Bungee Jumper Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Right, I'm sure New York State's ranking as one of the very worst for taxes has nothing to do with it. Upstate NY has been on life support for decades. I guess every city is just incompetent? You'd have to be insane to move your business or start a business in Buffalo, NY, when you have so many other places to choose from. Also, how on earth is North Carolina's economy poor if there was so much construction in downtown Raleigh that they had trouble planning a parade route for the Hurricanes after they won the Cup? And when did Ohio become a "conservative" state? 874056[/snapback] And did he just call Milwalkee "beautiful?
Kevbeau Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 North Carolina ..... to name a few, have all experienced heavy job loses as well. 873988[/snapback] Dude, put the pipe down and back away. Seriously, have you been to NC lately?
IndyMark Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 And did he just call Milwalkee "beautiful? 874061[/snapback] He seriously has no idea what he speaks of. Having lived in East Central Wisconsin, I can say with a lot of certainty, Milwaukee is in poor shape (quality of lake water, parks/beaches, general environment, jobs, and especially the SCHOOL system). Milwaukee is currently in a downward spiral. Facts? Citations? Read the local paper and then do the research. Start with the early June editions, that will really captivate you.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Your ignorance is driving your opinion. The facts are we as a nation--rich, middle class and poor--are wealthier, healthier and have more free time than before the social programs of the New Deal and Great Society came along. BTW, Sparky: WWII had more to do with us pulling out of the Depression than any program you liberals put in place (which are currently bankrupting our children's children's children. With more debt than any society has ever recorded. Someday that bill is going to come do. America didn't become great because of Socialist Programs. That's positively ridiculous. If that was actually the case, Europe would be kicking our ass. That's just undisputable. Moron? I think not. Know who is a moron? The guy who would love to cut government spending and have all those people who benefit from that spending with jobs lose those jobs. Taxes would sure go down, especially for the wealthy, but the human misery index would sure shoot up. That's when poverty would increase. Right. Without government overspending, nothing would ever get done. Thanks for the typical "hate the rich" commentary too. The very idea that people should keep most of their own money instead of sending it off to guys like Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens is just so ludicrous to you liberals. Hysterical. You always make it a point to say you do not supporting either political party. Neither party follows your strict anti-government philosophy. Know why that is? Because in a modern properous society the government needs to take an active role in may areas. They don't follow it because it doesn't keep them rolling in riches at the expense of others. That, my misguided acquaintance, is the ONLY reason they don't cut government. Because the simple perception that they aren't bringing home the bacon to their constituants means a short stay at the top. The notion that it shouldn't is childish. That's why you are so far out in the wilderness 874010[/snapback] I live in a city of 300,000 people, moron.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Dude, put the pipe down and back away. Seriously, have you been to NC lately? 874092[/snapback] Shutup, Raleigh/Durham is falling apart and wrought with rapists.
smokinandjokin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 I live in a city of 300,000 people, moron. 874104[/snapback] Milwaukee?
N.Y. Orangeman Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 You'll forgive me for not seeing that. What I see is simple regurgitation of mass media bullcrap. Which should be no surprise to anyone who understands the issue. You still haven't answered the question of whether or not you think each state should get back exactly what they pay in, or the pointlessness of that fact. How exactly do I benefit? I'm dying to have someone who has never set foot in Alaska explain that to me. The PFD is paid to all Alaska residents for royalties on Alaska's resources. The amount varies depending on a variety of factors. It's actually one of the few examples of smart government. Don't worry, eventually the liberals will take that away and spend it on boondoggles as well. 873964[/snapback] Please. While you don't agree with my point, do me the favor of conceding I can articulate a thought on my own and I'll concede your ideas come from a source other than the usual libertarian pundits. To answer your question, no-each state should not get back equally what remits to the federal government through its citizens. You, as an Alaskan, benefit by having a greater receipt of tax expenditures that you would otherwise have but for the Federal government. These benefits are in the roads you drive on, the services you receive, etc..
Kevbeau Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Shutup, Raleigh/Durham is falling apart and wrought with rapists. 874105[/snapback] Also, Sabres fans invade occasionally to loot, pillage and burn.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Please. While you don't agree with my point, do me the favor of conceding I can articulate a thought on my own and I'll concede your ideas come from a source other than the usual libertarian pundits. Why don't you point me in the direction of a libertarian pundit. Then we'll actually both know who one is. My thoughts are my own, thanks very much. As far as whether you know what you're talking about, you're not doing a whole lot to prove yourself. To answer your question, no-each state should not get back equally what remits to the federal government through its citizens. I see. So because the largest state in the union, with the most challenging climate, which is the second youngest, and has the third lowest population receives more money per citizen than anyone else, you have some kind of heartburn? You, as an Alaskan, benefit by having a greater receipt of tax expenditures that you would otherwise have but for the Federal government. These benefits are in the roads you drive on, the services you receive, etc.. 874268[/snapback] I tell you what. You come on up here and take a look at the roads we drive on and the services we receive. Then you'll actually know just how little you actually know. From the most recent DOT survey of Alaska: 1. Fifty percent of Alaska’s major roads are in poor or mediocre condition. 2. Thirty-one percent of Alaska’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Let me be the first to say: Thanks for all the largess. Just for fun: Here's a Picture of the Parks Highway Today. This is about half way up the 360 mile "highway" between Alaska's two largest cities. How many Federal Highways you got in New York that are 320 miles long and need to be plowed six months a year? That's ONE of ours. Now I don't want you to get me wrong, I've never been enamored with the liberal amount of pork the current elected officials bring home. But you're not going to hear me complain about them funding necessary road and other CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED infrastructure projects (water and sewage treatment for example). Most of Alaska looks like a third world country and that's just not right when other states are getting money to research bug testicles or build edifices dedicated to their scumbag legislators.
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2006 Posted December 21, 2006 Also, Sabres fans invade occasionally to loot, pillage and burn. 874286[/snapback] Some people play golf.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 22, 2006 Author Posted December 22, 2006 Dude, put the pipe down and back away. Seriously, have you been to NC lately? 874092[/snapback] The factory jobs closed there and moved to China. That's a fact and it can't be blamed on Liberal programs and especially Unions, cause they don't have them.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 22, 2006 Author Posted December 22, 2006 1) With more debt than any society has ever recorded. Someday that bill is going to come do. America didn't become great because of Socialist Programs. That's positively ridiculous. If that was actually the case, Europe would be kicking our ass. 2) Right. Without government overspending, nothing would ever get done. Thanks for the typical "hate the rich" commentary too. The very idea that people should keep most of their own money instead of sending it off to guys like Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens is just so ludicrous to you liberals. Hysterical. 3) They don't follow it because it doesn't keep them rolling in riches at the expense of others. That, my misguided acquaintance, is the ONLY reason they don't cut government. Because the simple perception that they aren't bringing home the bacon to their constituants means a short stay at the top. 4) I live in a city of 300,000 people, moron. 874104[/snapback] 1) The Debt might just kill us, but so might our dependence on oil. And don't forget, the tax cuts are what are adding to the debt now. Or do you actually [giggle] believe the right wing clap trap that tax cuts create more revenue? And the Socialist programs saved capitalism. Wealth must be redistributed or the machine grinds to a halt. 2) Yes, government spending does help keep the world going round. Sorry you are too emotional tied to right wing ideology to see that. Be careful what you wish for... Oh, and I don't hate the rich at all. You shouldn't show your ignorance by assuming things that are not true. I hope we keep creating more millionairs, its healthy for the economy. 3) Yes 4) I was talking political wilderness
BillsFanNC Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 The factory jobs closed there and moved to China. That's a fact and it can't be blamed on Liberal programs and especially Unions, cause they don't have them. 874825[/snapback] What about the biotech, pharma and computer software jobs that have people moving here in droves?
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 22, 2006 Author Posted December 22, 2006 He seriously has no idea what he speaks of. Having lived in East Central Wisconsin, I can say with a lot of certainty, Milwaukee is in poor shape (quality of lake water, parks/beaches, general environment, jobs, and especially the SCHOOL system). Milwaukee is currently in a downward spiral. Facts? Citations? Read the local paper and then do the research. Start with the early June editions, that will really captivate you. 874100[/snapback] Oh no, you mean its not a perfect? Actually, the city's economy is doing pretty good. Has lots of fortune 500 companies there and its still has a numberr of manufacturing jobs. Have you been to the waterfront? It is beautiful. Interesting you mentioned the schools. How's that right wing vaucher program doing there? Not that I'm against it, but the BS right wing argument that it will force the public schools to shape up is a joke.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 22, 2006 Author Posted December 22, 2006 What about the biotech, pharma and computer software jobs that have people moving here in droves? 874874[/snapback] Liberal California has a high tech industry, too.
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 Liberal California has a high tech industry, too. 874889[/snapback] With many of those companies moving to more business friendly states.
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 1) The Debt might just kill us, but so might our dependence on oil. Sure. And don't forget, the tax cuts are what are adding to the debt now. Or do you actually [giggle] believe the right wing clap trap that tax cuts create more revenue? Government receipts are virtually the same percentage of GDP as they were before the tax cuts. The problem, as it always has been, is spending. But keep regurgitating the same WRONG slogans. And the Socialist programs saved capitalism. Wealth must be redistributed or the machine grinds to a halt. No, they didn't. WWII did. Welcome to the great liberal lie. 2) Yes, government spending does help keep the world going round. Sorry you are too emotional tied to right wing ideology to see that. Be careful what you wish for... In the short term, government overspending does boost the economy (we're seeing some of that fruit right now). There is a very delicate balance that is being shot all to hell. I don't expect you to understand this very simple point. Oh, and I don't hate the rich at all. You shouldn't show your ignorance by assuming things that are not true. I hope we keep creating more millionairs, its healthy for the economy. Sure. 4) I was talking political wilderness 874837[/snapback] Right. I wish I could live in that Political Utopia that is North Buffalo. Setting the standard by losing every private enterprise, one tax at a time.
Orton's Arm Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 1) The Debt might just kill us, but so might our dependence on oil. And don't forget, the tax cuts are what are adding to the debt now. Or do you actually [giggle] believe the right wing clap trap that tax cuts create more revenue? And the Socialist programs saved capitalism. Wealth must be redistributed or the machine grinds to a halt. I agree that the debt and the dependence on foreign oil are both unacceptable. But the tax cuts need not have added to the debt. It's the combination of tax cuts and the complete absence of spending discipline which has created massive deficits. My own preference is to keep the tax cuts intact, and develop at least some spending discipline. Because if you try to do things the other way--let the government spend what it wants, and tax enough to keep up--you'll never have enough tax revenue. As for the Socialist programs to which you're referring, FDR and LBJ did far more to attack capitalism than they did to save it.
jimmy_from_north_buffalo Posted December 22, 2006 Author Posted December 22, 2006 Sure. 1) Government receipts are virtually the same percentage of GDP as they were before the tax cuts. The problem, as it always has been, is spending. But keep regurgitating the same WRONG slogans. 2) No, they didn't. WWII did. Welcome to the great liberal lie. 3) In the short term, government overspending does boost the economy (we're seeing some of that fruit right now). There is a very delicate balance that is being shot all to hell. I don't expect you to understand this very simple point. Sure. 4) Right. I wish I could live in that Political Utopia that is North Buffalo. Setting the standard by losing every private enterprise, one tax at a time. 874920[/snapback] 1) Yes, spending increased, which also boosts tax receipts, so tax cuts did contribute significantly to the deficit. You do understand that increased spending boosts tax reciepts, don't you? 2) [Chuckle] You mean the massive government spending on the war ended the depression? So if you are saying that the New Deal did not go far enough, I agree. But the New Deal did make the depression livable for Americans. FDR didn't simply let the people starve to death like Hoover was doing. 3) Yes there is a delicate balance, I agree. 4) Again, I was not talking about geographic location, I was talking about your political position being way out in the wilderness.
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2006 Posted December 22, 2006 1) Yes, spending increased, which also boosts tax receipts, so tax cuts did contribute significantly to the deficit. You do understand that increased spending boosts tax reciepts, don't you? Cyclical argument based on the money laundering principle. Your way is always going to end badly. I'd try and explain it to you but for whatever reason you liberal lemmings just can't understand that giving gigantic amounts of cash to a faceless entity with no accountability has never worked in history and it never will. 2) [Chuckle] You mean the massive government spending on the war ended the depression? So if you are saying that the New Deal did not go far enough, I agree. But the New Deal did make the depression livable for Americans. FDR didn't simply let the people starve to death like Hoover was doing. No, I'm saying the New Deal was a virtual bust. You're correct that massive government spending on infrastructure (factories, etc) is what actually ended the depression in the short term (it also plunged us into the record deficits of the Cold War, but no liberal will ever admit what a Geopolitical buffoon the great FDR was). Roosevelt's socialistic fiscal policies had almost no positive effect at the end of the day, and their long term affects have been disasterous, despite the inability of you liberals to get the correlation of perhaps the worst President in US history. 3) Yes there is a delicate balance, I agree. Which has been shot all to hell. Wait until the next wave of drug price markups because of the brilliant "Prescription Drug Benefit" leftislation. 4) Again, I was not talking about geographic location, I was talking about your political position being way out in the wilderness. 875064[/snapback] Is it really hard to understand that Buffalo is exactly the kind of place you liberals will end up with if you actually get what you're pining for? Yeah, I'm in the political wilderness. Enjoy your taxation and 95% incumbent rate with with a worse standard of living than was available in the same area 30 years ago - all with complete liberal government control.
Recommended Posts