– Put them on the cover of Fortune and pretend they are role models.
– Repairs to The Duwamish Trail.
– It will be tough to pivot from I hate Planned Parenthood to I look presidential.
– I’m glad someone in power is pushing back against the we’ve got to bomb Iran narrative. Kudos, Adam Smith.
– But at least none of the GOP presidential contenders have gone after the Girl Scouts yet.
– A clear victory for the concept of hate.
Yeah, if you’re too stupid to figure out that it’s Democratic candidates you’re probably too stupid to be on a TV news program.
Actually, it was over before it even began. While, yes, Santorum pulled off a few wins in states with large evangelical communities, total % of Americans that have voted for Santorum is very, very, small and he holds no appeal to anyone outside of the evangelical community. Even if the Republicans go to a brokered convention Romney will still have the money, power, and votes to come out on top.
But, please don’t take my word on it, let the circular firing squad that is the Republican primary continue.
@2
Santorum’s picked up a total of 2,282,245 votes.
93,182 people in Mississippi, which has a population of 2,978,512, voted for Rick Santorum.
http://www.oddschecker.com/spe.....ion/winner Check out the odds on Gingrich, and Santorum. The GOP has been sold and the 1% Mitt Fitts are the owners.
Sandra Fluke has a boyfriend? Scandalous! Reopublican women don’t have boyfriends. Their fathers arrange marriages for them. To marry a Republican woman, a young man has to pass a checkbook test. If he has the right bank, he’s A-OK.
Maria Cantwell’s in the NYT
By the way, earlier this week all the pundits were harping about a ten-point drop in one week drop in President Obama’s appraval ratings. With no other more recent polls, the story got wide circulation, with one pundit after another speculating that the drop was due to the rise in gas prices, and perhaps the President’s re-election might be endangered by rising gas prices.
But yesterday several more polls were released. It turns out that the one reported earlier this week was an outlyer. Every other poll showed the President’s popularity rating essentially unchanged, at 51% (+/1 one or two points).
By the way, does anyone here really believe that the average GOP voter thinks his daughter will have to go through the Texas inquisition before having access to abortion? Of course not. A short plane ride to L.A., with a side-trip to Disneyland, will take care of that “youthful indescretion” which occured in the back seat of the Chevy on prom night.
One way to get companies and people to spend money is to make a simple, flat rate tax system that’s easy to compute, costs little to comply with, applies to everyone (no special interests), isn’t very much cost, and has tough penalties for cheating.
“…back seat of the Chevy on prom night.”
In Texas, it’s more likely to be a Beamer or a Mercedes in most Republican neighborhoods. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Chevy.
I used to get upset at the outrageous comments the GOP primary candidates would make, starting back last summer when Michelle Bachman, etc. filed out the field. Then it got entertaining, because every circus needs a few clowns. But now it’s getting boring.
We know that the finanicial interests which form the backbone of the Republican Party had annointed Romney from teh start, and it will be a miracle if Santorum or Newt accumulate enough votes to pose any real danger to Romney’s nomination. The rest is just sound, noise and fury.
@11,
I’m just gonna write-in Ron Paul again. The Republicans hate him.
# 10: Yea, I know. And modern Republican Texas teenagers probably aren’t going to be doing it in the back seat of the car anyway – they would be using the guest house, or heading of to Cabo San Lucas for spring break and a shared hotel room.
But I decided to use the description anyway because it’s become a useful and time-honored description of the conduct.
Anyhoo, ‘Crazy ’bout a Mercury’ just wouldn’t really work with anything else. In 1949 (when the song was written) the Merc’s front seats went all the way back to form a somewhat servicable area for teenage trysts.
@8,10
The thing people need to realize is that the Republican Party is no longer representative of American conservative political thought. They’re neo-feudalists.
Anti-abortion laws like the one(s?) in Texas are about social class. The wealthy will always have access to abortions and college, the working class and the “trash” not so much. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term isn’t about “saving the life of a fetus” it’s about enforcing social class. That baby is a scarlet letter.
While I’m not a conservative by any stretch, I don’t have a problem with conservatives or conservative thought. I do have a huge issue with neo-feudalists and especially neo-feudalists who aren’t willing to come out and say who and what they are.
The neo-feudalist need to quit hiding behind the banner of Republicanism.
The abortion issue is a distraction that used to take peoples’ eye off the ball (the economy, unfair distribution of wealth, etc…), but these diversionary tactics are now going to cost the Republicans dearly.
The women of America clearly do not want Rick Perry up in their stuff — even with Jesus’ permission.
http://www.stumpysstickers.com/ Here is a great example of Southern Christian family values and free speech. Step on up and buy your Don’t Re-Nig in 2012 bumper sticker now. I wonder if Rush will give good old Stumpy some free ad time?
Interesting article I just read, reflecting on the Goldman Sachs resignatino letter which revealed that Goldman Sachs managers referred to their clients as “muppets”. Appararantly there are lots of even less-complementary descriptions for customers being bandied about, including “chump”, “pawn”, “mark”, etc.
One example, from the banking/credit card industry:
a “deadbeat” is not someone who doesn’t pay his bills, it’s someone who pays off their credit card balances every month, depriving the banks and credit card companies of interest and service charges.
re 17: Some redneks that I’ve talked to want a Re-Nig rule in professional basketball, as well. This would give white guys more play time.
The way it works is like this: The first quarter, you can play anyone you want to, white or black — the 2nd and third quarters are exclusively white, and, in the 4th quarter, each team can Re-Nig.
Brutal? Yes. But that’s America.
More news from the circus clowns:
The Senate Majority Leader of Utah (Republican, of course) resigned two days after it was revealed he had engaged in a nude hot-tubing with a 15-year-old intern from his office. He was 30 at the time, and married. You hadn’t heard about this? well, it’s hardly surprising. After all, a Republican who preaches personal responsibility and consequences who gets caught in a moral scandal is hardly news – sort of the ‘dog bites man” story. And since it was a Republican, the Fox News cycle somehow “missed” their moral outrage over this incident.
Speaking of Fox News: did you catch the new Fox News “outrage” campaign? according to them, people aren’t upset at what Rush Limbaugh said. It’s just part of the Democrat’s well-planned campaign to take out an entire genre – A.M. Talk Radio. Personally, I’m really impressed that the Democrats can make Rush Limbaugh make such ridiculous statements so wthat we can use them as the lynchpin of a campaign!
Finally, Rick Santorum is “campaigning” in Puerto Rico, where he told the audience there that they would have to learn English before they could attain statehood. I put “campaigning” in question markes, because I’ve never before seen a political campaign where the candidate didn’t try so hard to alienate most of the the voters.
@20
That probably wouldn’t have been so bad had he not paid her to keep quiet about it.
@19. You made that up. Nobody can be that ignorant. I hope you made that up.
Also wouldn’t that be affirmative action?
This campaign has gone to the dogs.
http://www.barackobama.com/new.....for-obama/
http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/
All I can say is …. wow.
Newt Gingrich has a new plan for dealing with illegal immigration. The government just needs to mail every illegal immigrant in Amera a package via Fed Ex, and when they receive it the tracking information will tell us where they are.
You don’t believe me?
Gingrich: Package Tracking Could Be Used to Locate Illegal Immigrants
Uh, if we already have their address, why spend the money mailing them a package? And who is going to give us that address?
And can anybody really be that dumb?????
Keep Your GOP Hands Off My Medicare!
They’re at it again — Republicans want to cut Medicare spending and privatize Medicare! How did they ever convince old people that Democrats will take away their Medicare?
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.c.....ternatives
GOP congressman proposes 5% surtax on millionaires.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com.....with-party
Roger Rabbit Commentary: With massive deficits and talk of cutting Medicare, even Republicans can’t justify the cushy deal that millionaires have under our tax system.
10 facts about Mitt Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....ure=relmfu
Another congressman bows out.
# 25: Lots of people are relying on Medicare as their last safety net.
This past rescession has been brutal for older works. Many lost their jobs, and found it incredibly difficult to find work. Those that did find work are often working at jobs well beneth their skill level and on a temporary or part-time basis, without benefits. On top of that, many of their employers filed Chapt. 11 to discharge their pension obligations, so the employees are left with only pennies on the dollar of what they expected to be a major source of their retirement income. Many couldn’t afford COBRA insurance premiums, and for the rest those benefits eventually expired. Their only hope is to hang on by their fingernails, don’t get seriously sick, and survive until Medicare and Social Security kick in.
Now the Republicans want to kick that can down the road another five years, at which point you buy insurance from which their crony colleagues will make a significant profit by raking in premiums while denying claims.
Medicare has one distinction that makes it stand out: it’s in even worse shape than Social Security, financially. It’s a time bomb getting ready to explode.
Why does President Obama continue to make stuff up when the truth will do? Obama’s latest display of ignorance or lying is about Rutherford B Hayers.
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....13502.html
Obama is truly a fool or a liar or both, over & over again.
Politically Incorrect-
You are correct about Medicare.
Obama’s regime has shown the ability of creative accounting to kick the problem down the road until after the re-election.
The fact is that Obama promised to cut the Debt in half by the end of his 1st term to $5 TRILLION. It’s now at $16 TRILLION and growing. Kind of missed that one, didn’t he.
And the Unfunded Liabilities is now over $120 TRILLION and growing.
The government needs to have it’s credit card taken away because when it does hit the fan, it will be ugly. It’s beyond repair at our current level of GDP growth.
All Obama has is more shell-games and Budget tricks, just like he lies about Unemployment Gallup says 9.1% Are they lying? And Obama never talks about Underemployed and those who have given up….both growing numbers.
The real unemployment is over 19% gang.
But keep sucking what the Obama Regime jam down your throats. He’s worse than the idiot Bush.
* To Alexander Graham Bell after a demonstration of the telephone, as quoted in Future Mind : The Microcomputer-New Medium, New Mental Environment (1982) by Edward J. Lias, p. 2
No way but that’s irrelevant. He’s much better than any of the clowns who want his job.
Get the economy growing again and all the problems go away. Easier said than done and it will take more years than Obama has got even he’s re-elected.
But no way will it happen with Republicans running the show clinging to their bankrupt ideology.
31 – I like how that article begins:
Try telling that to yd(iot), a chicken little birfer who pollutes these threads.
David C.
Here is how the republican (smaller government??) healthcare plan works. Here is a great example of the Texas Model.
http://www.texasobserver.org/c.....ot-to-know
http://www.alternet.org/story/.....age=entire
I was wondering if everyone has come to realize why supermajority votes should be required for property tax levies? I happened upon an old article that basically asked: why is 50% +1 good enough to elect a governor or president, but not to provide money for schools?
It’s quite simple: Those examples (as well as Senate, House of Rep, etc. votes) impact “all voters” in a more uniform way than a property tax levy vote where **half the voters don’t even pay the tax.
There’s an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?…
The benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the “mathematically indisputable fact” that it’s a flawed process irt basic fairness and democracy. The simple majority voting examples I give here are totally accurate but might be easier to get through with a calculator to verify the figures accuracy and help with the understanding of it.
** Btw, The argument that “renters pay levy taxes via rent” is “ridiculously simplistic” because only in a perfectly linked system would this be the case. In actuality, landlords can only charge what the market will bear. Meaning, if a landlord can’t get a renter at a price that actually covers the costs of the levy, he/she has to lower the rent iot “simply rent the unit out and avoid a vacancy”. The same way profit margins go down when input costs go up that aren’t able to be fully passed on to the consumer.
See example in next comment:
For example: Imagine if it were possible to have a vote to raise the WA state sales tax to 12% and that ID & OR voters within 50 miles of our border were allowed to vote on it as well. That would be introducing a subset of voters who could vote for a tax they didn’t have to pay for, but would in fact benefit from as more people crossed the borders to make purchases. Simple mathematics explains how making that vote a supermajority would at least account (to a degree) for those “unaffected voters” from the neighboring states who would tend to vote “yes” in high numbers. It would, in fact, necessitate a supermajority vote and is the exact same situation as when non property tax payers are allowed to vote for property tax increases on “other people” that they themselves do not pay.
To reiterate, a “simple” majority is perfectly appropriate for “most” voting situations (President, Governor, statewide taxes, etc.). However, if basic mathematical and democratic fairness is to be achieved, “anytime” a vote allows people to vote a tax (that they themselves don’t pay) on other people, a supermajority is required.
Hopefully that helps explain the necessity of the supermajority vote…from a simple democratic, mathematical, and logical standpoint (not from a “that would impact passing things I like” standpoint)… If not, see more mathematics proving it here.
Hey Dave,
I have a better idea. Let’s just not have property taxes at all. That way landlords won’t have to worry about those pesky things.
While we’re at it let’s limit voting to only property owners. And the more property you own the more your vote counts.
And then there is this thing about women’s suffrage. Such a pesky thing. It has caused us men nothing but grief. So let’s reverse that. While we’re at it let’s make women property, wear burkas, and walk 3 steps behind the men who own them. Yeah, that’ll teach them…
“I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security.”
Well, we’re all forced to participate in those programs, so signing-up for them when they’re available is a rational decision. If you have to pay for a product, shouldn’t you get the product?
@38
Shouldn’t the % needed to pass the levy be actually tied to the % of owner occupied homes then? I think it’s about 60% here in Gig Harbor.
Uhh.. And don’t property taxes put a “floor” under the market? All landlords have to pay them.
Shit, if the market can’t “bear” the property tax then it sleeps under bridges.
Just take away the property tax and eliminate homelessness! Wow, amazing magical thinking from the right!
That is BULLSHIT!
That is too funny.. All that means is that you’re a right winger..
When the right moves farther to the right as it has for the past 30+ years, so called “centrists” move right along with them!
Supposedly “moderates” disdain the “extremes”.. For you brain-dead “centrists” (like Dori Monson) an extremist on the right displays “God hates fags” at a military funeral and an extremist on the left is Barbara Streisand.
What about adjusting a person’s vote according to IQ? After all the more intelligent a person is the higher the quality of the vote. Right?
Let’s use an IQ of 100 is our base value. Then for every 10 point increase in IQ above that base IQ the value of the vote doubles, and for every 10 point decrease, the vote is halved.
@48
Men tend to make more money then women, so when it comes to pocket book votes like levies a woman’s vote should only count for 80% of a mans vote.
# 48: And there would be a simple test for that:
County Registar: “What is your IQ”?
Prospective Voter: “IQ??? IQ what????”
(Clerk writes down “zero” as the value of their vote).
Of course she’s entitled to the “product” if she paid into the system and met the requirements.
She also has a right to be a complete phony and hypocrite and not live by her professed creed.
1st ammendment and all. Ain’t American great?
Does religious freedom include a right to proselytize unwilling co-workers?
http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.....-brimstone
Roger Rabbit Commentary: There’s an old saying among rabbits that your freedom to swing your paw stops where my bunny nose starts. In this country, we not only have a right to our religious beliefs (or non-belief), but also have a right to not have others’ beliefs forced on us.
@43 Nobody is forced to take government money. But I have yet to see a rightwing rugged individualist agrarian turn down a federal farm subsidy check. (See, e.g., Clint Didier.)
@32 “Obama’s regime has shown the ability of creative accounting to kick the problem down the road until after the re-election.”
This is unique? It’s exactly what Chimp did with the costs of his wars and Tax Cuts For the Rich (TM). In fact, I dare you to show me a politician of either party who doesn’t spend on our grandkids’ credit card.
@30 Social Security is in bad shape? Really? For over 75 years, Social Security has paid every penny of promised benefits on time. What private insurance company can say that?
As for projections that Social Security will run out of money 30 years from now, Social Security will either run massive surplus, massive shortfalls, or something in between, depending on the economy’s growth rate between now and then — and who can predict that?
YLB is a perfect example of someone who doesnt pay any taxes – especially federal income tax.
just another hanger-on suckling off of others.
The asshat troll @ 56 is a perfect example of an ignorant, racist right wing moron who gets a charge off heaping abuse on others.
For a flash from the past…
Iron Butterfly at Showare Center on May 12.
tickets.showarecenter.com/eventperformances.asp?evt=109
Tickets just went on sale and I got mine. I guess that dates me a bit. :)
Where is everybody today? Can’t we scare up more than 1 troll around here?
59 – They must all circle jerk on facebook these days after getting their miserable asses kicked on blogs.
It goes like this:
Ekin, LOL…. Unfortunately, your taking the typical extreme response when a valid argument is lacking. In this case a counter argument is lacking because basic math shows my points to be 100% true.
I never said, nor would I agree with only property owners being able to vote on issues that apply to “everyone” (which are about 90% of the votes). I even reiterated that in my above comment (in bold and titled “To reiterate”. However, there are only two options to account for votes on things like: the given WA sales tax example, property taxes, etc.
In those specific “types” of issues the two options are either 1) Supermajority votes or 2) only the impacted people vote on that particular item (like property owners on property tax issues, WA residents on WA sales tax issues, etc…)
YLB @46-47
Ditto what I said to Ekin above @61 irt you not having a valid counter argument. Math is funny that way, when it’s not on your side it kills your ability to counter it. Perhaps you’d like to offer a mathematical proof (with all work shown) as to why the Pythagorean theorem is incorrect? Oh yea, the math is against you… How about disproving ln (xy) = ln x + ln y? Oh that pesky math thing again…
After you review a math book you better go back to the good old dictionary and review what “moderate” means. It’s amazing how people categorize others when they disagree with them. I have both Dem and Rep friends and equally debate topics with each. I’m also routinely accused of being “another liberal” or “a good conservative” depending on whether or not I disagree or agree with them. Same results from liberal talk radio shows.
@44
Michael- Sort of but not exactly. It’s a mathematical relationship (that I go over here
Basically, you start with the basic premise that a simple majority of property owners should be required to pass a tax on them. The mathematical reasons for the supermajority are unquestionable but it’s impossible to get an “EXACT” percentage. Therefore you must make educated assumptions irt how the external voting group will vote as well as what percentage of the overall voting numbers they are. Property ownership averages approximately 60% over time so it’s a descent figure to use. You also have to account for property owners who don’t pay levies due to exemptions (age/income exemptions) who are also more likely than not to vote for something knowing they won’t have to pay it.
For Ex: If you have 100 people (60 owners/40 not) you’d need 31 property owners to meet that basic premise. Next, you use a reasonable assumption that people who don’t own property are more likely to vote for a tax they don’t have to pay (especially when it’s sold as “for the kids”…as opposed to those pesky other budget items). A rate of 65% yes = 26 (.65×40). Added to the 31 that’s 57% (57/100). A rate or 80% yes = 32 (.8×40). Added to 31 that’s 63% (63/100). The middle of those estimates is 60%.
FYI, on any vote, at a 50% affected/non-affected rate, a 64% supermajority would be mathematically appropriate. At a 70% affected/non-affected rate it would be a 58% supermajority.
Additionally, a MINORITY can also be mathematically necessary to equalize a vote. Imagine if a union was having an internal vote on something beneficial to their membership. If anti-union people from outside the union were also allowed to vote it would be the “yes” votes that were “victimized” and mathematics would demonstrate why a simple “minority” would be necessary to account for the group of anti-union voters being allowed to vote along with the union members.
For ex: 80 U/ 20 non-U… If all 20 voted no, even a 63% (50/80) yes vote from the Union members wouldn’t pass. In this situation a 41% minority (of the 100 people voting) would be required to equalize the vote.
62 – Don’t care to argue with you period. You’re unbearably pompous.
Schools are suffering, class sizes are growing, the legislature is falling down on its constitutional duty to fund the schools and you hide behind some obtuse mathematical argument to enable the disfunctional state of things.
No one avoids death and taxes. Yet somehow a lack of “linkage” defeats common sense.
Have a great life.
shorter ylbleeder: I cant counter your argument.
too funny, new study shows that 50% of US citizens dont pay federal income tax. I think we all know what side of the 50% you belong to.
65- LOL, this is your reply?
Iow, you can’t offer a valid argument and when that happens you “take your ball and go home“… Did you check that math book and dictionary yet?
That doesn’t even make sense… A mathematically sound argument is far, far from that. Intelligent and pointed perhaps but certainly not obtuse.
Irt suffering you are correct. The reasons for that are extremely debatable though.
Irt constitutional duty- The ruling you’re dying to spew was basically “useless”. Why? Because it provides no usable information and was therefore a poorly concluded “decision” that decided nothing. It simply isn’t specific enough to even approach being acted on because without quantifying “some sort” of dollar amount, there’s absolutely no way to settle upon how much funding is or is not “adequate”…
Btw, I’m completely for funding education (in the right way and when spent well).
@56 You’re a perfect example of a rightwing idiot. Let me demonstrate this with simple logic. Unless you have access to YLB’s tax returns, you don’t know whether or what taxes he pays. If you do have his tax returns, you stole them, which makes you a criminal. So would you like to answer questions about where and how you got YLB’s tax returns?
@63 Is there some reason why voters who don’t own property should have equal say in whether we adequately fund public education or not? After all, we’re all affected by the adequacy of our public education system, whether we own property or not. Let’s try some basic math here. Equal say means same, i.e., 1 person = 1 vote, not 41% > 59%. See any problems with my calculations?
@69 Roger Rabbit- Well, you’re 100% correct irt @56.
However, I’m quite surprised to see your comments irt my posted mathematical facts:
Come again? Seriously? No, seriously???…
1) My rationale and supporting calculations already prove the and counter what you wrote so it’s a bit of a waste of time (for everyone) to re-write it when you could simply re-read my posts and click the links if you desire) to get the answer to your statement.
2) Your statement is especially odd given the fact that you’ve previously posted very similar ideas that made sense and are in sync with my comments… Have you somehow had a reversion from common mathematical sense since you posted here, here, and here?
Wow! I’m still getting over the craziness of that post given your previous comments… A real head scratcher to be sure. Perhaps you misread my comments? I guess we’ll know the answer if you reply.
Maybe renters should be counted as 3/5 of a person or something? There is historical precedent.
If you take Dave’s concept to the extreme, let’s say over time, one person owned all the private property in Washington state. All of it. Therefore that person should be the only vote that counted. How is that different that being king?
Wouldn’t that be opposite of our Constitution’s one person, one vote?
Good grief @71… Ref @61 above for the answer and pay particular attention to my description of:
“extreme comments”, and “To reiterate” (which references @39)
Also, note in 64 that I showed an example of when a MINORITY would actually be unnecessary… I’m talking basic mathematical fairness (regardless of it requiring a supermajority or a minority). Even Roger Rabbit’s comments I linked to in @70 support my basic premise.
Btw, the “king” comparison isn’t a completely terrible one because you’d be talking about him voting a tax upon “himself” (remember I’m only talking about limited situations requiring a supermajority- as described in @39 above). If the vote was for the next Governor of the “king’s state” everyone would vote and a simple majority would decide the vote with the “king’s” vote counting the exact same as everyone else’s…
Next? Can we please stay on topic and relevance with counter arguments? Admittedly, it’s more difficult when there is no valid counter argument as @62 reiterates…
It’s tough being an independent moderate because when you point out things ppl disagree with they hate admitting you’re right.
There’s an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?…
Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?
Your fundamental argument is illogical, I don’t see how they fit together. Using different words like “Which one takes priority, the fire department or the police department”? Then if you had budget issues, you might sacrifice one to give more money to the other. If you lived in a tinder dry area with a low crime rate you might choose different than if your community was in a swamp with a high crime rate.
A person could be brutally completely honest and greedy. That person would openly say, I don’t pay taxes, I want to keep it all for myself. And still have their personal benefits
One does not negate the other.
But I don’t see the connection between this thought exercise and property tax voting.
Perhaps you are using the words as shorthand for a much bigger set of concepts. Can you elaborate?
The 60% super majority is simply an easy way to make it harder to raise taxes.
So let me see if I understand your premise. You think that people who are unaffected by the issue should not be allowed to vote on those issues. You want to factor out the votes of the uninvolved as being unfair. In a perfect system, the non property voters should not vote on property tax issues because they won’t have to directly pay the taxes, they are not directly effected, they don’t pay the cost.
Let’s play with this…
A sales tax would be a 50% vote since everyone pays the sales tax.
By your logic then, basic mathematical and democratic fairness says that men should never vote on women’s health issues since they don’t get pregnancy and don’t have to pay the physical cost of a pregnancy. It’s the same logic.
Basic mathematical and democratic fairness says a vote to go to war should only be voted on by men and women in the military, the ones to pay the cost.
The communities that have to deal with fracking pollution should have a super majority on votes dealing with fracking in their communities because they are ones to pay the costs and live with a toxic water table.
Basic mathematical and democratic fairness says only self identified gays and lesbians should be allowed to vote on extending marriage equality to gays and lesbians because they are the ones who would have to bear the additional costs to them of getting married and being married.
@73/74
I don’t mind having a discussion and further explaining the topic but can you answer this first?
Did you actually go back and read the referenced topics and links (like the Roger Rabbits links referenced in @70) before replying?
I’m asking because you seem to be bringing up questions that have already been answered/explained. Then there’s the whole change of topic, to fire/police, after I mentioned “can we please stay on topic”. That was after already replying to the whole “king” issue)…
Thank you.
@76 would’ve included @75 in the list of what it was replying to but @75 wasn’t showing when I wrote the reply to @73/74…
Yes, I did read the posts in this thread. I read the links to Roger’s Rabbit’s points. So? Did I miss one in particular that you feel sums up your stance?
I am staying on topic. I’m also trying to understand your point of view. Seeing if your logic works with different parameters is part of me understanding your logic.
You didn’t like 75? I really thought it got to the heart of your argument.
@79, see @77…… ;-) It’s hardly because I was intimidated as you think by posting that…
Then standby for the answer. I’m doing a few different things at the same time currently. ;-)
@80. Never said you were. You don’t strike me as someone at a loss for words.
And I’m still trying to figure out how “Personal Benefits” and “Truth” factor into your premise that voting should only be for those directly affected by the proposition.
Ok, along with other things I had to take care of, I had to listen/talk to the local sheriff, who was on talk radio, about some policy issues. It may be a long conversation, and few people would stick with it, but at least it’s an entertaining and engaging discussion eh? Throw in a little with good-natured sarcasm on both sides and you have a great time to rival those darn video games and texting… Getting on with it:
This may take a few posts since you posted so many rapid spews in a row without addressing some of the points that have been brought up along the way (I’ll address a few below). Iow, it’s going to be way too long for one post and dinner’s coming up as well :) Here’s the first part:
First, @81 LOL. You either. Better that than not able to articulate a point right?
@78-
–> Interpreted: seeing if…is part of me trying to counter your point because I don’t believe/wont ever accept it (as opposed to actually trying/wanting to understand)… Perhaps I’m wrong here? Well, that’s my interpretation.
@73/@82-
–> Sure. First, it’s the exact opposite of illogical and actually fits together perfectly (both mathematically and with basic common sense). Of course we both will believe our own arguments are the correct ones until we are convinced otherwise. Hopefully, were coming to that point. ;)
Alright, I’m going to retype the entire quote and then add another section below it. Watch for the bold text from your blockquote comment (above) to reoccur in the following text. You’ll see other bold items but pay particular attention to the ones that were bold in the blockquote that appear again below:
There’s an inherent conundrum for people in addressing an issue that benefits them but is factually flawed (especially when fixing it could be disadvantageous to them). Which one takes priority, personal benefit or truth & correctness?…
The personal benefit a simple majority provides, of aiding in the achievement of a desired result (levy passage), does not change the “mathematically indisputable fact” that it’s a flawed process (acceptance of the truth and correctness of a mathematically proven flawed process)…
Just in case it didn’t come across, it boils down to the conundrum of deciding to favor something you know is unjust simply because it provides personal benefit vs. accepting the truth that it’s an unjust circumstance (even at the expense of the personal benefit/gain). I really hope that explains it sufficiently.
@74-
2) Put simply, NO, it’s not. I’ve said this at least 6-7 times but…it’s not just about making things harder to pass with supermajority votes. It’s about making the process more mathematically correct. You obviously can’t make EVERYTHING perfect but there “are” areas where it can be done easily (like the supermajority vote which used to be required before getting reversed by less than 1% in a “backdoor” method explained here).
@75-
–> Before I get into it again, how about you addressing some of the points already made in this thread (that I intimated to at the beginning of this spew) like:
1) Continuing the point of “it’s not just about making things harder to pass with supermajority votes” (from 2) above): @64 demonstrates this by showing an example of when a minority would actually be necessary. If you’re a union guy (or know someone who is) that should make perfect sense.
2) While we’re throwing around various examples, referencing your @75, why not address the idea of letting OR/ID voters vote (along with WA voters) irt raising WA’s sales tax to 12%. Your disagreement with the premise makes it appear that you’d be ok with that. Amazing, and hard to believe…
This has got to be a break point between posts because I have to break for dinner, spouse/significant other time (so as not to get killed), and a little TV to be honest (my computer eyes are getting tired). Stop worrying (I know you were), I’ll will reply to the rest of it. Actually, what I already wrote should keep you busy for a while (especially if you clicked/read the included link at the end of the @74 reply above).
@83. 50% passes a sales tax… Well, only the voters from the other 49 states, Mexico and Canada that come and buy things in the state and pay our sales tax. We will have to send them absentee ballots.
Oh, got it. If you replace the term “Personal Gain” with “Good for Society in general” and replace “truth and correctness” with “Accept that some people are going to get pay more than others” then yes. I want a balance of “Good for Society in general” and “I accept that some people are going to get pay more than others”. I cannot speak for the others, but I absolutely accept the truth that the property owners are “paying” more, for the good of society. I have been both a renter and a property owner at various times in my life. I still voted for every school levy in both cases. I value eduction, even if it’s paying for other people’s kids. I don’t have a problem with that. Do you?
I felt it was my patriotic duty to pay my taxes because I know taxes is what pays for glue that holds our country together. I don’t want fraud and abuse, but how is a CEO for a company that I shop with and give money who is paid $10 mill justified, but a school levy paid for with my taxes is not?
Heres a fun thought, to be absolutely fair, sale taxes should also be graduated by how much wealth you have. So that way, a person making minimum wage whom makes roughly $13,000 a year, and pays $1 when he buys a $10 shirt, and a person making $130,000 a year, should pay $10 in taxes on that same $10 shirt.
It’s mathematically fair and democratic. Why are we giving a tax cut to the richer guy?
A 60% majority…
You said. “It’s about making the process more mathematically correct. ”
I disagree. I see that as how you justify making it harder to raise taxes.
I still summarize your argument is that you want to mathematically scale the voting, giving more weight to the people more effected by the proposition. There for a property tax is harder to pass, because there are so many non property holders voting, so the barrier to pass must be higher.
Taking this to it’s logical conclusion, To be truthful, only property holders can vote on property taxes.
Did I mis understand you?
If you hold this position, then you should also agree that only women should vote on women’s issues, that only the military should vote on going to war and so on.
Or does this line of thinking only apply to property taxes and your wallet?
@78 Everyone, including renters, pays property taxes — unless you want to argue that landlords don’t pass property taxes through to their tenants along with their other costs of doing business.
@63
Thanks. A pretty well reasoned position.
The way I look at it we’re all equal under the law, so we all get to vote. So, no non property owners shouldn’t be excluded. As for the super majority, we have it and plenty of school districts don’t seem to have that much trouble passing levies and those that do can use the fact that it was passed by not just a majority, but a super-duper-majority as a great talking point. So I don’t complain about it much.
PS. My home was inherited and is owned by an LLC made up of my family members, but really I run the whole shebang. So, I pay rent to myself and then I pay my taxes and such out of my rent. I point this out just to point out that life isn’t always back and white, cut and dried. I’m a renter and an owner on the same patch of turf! Which reminds me, I need to bitch at my land lord about that leaky faucet he still needs to fix…
@88 Michael
–> Thanks for looking at the argument with an objective eye/mind.
–> LOL, that’s a hilarious situation irt your “landlord”. Get that landlord off his ass and make him fix the faucet! Of course, he’ll bill you for it and you’ll ask for a receipt. Maybe he’ll take it off your rent? He’ll probably want to borrow your tools too. Make sure he cleans up his mess after he fixes everything up though… lol
–> If you’re at all interested, you might read @39 (it’s a really short one that addresses an interesting comparison example of letting a subset of voters vote on something). @64 is another really short one that even shows when a “minority” would be necessary because it’s not about always wanting a “supermajority” (only when it’s appropriate)…
–> I thought you said you were in Gig Harbor? If so, you don’t have a supermajority req. As long as the levies are passing by over 60% that’s terrific. Mine passed by over 60% as well which makes it perfectly fine to me because I know it met the basic mathematical correctness iot make it a valid vote. When/if one passes with less than that (in my district or anyone else’s) it will be a flawed result until the supermajority is restored.
@89- for some reason my edit wouldn’t take. It kept saying I couldn’t make a change… Anyway, this is what the first paragraph was supposed to say:
–> Thanks for looking at the argument with an objective eye/mind. People aren’t going to agree all the time but if we at least look at things with an open mind, without prejudging the conclusion, we become receptive to different viewpoints that we may end up agreeing with (or not). Giving something an objective look is the key and a lot of people don’t do that.
@70(2) My mind has changed since 2007. I don’t remember exactly when it changed. Maybe the last time Mrs. Rabbit hit me with a frying pan. I don’t remember anything before then. It goes blank every time she does that.
@90 “for some reason my edit wouldn’t take. It kept saying I couldn’t make a change”
The edit function on this blog only works for 30 seconds to 5 minutes after posting a comment. That is, if it works at all. It’s a lottery.
As long as we’re talking about taxation without representation, one of the most pernicious taxes ever dreamed up is the one on hotel rooms and rental cars that hits up out-of-town visitors to pay for indigenous sports stadia.
Let’s skip over the fact that Seattle voters voted against our baseball stadium that was built anyway. (The trick to that was, instead of taxing locals who can vote, the legislature taxed visitors who can’t vote.) Let’s also skip over the fact that the 60% supermajority formerly required to pass Washington school levies didn’t mean anything anyway, because if a levy was defeated the school district just kept resubmitting it until it passed by a 2-1 vote after the other 875,317 voters in the district got tired of going to the polls every Tuesday night after work.
Here’s how the stadium shakedown works. If you fly to Minneapolis on business and drive a rental car from the airport to the hotel, you’re paying a stadium tax of something like 15% of your hotel bill and rental car fee to pay for their stadium. Theoretically this is okay, because if a Minneapolis businessman comes to Seattle we gouge him to pay for our multiple stadia. (Some cities aren’t content with one stadium; here in Seattle, we insist on having three — it’s a civic pride thing.)
But what if nobody in either Minneapolis or Seattle wants the damned stadium? See, that’s where the theory breaks down, because we have to pay for it anyway. See how this work? The people in Seattle and Minneapolis who profit enormously from taxpayer-funded stadia (see, e.g., team owners and players) get their stadia, at our expense, and nobody else in either city has any say about it.
Meyer Lansky is thinking in his grave, “Now why didn’t I think of that?”
Continuing the @75 reply:
1) Pretty close but not exactly. It’s not about being “completely” unaffected. Obviously, everyone has a stake in, and is “affected” by, education (btw, I’ve already said on numerous occasions that I support education). Also, it’s not about being a property owner, my opinion on this was exactly the same when I was a renter because the math still supports the basic points..
I have no problem with people who don’t pay the tax voting if the vote is a supermajority. When our levy passed it happened to do so with above 60% so I’m in complete agreement with the levy passage. The problem is that the condition exists where it “could” pass with less than a supermajority and that’s wrong.
Imagine having a 4yr old son get out of the yard and run across the street through a hole in the fence you didn’t know about. The fact that he didn’t get hit this time doesn’t change the fact that the flawed condition (hole in the fence) still exists and needs to be fixed. The simple majority is the hole in the fence (flawed condition) that needs fixing even though it’s existence didn’t lead to the child being hit (levy passing with less than supermajority) “this time”.
2) OK, but I don’t know why were “playing” when there are valid points, and questions I’ve asked, that you still haven’t replied to from the first part of this reply @83 like 1 & 2 at the very end of that comment. Those have been mentioned at least 3-4 times and you’ve never said a peep. You just seem to like rewriting Q’s more than rewrite new Q’s without answering the ones you come across. Apparently you now understand personal benefit or truth & correctness because you asked me to clarify it multiple times prior to my @83 post so at least that’s cleared up…
3) There are valid arguments for that position and I don’t really like seeing a bunch of men making decisions irt those issues. However, it’s not the same logic because men definitely do have a stake in pregnancies. In fact, a big part of societies problems is that too many men take your suggestion to heart and remain largely un involved in both the pregnancy process and the raising of the child. The more the father is involved the better but too many are uncommitted. Then there’s the financial costs, voluntary or mandated via child support, of raising a child. Emotionally, duty wise, and financially, men have a very large part in pregnancies/child rearing.
4) ??? If we hadn’t participated in WWI and WWII “everyone” would’ve “payed the price”. Our Hawaiian citizens would’ve suffered greatly (including many deaths) and the economic stranglehold that could have been placed on the U.S. would have been crippling… Left unchecked, those countries that we helped stop, would have gotten stronger and eventually it’s highly probable they’d have hit CONUS.
5) Definitely. The communities should have the final say, and they do when it’s proposed on their own land. They get screwed when it’s done on neighboring land though. The fracking co’s should be paying bigger penalties to families so they can relocate and deal with any long term medical conditions. Of course, that doesn’t help the long term pollution problems that linger on.
6) You’re talking about a Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution issue. We live in a republic that operates within the guidance of the Bill of rights. Eventually, as with women’s and African American rights, they will be given the rights they seek as well. Hopefully soon, as discussed here. However, churches who philosophically disagree with it will continue to have the right to “not recognize it”.
@86
7)
First- see 3 & 4 above…
Second- Short answer, No. Long answer- see the numerous previous comments above.
@94.1 Wow. Do you get paid by the word?
I am afraid we will have to disagree on the validity of a super majority. I feel it’s only used to make it harder to pass taxes. You don’t. No argument I can make will change your mind. I think it’s only because you are secretly greedy but I could be wrong and I would be willing to bet you don’t see it that way. Your fence analogy doesn’t work. An incomplete fence is not analogous to a 50% tax.
@94.2 Where there important questions buried in 83? I didn’t see anything to directly respond to, in that lengthy screed.
@91
Please have her get that frying pan out again because your points made perfect sense in 2007.
:-)
@92
Thanks, I sort of figured it was some sort of silly computer software issue. The darn stuff still isn’t perfect yet. Maybe when Cyberdyne Systems gets up and running..
@93
I understand your point Roger and agree that’s it’s a sneaky way to raise taxes. It’s also why I try to book rental cars away from the airport because many of those types of taxes are higher at airports.
Back to the stadium point. If something’s wrong it doesn’t mean we should simply accept it anyway does it? If you don’t agree with the stadium financing issue it doesn’t mean you have to smile and just accept it. I realize that there will always be “things” that don’t make sense and that we can never hope to fix them all. However, it still doesn’t mean we have to bend over and listen for the snap of the glove. I’m just pointing out the issues that you pointed out very nicely back in 2007. I’m still pulling for your wife and operation frying pan.
@94.3. When it involves money and your wallet, you argue that those who are not directly effected should not get a vote. Yet when it’s something like a pregnancy then you argue that the not-directly-effected are deeply important
.
So in other words….
(chortle!)
@94.3. Now who’s not staying on topic? How does the shared sacrifice of WWI and WWII related to the your premise that the not directly effected should not have a say. How would you define the complete lack of shared sacrifice for Iraq and Afghanistan also prove your point?
@94.5 But there are states that have passed laws that keep communities from having the final say even on their own land. I hope that you are railing against them as much as you are railing against super majorities.
On another topic, would you be OK with your next door neighbor putting up a Spent Uranium Fuel storage depot so long as he promised that the waste wouldn’t leave his property.
@94.6 I see. You don’t answer the question of your premise that the not directly effected should not have a say, applies to gay marriage. Your silence proves my point that you only want to apply your argument where it could effect your wallet.
and that is how it should be.
@95 “You’re” talking about “my” analogies… Wow.
No, not by the word but I answer all points brought up as opposed to most ppl who only answer “select” points they feel comfortable with. Btw, half of @94 was the pasting of “your” questions because it seemed ridiculous to make ppl scroll bake and forth between @75 & @94 to follow what Q’s from @75 were being answered I was answering….
@96 I’t can’t be much easier to find than I described. I said:
That means you go to @83.
Scroll to the bottom.
Look at 1 & 2.
Then answer them…
Hint: One of them is the WA/ID/OR sales tax analogy which is “a perfect analogy”. It’s amazing that, based on your stance and analogies offered in this thread, you’d be ok with allowing those OR/ID voters to vote on our sales tax? They’ll be glad to know that but it’s still odd.
The other deals with the union example of needing a “MINORITY” vote to make it a correct vote. It’s hard to argue I’m “secretly greedy” when I’m showing where a “MINORITY” is needed…
Btw, in that exact same paragraph (@94, number 2) it mentions personal benefit or truth & correctness because you asked me to clarify it multiple times prior to my @83 post. Apparently that’s cleared up for you now…
How disappointing. That was far from a screed, which usually indicates a diatribe (which that was not). Look it up. Heck, we even agreed on part of 3 and all of 5…
No Time for Fascists spews-
Wow…lol Have you gone off your meds? Seriously. You went from at one time seemingly able to comprehend basic concepts to a crazy person spewing random blather (half of which makes absolutely no sense.
I think you should stop while behind like you inferred is @95 because you’ve seriously lost it. In a “sh_t, I can’t disprove any of his points so I’m just going to go crazy” sort of way.
Saying “I’m not staying on topic when I was simply replying to one of your 8-10 off topic comments in the first place lol. I couldn’t stop laughing long enough to even finish your comments because it was so funny. I seriously do hope you’re alright (from a medical standpoint) but I’m going to answer another person who I’m neglecting the longer I sit here trying to guess which pill you missed.
This following really does fits you, now I know why you liked it so much. You’re experiencing the conundrum of realizing your wrong but not wanting to deal with the fact that fixing the problem would be disadvantageous to your goal of passing levies (at any cost)….
For you it was “personal benefit”…
Anyway, if you regain your composure come on back and I’ll give you some more lessons irt basic concepts of math and correctness.
Take care and have a good night.
@94 Where does the 60% come from? I mean, what makes 60% a magic number? Why not 59.348431274%? Or why not pi? If you want true equality, one number is as good as another.
@97(3) I would be more impressed with this argument if it were directed against stadiums a majority of us voted against instead of schools a majority of us voted for.
Well okay, guys, we’ve been bitching for years about the crappy trolls on this blog. Now we have one who makes us work a little. It’s about time. Enjoy.
@85. Blue John,
1) Misunderstand isn’t quite correct. Not want to understand is more accurate.
2) If you actually looked at @83 prior to spewing @84/85 you must have had your eyes closed (or just been in the “I refuse to understand or look objectively at the topic” mode). You certainly couldn’t have been reading for comprehension because most of your Q’s were answered in @83 and others comments as well (such as, in the inclusive answers of @83: @74 #2 and @75 #1 which refers to @64 which you need to look at as well).
3) See @61 and follow post to @39 when it refers to “my above comment” (especially the “to reiterate” references).
-Breaking up the answer here since some ppl (like no time) have trouble with longer replies..
… Continued Blue John reply:
@84 Blue John
4) First, your beginning argument is nonsensical. It counters nothing I’m arguing because your referring to sending absentee ballots out and how ridiculous that would be but I made the exact same point (ppl outside WA shouldn’t be able to vote on the WA sales tax issue… Iow, you sound like you don’t know what the heck you’re even trying to say because it’s WA state ppl who’d cross the border to save sales tax (not vice versa)… @39 goes over the WA/OR/ID example.
Then you go off on crazy tangents (like lost ppl do when they have no valid argument (see @61 for further explanation- it’s a short one)…
5) At least “No Time for Fascists” went back and actually read the previous posts so that he could talk “intelligently” about the topic and “NOT bring up things that were already covered (at least not too often). –Although he went off his meds last night– It’s become obvious that you have not done the same. So after you do the reading (to show an actual willingness to participate and not waste everyone’s time by bringing up already answered items) we can talk but most of your spewing was already answered.
Iow, “see the previous posts for the already posted numerous answers” because they’re on this very webpage and all you have to do is READ. Then, feel free to come back with any remaining questions and I’ll be happy to provide talk. Oh that’s right, you don’t actually want to learn so you won’t READ the previous comments. You just want to spew at me without actually caring what the reply is….
Sorry if that comes across badly but I’m sure you can understand that it really gets tiring when ppl keep spewing things that I’ve already fully answered on this very page (or constantly changing the topic with tangential issues and skipping Q’s to them when they run out of excuses for not accepting the truth… like no time for fascistic consistently does).
6) Last comment till reading is completed: Irt the “fun thought” about shirts- Well, for fun: The other guy might also buy a $130 shirt and therefore pay the same tax right? Ha, Ha, Ha that’s fun… If you can escape the “for fun” thought you might be surprised to know that I’m an independent (i.e. not democrat of republican- see @62 2nd paragraph).
Staying in the “not for fun” (and more serious category)category, sales taxes “are” regressive (as would be a “flat tax” without a baseline exemption amount of 12-15K/person). I’d support a rebate check for people at or below the poverty level of .5 x (take home pay x .1) which simplifies to .05 x take home pay and equates to reimbursing half of what they’d typically spend. Poor people generally spend close to 100% of their take home pay (vs. the top 5% who only spend about 40% of their income) and therefore pay sales tax on close to all of it (minus tax exempt items like food).
Even though I support such a thing it already occurs to a degree via the EIC (and other programs) which rebates money back to them (sometimes more than they put in). Btw, I’m not singling out ppl below the poverty level, I realize that some ppl above the poverty level receive the EIC as well.
Oh yea, @88 Michael reminded me that another for you to read is @63.
This is indeed fun to watch..the HA tribe getting their asses handed to them.
well done dave.
I find it amusing that when I wrote that Dave’s arguments made him seem greedy, then he accused me of being off my meds.
Anyway…..
This thread is rapidly become a zombie so I am going to do my part to let it die.
@105. Roger Rabbit
1) If you read the reply @63 you’d already have that answer…
@107. Roger Rabbit
2) How disappointing. You had actually appeared to be more level headed and a bit more above the name calling than the others or the mob rule mentality of many here. If you go back and look, you’ll notice I don’t use silly name calling and mean spirited dialog unless/until it’s been used on me. When people start using those types of comments they get appropriate replies…
It’s funny how ppl all of a sudden become “trolls” (or any other name many of you like to start spitting out) when they bring up things you disagree with.
The name calling, along with topic changing, always ratchets up when ppl realize they’ve run out of counter arguments but don’t want to accept the other person’s argument is correct… I’ve witnessed a whole lot of both used against me which is highly indicative and to be expected from people who are going up against an argument that is factually correct like the issue I brought up here…
Roger Rabbit–
To be clear, you’re not one of the primary culprits that I’m referring to. You just barely scratched the surface of how others have acted but it’s still a little more unexpected from you (at least given the little I know about you).
HA’s always been a place where a little bit of back room brawling could go on. Sometimes it went too far and just got stupid. I’m glad we’re swinging back towards good discussions. But, given the history of HA, there’s nothing wrong with what Rog said. Actually, you going after him because he said you don’t suck seems a little odd.
@110 Bruce Wayne-
Thanks, but I actually didn’t have the intent to come here and hand “anyone” their ___. I simply wanted to bring up a point that most people don’t understand. That lack of understanding (along with the backdoor tactics utilized) is a major reason why 4204 passed by less than 1%. If more people understood the reasons why a supermajority is necessary 4204 would’ve been lucky to get 40% yes votes Hopefully people wake up and change this back to a supermajority in the future…
@114 Michael-
I really wasn’t going after him at all. I was simply referring to the troll comment. The idea that people who disagree with your beliefs are somehow “trolls” (or whatever else they want to call someone). So there is no misunderstanding, “you” above isn’t referring to you (Michael) it’s a general “you”.
Responding to/extending above comments:
1) Actually Wayne, you’d probably be surprised by my Tax policy (as would others here like Roger Rabbit, Beatty, YLB, Ekim, Blue John, Boy Scout, etc).
I don’t agree with the ole top “__”% (fill in blank) pay an overwhelmingly unfair portion of taxes. argument. I explain it in Taxation Decoded: Who pays What & How a Flat Tax Should Work
2) I’m posting the link because that topic is a pretty hard thing to go back and forth about on a site like this. If you don’t want to look at it that’s completely up to you.
3) Quite honestly, I couldn’t care less if someone wants to read any of those posts. I’m not trying to become some sort of a huge site with lots of pg views or something as evidenced by the relatively few posts I’ve even made on the blog. However, I will provide people the opportunity to read a post that seems relevant to a given topic. I’ve only recently begun giving ppl the opportunity to link to selected posts via embed links. If people want to look so be it. If not, so be that too.