September 23, 2008
Who Let that Camel's Nose into the Tent?

A notable, local liberal think tank says looming state budget difficulties mean it's time to raise taxes (h/t Political Buzz). Their plan includes a "temporary general sales tax increase."

"Temporary."

Right.

Shouldn't Christine Gregoire be telling them "now is not the time to be talking about that"?

Hint: the plan is wait until after November 4th, then start talking about "tough times" and "shared sacrifice."

UPDATE: typo fixed, per commenter #1, who reminds me that typo Nazis (who all presume that the writer doesn't know basic rules of grammar rather than acknowledging that, you know, people are human, bloggers don't have copy editors, and sometimes posts are done in haste, with the brain working faster than the typing fingers....especially when they are cranking out a post before reading to the blogger's kids shortly), are among some of the most loathsome human beings possible. Or maybe they're just wankers. I haven't decided which.

I mean that in the nicest way, of course.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 23, 2008 07:49 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Oh good God. Mr Earling, I thought I taught you the difference between "now" and "know" in 2nd grade English class.

Posted by: Eric's Second Grade English Teacher on September 23, 2008 07:44 PM
2. Well, she could always do what Locke did...commission a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to look into potential methods to raise revenue. Of course the findings were not released until just after his re-election. And being a "reasonable" panel, of 11 findings to raise new revenue (i.e new taxes) they really only recommended three.
Odd... a tax cut was not among the 11.

Posted by: Diogenes on September 23, 2008 07:48 PM
3. Eric: I agree with you about commenter #1. I am more than proficient in English, yet many is the time I have stared in horror at an online comment (sometimes even those with preview functions) and found a simple typo that makes it look like I don't understand the basic rules of grammar, spelling, etc.

Also agree with you that someone didn't get the memo out to the think tank. The strategy is: win the election now, promising nothing. Then announce the crisis and your totally predictable (yet politically unpopular) solution later, after you have won.

I only hope that they continue to fumble in this fashion. The election is close enough that a bunch of motivated Republicans and Independents could just put Rossi over the top.

Hope I didn't jinx his campaign by saying that.

Posted by: HT on September 23, 2008 08:07 PM
4. In the la-la-land Utopia of the LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS, it is politically correct to use the term "increase revenue".
It is politically incorrect to use the term "tax increase" (even though that's what it is).

Gregoire & her ilk are master wordjockeys.
They seem to believe they can fool all of the people all of the time...or at least enough people to win an election.
Gregoire will say & do anything to win an election. It's obvious.
Therefore, you must carefully disect her words & meaning.
"Now is not the time" does not mean "no tax increase".
As Earl points out, it means "discuss after the election".

So anyone of you who believes Gregoire will ever discuss what taxes she will increase or what expenses she will cut (NONE) before the election, you will be disappointed.

Gregoire creates this massive $3.2 BILLION Deficit and wants us to "trust her" with her secret plan to balance the next budget...a secret plan that is sooooooo secret she doesn't even know what it is!!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 23, 2008 08:16 PM
5. @4: In the land of right-wingnuts, there's nothing wrong with sinking the state budgets all for the sake of tax cuts. Greed at any cost.

Posted by: demo kid on September 23, 2008 09:10 PM
6. "In the land of right-wingnuts, there's nothing wrong with sinking the state budgets all for the sake of tax cuts. Greed at any cost.

Posted by demo kid at September 23, 2008 09:10 PM"

Rossi never mentioned tax cuts moron.
The $3.2 BILLION Deficit is because Gregoire has an overactive "SPENDING GLAND!"
$8 BILLION of increased spending demo kid...in the face of a recession knowing full well it was unsustainable.

It's like you demo kid when you take out one of those "pay day loans"....spend the money and then cannot pay your bills. The LEFTIST PINHEADED KLOWNS fuzzy budget math is actually easy to see thru.
You blame the problem on not high enough taxes.

Gregoire increased spending by over 31% in 4 years.
Did your income go up over 31% the past 4 years demo kid?
How many voters income went up over 31%??
ANSWER: Not many

Conclusion: Gregoire has an overspending problem.

CHECKMATE!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 23, 2008 09:36 PM
7. @5: Wow... you can't read, can you? Look at the entire article, idiot, and then tell me what the real cause of the deficit is.

I'll give you a hint... it's not because of spending increases, as spending has been constant as a share of personal income.

On the other hand:

While spending has been consistent, revenue has declined as a share of personal income (Figure 1). Among the factors contributing to this loss in available state revenue are the following:

* Ballot initiatives that placed limits on growth in state spending (I-601) and on property taxes (R-47 and I-747).

* A series of tax cuts, including several new tax expenditures and the repeal of the motor vehicle excise tax.

* Heavy reliance on a retail sales tax. Sales tax revenues do not keep pace with state spending needs, since consumer spending is shifting from goods to non-taxable services.

Now, if you actually read what they were saying, as opposed to following your slavish devotion to tax cuts, you'd be a little closer to understanding the problem. But why should anyone expect you to handle difficult concepts when pathetic insults suffice?

Go home. You lose. Republicans are just sorry excuses for liars here.

Posted by: demo kid on September 23, 2008 09:55 PM
8. In the report, they graph state spending versus revenue. I like how the 2003-5 budget was a sharp decline in spending which brought it within an eyelash of the state revenue. That's the only time Dino had a say in the state budget.

Posted by: blindman on September 23, 2008 09:57 PM
9. Slavery Party Kid,

Read this link and digest the data - yes HARD data.

Increasing OR decreasing tax rates results in a pretty constant percentage of GDP taken in by Government.

And even your messiah, Obama, admits that increased taxation will retard economic growth (restrict GDP increases).

Put the two together: you increase taxes and you slow the growth of REVENUE to the State.

The converse is also provable (by the DATA from the link and data about increases in GDP after tax cuts): cut taxes, and total revenues INCREASE to the State.

Now, if you were actually concerned about the whole state, and not just your Slavery Party members then you would push to lower taxes to the point where economic growth shows little increase, and then stop.

You'll maximize not only the revenues to the State, but also the growth of the economy, meaning everyone benefits.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 23, 2008 10:00 PM
10. Dumbo, I know you're typically a clueless moron, but today you've outdone yourself.

Queen Chrissy, the Tribal Ho, was warned REPEATEDLY that this would happen, and continued to spend like the drunken idiot she is.

Even tho we know you lie with every word in all of your posts, the fact is that the lying bitch KNOWS she's toast on this issue, or guess what? She'd be attempting to scam us again THIS year the same way YOU are.

The FACT is that if you were even remotely right, that simple idiot of a governor, Queen Chrissy the Hypocrite, would be saying the same thing all day, every day, in an effort to avoid responsibility for HER leadership.

She owned this pile of turds when it was going good. Well, guess what? She owns it now while it's going bad, you simple moron.

Posted by: Hinton on September 23, 2008 10:03 PM
11. Unreal that demo kid can't fathom the concept of tightening the belt a bit. We do it in our personal lives, but government is simply viewed as a money tree where everything is OK, as long as spending is constant as a share of income. A prudent and reasonable administration, would realize that there comes a time when some things must be cut out of the state budget. Or, gasp, state employees let go, just like out here in the real world.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 23, 2008 10:09 PM
12. @7 demo kid: have you ever considered the possibility that we slash state spending to keep up with the reduction in state revenue? I bet not.

I know that when I make less money, I reduce my spending to stay solvent. That is responsible fiscal policy.

Posted by: blindman on September 23, 2008 10:09 PM
13. @9-12: Wow... the SP brain trust comes out again! Next time, try a little harder, though.

So where to start?

@9: First of all, the Laffer Curve is complete bull, and not actually backed up with any hard data at all. Not only that, but what you're referring to here with Hauser's work is, well, a drastic oversimplification and not applicable here at all. The "hard data" is a time series of the top Federal marginal tax rate and revenue, but your wonderful argument is completely demolished by the fact that we're not actually discussing income taxes.

Sorry, try again. Maybe get Chinese slave labor on it?

@10: A pathetic excuse for a human being that calls any woman a "Ho" isn't worth my respect or my time.

@11: "Tightening the belt" isn't the issue here. The issue is the dishonesty of starving the government of revenue on one hand, and then complaining when it tries to meet voter mandates with what is left. Besides... there is no deficit, since the state government cannot run one under the constitution.

Trying to compare state budgets with your own household might qualify you to be governor of Alaska, but not governor of Washington. We prefer to actually have intelligent people in office in this state.

@12: Again, see above. There cannot be deficit spending under the constitution. Good thing, too... since I have no doubt that if Republicans were to gain control, they would see no problem with ramming us deep into debt to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

Geez, guys... why don't you go and read up, and get back to me when you get a clue. Heck, read the source material first before trying to argue against something that apparently you don't understand.

Posted by: demo kid on September 23, 2008 11:41 PM
14. That's why we have a State Legislature. They are supposed to draft a budget that is realistic in terms of revenue. If the voters mandate the legislature to jump off a bridge, that doesn't mean they should do it.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 24, 2008 12:05 AM
15. This is the exactly same Arguement Michigan used to raise thier taxes. THe one state when every other state was enjoying the good economy due to the Bush Tax Cuts. Michigan is in an economic Recession. THeir revenue though increased taxes dropped. They are in a spiral and business are leaving. SO the only answer for them was to increase taxes and revenue continued to drop.
Look at Michigan Demo Kid. It was run by Democrats like you. It is not greed it is Economics. You want to change Washington into Michigan II. just as Obama wants to share the pain of Michigan and turn the whole country into Michigan.
Like all democrats put everyone at the same footing as the worse economic state in the Union. So everyone can feel thier pain.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on September 24, 2008 06:50 AM
16. dumb-o kid says "Tightening the belt isn't the issue here."

Ignorance is correctable, and many on this thread have tried to correct dumb-o's assumed ignorance. Stupid however, is permanent. Anyone so stupid as to not comprehend that out-of-control spending brought us to this point ($8B in spending increases, resulting in $3.2B budget shortfall), is not worthy of any attempts to educate. Anyone with half a brain would realize drastic cuts in spending are required to balance the state's budget. Any and all programs that provide funding for illegal aliens, the indolent and leftist ideological groups would be good places to start.

Posted by: Saltherring on September 24, 2008 06:58 AM
17. On behalf of Typo Nazis Local 420, let me apologize for Commentor #1. Topping our mission statement is this little gem: When making snarky comments about content and grammar, make damn sure your punctuation is correct.

Posted by: Typo Nazi Investigative Services on September 24, 2008 07:01 AM
18. demo kid spews:
"I'll give you a hint... it's not because of
spending increases, as spending has been constant as a share of personal income.

While spending has been consistent, revenue has declined as a share of personal income (Figure 1). Among the factors contributing to this loss in available state revenue are the following:"

demo kid--
Do you really think voters who are struggling to pay their mortgages and are living paycheck to paycheck will buy youe theory that increasing spending $8 billion or 31% IS JUSTIFIABLE??

My guess is these voters would tell you to take your FIGURE 1 and shove it up your A$$!

When approx. 49% of voters fell they are overtaxed, they will vote to make a leadership change. Taxes are a defining election factor.

Good Luck with those graphs and charts demo kid!!
I'm sure struggling families will be appreciative.
I'm sure unemployed people will embrace your slant on things.

demo kid--
Don't worry about running away State Government spending, look at my fancy chart and figures...and be happy!

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on September 24, 2008 07:02 AM
19. Slavery Party Kid,

Apparently the Chinese know a lot more about capitalism and economy than you...

For starters, your "Laffer Curve" comment - I never once mentioned the Laffer Curve OR the effects of it. I did reference hard data linking income taxation to Government Revenue.

Second, I merely pointed out that your Chosen One, the Obamassiah has stated that increased taxation hurts economic growth.

So higher tax rates don't bring in a larger portion of the pie - incontrovertible, hard data over decades.

And your own Slavery Party candidate admits that higher tax rates slow the growth of - or even shrinks - the overall pie.

Now put the two together. Higher taxes do not bring in a greater percentage of the total economy nor do they grow the economy quickly. Meaning you see the yield reduced.

Conversely, low tax rates keep the same percentage of the pie, but grow the pie faster (see several good sources backing this up).

So if you and your fellow Slavery Party hacks want to increase receipts to the Government - State or National or local - then you need to learn a new mantra. Grow the pie - stimulate the economy by letting the economy do what it does best - make and keep money. Retard growth and you hurt your own revenue streams.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. 33% more spending in 4 years, and most of that spending went to PERMANENT, annually recurring expenses that only pruning can cure. Exactly what the former attorney general refuses to do...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 24, 2008 07:41 AM
20. We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

That's the whole point - and the difference between Democrats and the G.O.P.

The Dems want to increase spending and there isn't enough revenue to keep up. If the economy won't generate the revenue, then they want to take more money out of the economy through higher taxes in order to feed their spending habit.

Republicans recognize that continuously increasing spending will always outrun revenue and when the gap is too big, spending must be curtailed.

Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 24, 2008 07:52 AM
21. Sorry, off-topic and I certainly don't mean to be rude, but it's become a little disappointing to me that the tone and language of many of the posts here have degenerated to the point that they'd be much more suitable on HA.

While I appreciate the passion folks have for many of the subjects, it seems there might be a more gracious way to make a point than by deliberately insulting the poster.

It may be just this particular topic or this particular subject, but I've always considered courteous, thoughtful responses to be one of this forum's greatest strengths. Certainly there are still many of those but they seem, to me, to get lost in the other.

Posted by: mykela on September 24, 2008 08:05 AM
22. Sorry, our leftist contingent finds themselves unable to rely on either facts or logic... so personal attacks are the order of the day.

They come in, make knowingly scurrilous and false accusations against people that many of us know personally... and since we can't bitch slap them in person, we give them the labels they've come to earn.

As one leftist blogger put it, "Politics is a blood sport."

Posted by: Hinton on September 24, 2008 10:02 AM
23. Dumbo moronically spews: "Geez, guys... why don't you go and read up, and get back to me when you get a clue."

Of the many things you've posted, this particular one may actually be, the very most hypocritical of all of those.

Congratulations. You're moving the bar nicely.

Posted by: Hinton on September 24, 2008 10:07 AM
24. And dumbo, I don't CALL "women" Ho's. I call that prostitute that is, unfortunately, occupying the Governor's Mansion a "Ho." That she is, coincidentally female, has nothing to do with it. I also refer to her as a prostitute, a liar and a hypocrite... as I would regardless of her gender, moron.

She is, quite demonstrably, all of those things.

And the last thing I'm posting for is your respect, since you have no respect for anyone that isn't politically to the left of Lenin.

Get over it... and get over yourself.

Posted by: Hinton on September 24, 2008 10:32 AM
25. I'll tell you what else she is, Hinton. She's your next governor, and you are impotent to do anything about it.

Posted by: ivan on September 24, 2008 11:20 AM
26. Well, ivan, it takes a special group of morons to support someone as "owned" as any Pike Street hooker to be Governor. And, clearly, while you qualify for that group, the fact is that you, too, will have nothing to do with the outcome, one way or the other.

That said, that there are enough people like you in this state, people who want to live off the work of others... people who don't care that their candidate is a pathological liar (how much has she actually budgeted for stem cell research?) or how deeply in debt their candidate drives us... who probably will vote for Queen Chrissy, the Tribal Whore... that Rossi may not win... something, in fact, that I've said on more than one occasion on this board.

However, win, or lose, Queen Chrissy will STILL be a prostitute, and you will STILL be partisan moron. Those things will be unaffected by the outcome of this election.

Thanks for playing.

Posted by: Hinton on September 24, 2008 02:21 PM
27. Wow... give wingnuts a half a day, and they produce a whole lot more craziness!

Heck, with all the insults, I'm wondering if anyone here actually can prove what they're saying, or if they think that calling people with contrary opinions "Marxists" is some kind of victory. Shows the intellectual bankruptcy of this position.

@14. That's why we have a State Legislature. They are supposed to draft a budget that is realistic in terms of revenue. If the voters mandate the legislature to jump off a bridge, that doesn't mean they should do it.

Agreed, but the reverse is true... they are also supposed to draft a budget that is responsible, and can pay for itself. Given that the voters have established several mandates, but have also started to restrain some of the revenue streams for government, the legislature has a responsibility to balance cutting nonessential or less essential services with increasing revenue in one way or another. I may not like some of the things that Democrats do, but I don't really envision that Republicans would do a better job in the slightest.

@15. Look at Michigan Demo Kid. It was run by Democrats like you. It is not greed it is Economics

Yes, it's economics. It's a state where the major industry, automotive manufacturing, has been devastated by job cuts and loss of business to foreign competitors. In cases like that, social services are required to make sure that people, you know, don't starve to death and can find new jobs.

SO the only answer for them was to increase taxes and revenue continued to drop.

We can argue about the proper balance of taxes and spending until the cows come home, but you're connecting taxes with an economic recession that is completely caused by other things.

@16. Ignorance is correctable, and many on this thread have tried to correct dumb-o's assumed ignorance.

By calling me a "Marxist"? That's just name-calling. You're so ignorant it'd take you three days to watch 60 Minutes.

Anyone so stupid as to not comprehend that out-of-control spending brought us to this point ($8B in spending increases, resulting in $3.2B budget shortfall), is not worthy of any attempts to educate. Anyone with half a brain would realize drastic cuts in spending are required to balance the state's budget. Any and all programs that provide funding for illegal aliens, the indolent and leftist ideological groups would be good places to start.

Hey, first of all, I'm a rational centrist. I think that the way that the budgets are managed is not only counterproductive, but quite concerning. Tying government budgets directly to economic cycles is not only foolish, it goes against reason. If rational people (i.e., not Democrats or Republicans) were running the government, the budget would attempt to run more counter-cyclical to the economy: cut government budgets, increase some taxes and run up surpluses in good times, and increase government spending on social programs, decrease some taxes and use up reserves in bad times. That would dampen some bubbles, provide support from the government when it is really needed, and prevent spending that's solely tied to the availability of revenue. The "rainy-day fund" is one attempt at that, but I'm afraid that it really doesn't go far enough.

Second, again, this shortfall is caused directly by citizen initiatives, in terms of both increasing the demands on government for funding certain programs, and decreasing their ability to draw in revenue. Not only that, but spending is not "out-of-control" according to historical trends, even though the intake of revenue is down. Nowhere have you discounted that idea... just thrown insults.


Posted by: demo kid on September 24, 2008 02:29 PM
28. @18: Do you really think voters who are struggling to pay their mortgages and are living paycheck to paycheck will buy youe theory that increasing spending $8 billion or 31% IS JUSTIFIABLE??

I think that you're not exactly providing context to that statement at all. Tell me... where were the funding increases? Were they mandated? How has government spending in different agencies increased over time? Was it reasonable given revenue forecasts?

My guess is these voters would tell you to take your FIGURE 1 and shove it up your A$$!

So we're going to govern by who can shove things up the other's posteriors the farthest, then? I'd prefer a more data driven approach.

When approx. 49% of voters fell they are overtaxed, they will vote to make a leadership change. Taxes are a defining election factor.

The economy is a defining election factor, not taxes. If people feel like they're getting what they pay for, there isn't a problem. Of course, I'll agree with you that there are issues with how money is being spend, priorities of government and so forth... but I don't really think that Republicans in general have provided a better approach.

Good Luck with those graphs and charts demo kid!!

Again... how do you want to govern? Tea leaves?

@19. Apparently the Chinese know a lot more about capitalism and economy than you...

They know little about either. The Chinese economy has been incredibly overheated for years, and it'll be interesting to see how they handle their next economic crisis.

For starters, your "Laffer Curve" comment - I never once mentioned the Laffer Curve OR the effects of it. I did reference hard data linking income taxation to Government Revenue.

The Laffer Curve and the article that you referenced are similar in that they both attempt to use a selective reading of the data to suggest that taxes should be lower to increase (or maintain) tax revenue. That's a dishonest stance... few proponents of either are attempting to maximize government revenue, merely reduce their own tax load.

Second, I merely pointed out that your Chosen One, the Obamassiah has stated that increased taxation hurts economic growth.

I'm not in disagreement about that. My disagreement is with your simplistic mantra of "higher taxes always bad, lower taxes always good". Taxation policy is not a yes or no proposition.

So higher tax rates don't bring in a larger portion of the pie - incontrovertible, hard data over decades.

Again, you're pointing to one study that assesses the Federa top tier marginal tax rate. You're not looking at anything related to this discussion.

And your own Slavery Party candidate admits that higher tax rates slow the growth of - or even shrinks - the overall pie.

Unnecessary taxation is not appropriate... but being fiscally responsible doesn't involve reducing taxes at all costs.

Now put the two together. Higher taxes do not bring in a greater percentage of the total economy nor do they grow the economy quickly. Meaning you see the yield reduced.

F in economics for you. You cannot boil down tax policy to that simplistic of a statement. What about the differences between income and sales taxes? Differential rates? Earned income tax credits? Looking at one time series does not answer the questions that need to be answered here.

Conversely, low tax rates keep the same percentage of the pie, but grow the pie faster (see several good sources backing this up).

And I'll show you several sources that suggest that consistently cutting taxes does not provide the benefits you think that it provides.

So if you and your fellow Slavery Party hacks want to increase receipts to the Government - State or National or local - then you need to learn a new mantra. Grow the pie - stimulate the economy by letting the economy do what it does best - make and keep money. Retard growth and you hurt your own revenue streams.

You're arguing a completely dishonest point when your objective is to reduce government spending. This is laughable proof that tax cuts will always have a stimulating effect, no matter what their nature or distribution. Just be honest about your objectives here.

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. 33% more spending in 4 years, and most of that spending went to PERMANENT, annually recurring expenses that only pruning can cure. Exactly what the former attorney general refuses to do...

Again, permanent, annually recurring expenses mandated by initiative. Tax burdens in Washington state are low in relation to the rest of the country, and fiscal responsibility involves more than just slashing taxes and praying that everything else works out.

Posted by: demo kid on September 24, 2008 02:31 PM
29. @20. That's the whole point - and the difference between Democrats and the G.O.P.

That the GOP would sooner increase deficit spending nationally than to balance budgets?

@21. Sorry, off-topic and I certainly don't mean to be rude, but it's become a little disappointing to me that the tone and language of many of the posts here have degenerated to the point that they'd be much more suitable on HA.

I'm not in disagreement with that. However, being subject to ad hominem attacks is the rule around here if you don't subscribe to the Republican party line.

@22: They come in, make knowingly scurrilous and false accusations against people that many of us know personally... and since we can't bitch slap them in person, we give them the labels they've come to earn.

Wow... do you KNOW what a hypocrite is?

@24. And dumbo, I don't CALL "women" Ho's. I call that prostitute that is, unfortunately, occupying the Governor's Mansion a "Ho." That she is, coincidentally female, has nothing to do with it. I also refer to her as a prostitute, a liar and a hypocrite... as I would regardless of her gender, moron.

Again, do you KNOW what a hypocrite is?

She is, quite demonstrably, all of those things.

Hardly.

And the last thing I'm posting for is your respect, since you have no respect for anyone that isn't politically to the left of Lenin.

I have plenty of respect for people that can actually debate without insulting their opponents first. Unfortunately, your form of debate includes nothing but personal attacks, and you betray yourself as being quite ignorant of pretty much anything. You're a disgrace.

@25. I'll tell you what else she is, Hinton. She's your next governor, and you are impotent to do anything about it.

Yep... it's a pathetic thing to see an impotent Republican.

Posted by: demo kid on September 24, 2008 02:32 PM
30. Hinton @ 26:

I might not have anything to do with the outcome, but I am phone-banking, canvassing, and raising money to re-elect the Governor nevertheless.

When anyone asks me why, I just direct them to your postings and tell them this is what we're up against. So you keep up the good work, y'hear?

Posted by: ivan on September 24, 2008 02:38 PM
31. Slavery Party Kid,

Go to China - see real capitalism in action. It'll shock you. Or go to Malaysia. Thailand. Vietnam. Cambodia. You'll see capitalism working and thriving and raising billions of people out of poverty.

As far as Hauser's Law - yes, it's simple and that's the inarguable TRUTH it conveys. You don't raise revenues to the State with higher taxes. Period. Wealth flees high tax rates and that retards economic growth. Provable. The fact you even try to argue or "nuance" your way out of it is laughable.

Again, permanent, annually recurring expenses mandated by initiative.

And which initiatives would that be? I-601? I-747? Which initiatives added those expenses.

Now look at the swelling of the State employment roles and the overall increase in State-sponsored-and-sourced spending, done without a vote of the people.

The difference between Republicans and you Slavers is that Republicans believe in the voice of the people; Slavers will only listen if it's convenient.

Government should listen to and answer to the people, not dictate and control. But I know, that's not Marxist or fascist, so it cannot be allowed to flourish! It threatens the entire basis of the Slavery Party platform of Government that takes from the people, gives to the Slavers, and is only for the Slavers.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 24, 2008 03:18 PM
32. When anyone asks me why, I just direct them to your postings and tell them this is what we're up against. So you keep up the good work, y'hear?
-Posted by ivan at September 24, 2008 02:38 PM

Bacak at ya dude... then I direct them to your pals at HA to seal the deal. There are far more people disgusted with vile language and hate filled rants thant there are that disagree with ideaology.


Next time, check your cowardice and ask them which is more infuential, reasoned conversation or personal destruction at all cost?

Of course, if we dare to judge those with whom you may have contact based on what we knoe of you from your posts, we may have to assume they, like you, prefer personal destruction at all cost.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 24, 2008 05:15 PM
33. Didn't call you a Marxist, Dumb-o Child, but that shoe certainly fits, so wear it with pride..

Posted by: Saltherring on September 24, 2008 07:51 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?