. And it serves as a warning for the future with the actions of the present congress and presidential administration. I totally agree..... the Republicans of the recent past have not been true fiscal conservatives and the dems view is even worse. Great article Kal... I agree with it now lets stop making it worse like we are now and get back to true fiscal responsibility! The Dems view even worse? WHat does that mean? The Dems are even more irresponsible? If so, what a laugher. Clinton received a recovering economy and turned it into gold, Obama received the 2nd worst economy and is still dealing with it. FDR received the worst economy ever in the US and eventually repaired it. This is a recurring cycle of the R's inheriting a good economy and turning it to fuck, the D's fixing it; repeat cycle. The only fiscally responsible R's we've had over the last 50 years are Eisenhower and GHWB. Let's see what they did: - Got us out of wars, in GHWB's war he abbreviated it very shortly. - Cut spending - Raise taxes or keep them high So you and your have to do that to be true fiscal conservatives, not neo-cons and the electorate says they want true fiscal responsibility yet they really don't, as they want low taxes which lead to high deficits. This fairly tale that claims we can cut the dificit by cutting spending is tired and unproven. Look at teh chart I posted in my tax thread, "History repeats itself;" every time the taxes get cut, bad things happen.

Feel gratified, with my tax thread he argues state taxes vs the issue I raised; federal taxes. He argues state tax laws enticing people to move around the states instead of what I was saying, that lower taxes lead to poor economic conditions. So your basic ad hominem is par when Mike gets cornered.

I do hope they kill that provision, the one that mandates is purchase or fine. I think it will be killed and I'm not sure the Dems will be too upset if it does.