We already see the effects of insufficient taxation. Prop 13 in California and the conservative “cut taxes and borrow” policies of the last 30 years.

Dino: Are you mind numbingly stupid or mind numbingly dishonest? The conservative policy is to “cut spending“. Did you just pull that “cut taxes and borrow” thing out of your ass?

And, explaining for the thousandth time, as if to a two year old who cannot quite accept the truth or understand reality:

The problem in California is one of overspending, not under taxation. Taxes in California are among the highest in the country, yet other states don’t overspend to the same tune as California.

California has legislators who believe that “living within your means…is meaningless”. Apparently, cluelessness extends beyond the California border to include parts of Oregon!

Your mindless litany about Prop. 13 is as false as it is tiresome. Find a new dead horse to beat, Dino!

The problems in CA started after the late 70s passage of Prop 13.

Factless in Portland: Any person, family, corporation or government that consistently spends more than it takes in is headed for bankruptcy. In California, the Democrat controlled legislature is required by law to balance the budget every year. Are you saying that the Democrats have been trying to subvert the state constitution for the last thirty years?

Kenny,

You were of course correct when you wrote:

Taxes went up and down. That’s fact. Anyone who ignores that fact is either stunningly dishonest or mindnumbingly stupid. Or, in your case, both.

So why are you punching at the tarbaby of ignorance and wrestling with the pig of prevarication known as dino?

Well here it is plain and simple in black and white, this article sums up how ludicrous all the Obama spending and debt creation really is, and it’s all happening in plain site for everyone to see…in the once great state of California. $3.3 Billion Dollars in IOU’s just for the month of July…Now I don’t know but if I don’t have any money today and I give you an IOU, but it’s not really likely that I am going to have money tomorrow, then when will you get your money? LOL….never Ha Ha…can you imagine the Government giving you an IOU?….WTF?
I guess the drive in window at the Peoples Republic of China Bank across the street has been closed…Maybe California will start peeling off parts of California and offering them to the Chinese Bank…kinda like a crack whore..then again that’s the same Chinese Bank Obama is getting his money from, maybe the Chairman will give ‘em the whole state.

You guys just don’t understand. California, Canada, Britain, France (and the USSR) did it all wrong. We’re going to do it smart and use common-sense…

Why bother learning from history when we can just rewrite it?

The problems in CA started after the late 70s passage of Prop 13. As always, CA led the country into the tax cutting binge that has brought down not only CA but the whole country. The declines have been simultaneous.

Go ahead. Keep pursuing the conservative agenda. You’re already fucked, now I’ll get to see your kids suffer too.

Grabbin me some popcorn!

The demand and need for growing govt comes from the greedy politicians, not the people. Mostly Dems, they use promises of something for nothing to buy votes.

Decimated retirment accounts and crashing asset value.

Caused by greedy Dem market rigging and wasteful social spending, along with Bungler Obama’s attacks on private sector prosperity.

You know all this crowing about diminished futures, decimated retirement accounts, blah, blah, blah. I hate to break your fantasy bubble Dino, but while anyone who was invested in the market suffered some losses, those of us that are truly conservative fiscally were safely invested. That means that we didn’t take the horrendous losses that some did (you maybe?) because we know how to balance risk and reward. I’m sure that I’m not the only conservative here and around the country who has lost a percentage of their net worth, but my “diminished retirement” that you fantasize about means I might have to drink 12 year old scotch instead of 18 year old scotch occasionally. I can live with that.

However, that said, if Oblahblah gets his way and manages to raise the tax rates to even greater confiscatory levels, all that will mean to many like me is we will take our capital and leave for friendlier tax climates. That leaves you and all his sheeple to pay the bills. Hope that works out okay for you.

If we’re truly unlucky enough to get stuck with Obamacare, at least we’ll be put out of our misery sooner rather than having Dino’s miserable life prolonged by good health care.

If you invested conservatively over the years you never made much gain to lose. That said, even “safe” investments took a hit. Like your house you were planning on cashing out.

No one escaped the effects. Those who claim to have are lying.

Remember that the meltdown occurred after 30 years of conservative policies.

Remember that the meltdown occurred after 30 years of conservative policies.

Untrue; the meltdown occurred when Obama started attacking the private sector and killing investment.

There has to be a reason why certain contributors to this, and other sites I’ve visited, seem to be deranged. Then, just the other day, I glanced at an older magazine and noticed the, perhaps explanatory word, LOBOTOMY, and all seemed clear.

Remember that the meltdown occurred after 30 years of conservative policies.

Right. Reagan with two years of liberal legislature is conservative. Bush Sr. with a liberal legislature is conservative. Bill Clinton with a conservative legislature is conservative. Bush Jr. with liberal legislature is conservative.

There’s no way to argue with someone who refuses to deal in reality. If the President decides whether or not the policies are conservative or liberal, then liberals had control during Clinton’s years and most of Bush Sr.’s years. That’s 10-12 years out of Dino’s thirty year period. Add in the 2 years under Carter (to get to thirty), and you have liberal control for 12-14 years. Almost half of the allotted 30. If congress is the deciding factor, then we have 2 years under Carter, 2 under Reagan, 4 under Bush Sr, 2 under Clinton, and 2 under Bush Jr, for a total of 12 of the 30 years, with 8 years being a toss up with Congress being split one house for each party under Bush Jr and Reagan. Again roughly half. If we look at complete control (not counting the SCOTUS), Republicans 4 under Bush, while Democrats had 4, with 22 years of split control. EXACTLY half.

Whether or not this is good is irrelevant. Under no definition did we have 30 years of conservative or Republican rule. The numbers show a split government. Republicans simply were not in control for 30 years, and it’s to his credit that Dino repeatedly ignores the facts to keep spewing this ridiculous lie.

Go ahead and blame California’s problems on conservatives.

Nobody else buys that bullshit.

Conservatism has ruled, despite party control, for 30 years.

Free market reforms, irresponsible tax cutting and deregulation were policies pursued by all but a few elected leaders. The conservative ideology reigned supreme for 30 years.

Alan Greenspan ran the Fed from 87 to 06. Cons ran the White House for 20 of 28 years and Clinton pursued con economic policy.

Why don’t you tell me what influence liberalism had? If it had any, why do you stems insist this is a conservative country?

You’re simply full of shit and unable to come to grips with the failure of your ignorant belief system.

Enjoy your declining retirements and house values that you voted for. Tell the kids to enjoy their diminished futures too.

Wonder how much Oregon spends on its parasites?

Well, PP, according to the Portland Mercury, about this much:

Adams’ annual salary is $118,144

The changes in tax policy over the last 30 years were dominated by conservative ideologically-driven initiatives that appealed to short-sighted mob mentality. The same thing happened here in Oregon.
Now the people suffer for their ignorance.

Would that be when Reagan raised Capital Gains taxes? Or when he raised taxes after he cut them? What about when Bush Sr. broke his promise not to raise taxes? What about Clinton’s tax raises.

The idea that we’ve had consistant tax policy of cutting taxes is as big of a lie as the 30 years of conservative rule tripe you trot out.

Conservatism has ruled, despite party control, for 30 years.

“The truth is the truth! Even if the facts mean it’s not the truth!”

Free market reforms, irresponsible tax cutting and deregulation were policies pursued by all but a few elected leaders. The conservative ideology reigned supreme for 30 years.

Taxes have been repeatedly raised and lowered on a federal level. Some states raised taxes some lowered them. Some went back and forth. And despite the specter of “deregulation”, regulation has increased over the banking industry, the credit card industry, home owners, etc. EVERYTHING is more heavily regulated after Bush than it was before. And The minimum wage has consistantly gone up.

Why don’t you tell me what influence liberalism had? If it had any, why do you stems insist this is a conservative country?

The populous is center right (conservative for a moron like you). But the leaders keep leading us left. What effects have liberalism had on the country? You mean like the minimum wage going up and up and up? Regulation on everything increases. Hate crime laws. NCLB. Etc.

Nothing but lies from the angry homo.

Very weak arguments.

We have pursued a decidedly conservative fiscal agenda for 30 years. There’s no denying it.

When things appeared to be going well, you stems grabbed credit. Now that it has fallen apart you want to pretend you didn’t dominate.

Your examples are ridiculous. Min wage increases have not kept up with inflation in the least. If that’s your best argument that liberalism was anything but dormant the last 30 years your position is weaker than I thought.

Kenny… No problem! Stupid is as stupid does, and STD does.

The stock market floundered durning the 70′s when tax rates were so high, no one really wanted to take risks for a 30% take if they made money. Reagan cut taxes and the greatest expansion in economic hiistory started in 1982.

We have pursued a decidedly conservative fiscal agenda for 30 years. There’s no denying it.

A blatant falsehood! The conservative fiscal agenda is to live within our means by limiting the scope and expense of govt. We haven’t done that since FDR started his commie “New Deal”. More garbage from little dino.

I see your data now, PP. As usual, you twisted the facts because you can’t think your way out a bathroom. What is “other”?

Oh, and Kenny? Here’s a couple articles about conservatism’s dominance since 1980:

Conservative Era is Over, Historian Sean Wilentz Writes

The Reagan coalition carried conservatism from the political margins to the pinnacle of power. Interrupted in the late 1970s and temporarily reversed in the 1990s, conservative ideas and policies dominated U.S. politics and government for 40 years, beginning with the Democratic crackup over Vietnam and urban unrest in 1968. Now, almost every major element of Reagan conservatism is in disrepute, including its cornerstone ideas about unregulated free markets and trickle-down prosperity.

Like the end of every American political era, the collapse of the age of Reagan has seemed sudden–so much so that conservatives are dazed, confused, and in denial. Yet the coalition’s decline actually began in 1988, when GOP candidate George H. W. Bush, already suspect on the right, fell behind and ran a scurrilous campaign–recall Willie Horton–in order to win.

Read the rest. It’s quite entertaining.

Here’s one lamenting the death of the “movement”:

The Conservative Movement Will Rise Again, Grover Norquist Writes

Not as good since you stems don’t like Brooks anymore:

An end to conservative dominance says David Brooks

David Brooks today, “The Era of What’s Next,” declaring that 2006 is the end of a period of conservative dominance that spanned 1980-2006:

We’re about to enter another of those periods without a dominant ideology. It’s clear that this election will mark the end of conservative dominance. This election is a period, not a comma in political history.

That’s clear not only because Republicans could lose their majorities, but for several other reasons. First, conservatives have exhausted their agenda. They have little new left to propose and have lost their edge on issues like fiscal discipline and foreign policy. Second, conservatives are beset by scandals, the kind of institutional decay that afflicts movements at the end of their political lives. Third, the Reagan coalition is splintering, with the factions going off in wildly different directions.

In 1979 the top tax rate was 70%. It’s now 35%.
This country has pursued a conservative fiscal agenda for 30 years. It has ended in disaster.

It dramatically went down under Reagan. Then he raised them slightly. Then Bush Sr and Clinton raised them. And finally Bush 2 lowered them. Down a lot at once, up incrementally over time, down a lot in two installments.

It’s a lie to say they just went down. And you know it.

Show me what liberal fiscal policies were instituted in the last 30 years.

Minimum wage hikes. Tax increases. Changes in the endangered species act. The bailouts. Forcing banks to lend to unqualified people. Fannie Mae. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You’re either mind numbingly stupid, extremely dishonest, or both.

PP-stem,

California has the third lowest number of government employees per 1000 people of all the states.

The explosion in state spending on prisons was another side effect of conservatism.

The ballot initiative process, designed as a grassroots governing tool but abused by wealthy interests, has screwed things up bad. Here are some initiatives that have made it difficult for elected leaders to manage the states finances:

Prop. 13 (1978): Limits property tax rates, the primary source of
revenue for school districts and local governments, to 1 percent. That
has led the state to “backfill” billions of dollars, primarily to schools,
over the years. The initiative also raised the threshold for raising taxes
from a simple majority vote to two-thirds, a constant source of gridlock
in the Legislature.

Prop. 98 (1988): Sets aside a portion of the general fund, currently
about 40 percent, for public schools and community colleges.

Prop. 42 (2002): Earmarks about $1.4 billion in gasoline sales taxes
for transportation; the money had previously gone to the general fund.

Prop. 49 (2002): Requires the state to set aside hundreds of millions
of dollars for after-school programs.

Prop. 1A (2004): Restricts state’s ability to take certain tax revenue
from local governments.

The (large) conservatism minority in California has held that state hostage just as they have the whole country and slowly, over the last 30 years, bled it dry.

California has the third lowest number of government employees per 1000 people of all the states.

Irrelevant bullshit. The real metric is: How much taxpayer money do they consume? What percentage of the budget deficit do they represent?

State spending has kept pace with the incomes and economics of California.

Another ignorant lie from little dino. Since there is a huge deficit, govt has obviously spent more than they should have. Living beyond your means is the hallmark of Dem governance, and is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism.

Sorry Kenny, the experts all agree that we went through a 30 year (at LEAST, others say 40 year) period of CONSERVATIVE DOMINANCE that has (hopefully) ended.
In its wake it left economic disaster.
Read the fucking links next time.

A couple columnists believe that. And they’re all morons. Like yourself.

You’re just too stupid to argue your point. Appeal to authority is one of the lamest logical fallacies. Especially when the “authority” is a frigging NYT columnist. And some idiot who pushes the idea that the Willie Horton ad was scandalous.

Taxes went up and down. That’s fact. Anyone who ignores that fact is either stunningly dishonest or mindnumbingly stupid. Or, in your case, both.

So why are you punching at the tarbaby of ignorance and wrestling with the pig of prevarication known as dino?

IDK, I tried. I’m a sucker for punishment I guess. I’m done with him and his unwillingness to debate facts.

Well PP, there’s never universal agreement on anything.

But there is general agreement that conservatism was the overwhelming dominant paradigm for the last 30-40 years. Why is that so hard to admit? Because the result was less than predicted? Ok, MUCH less than predicted.

Believe me, if we were all sitting pretty with low debt, low unemployment and a strong, vibrant economy, you constems would be shouting from the rooftops about your dominance and superiority of your policies.

But, as we all know, the conservative era has ended in DISASTER.

DINO IS NOT A SINGLE PERSON BUT MULTIPLE PEOPLE. HE IS A GROUP EFFORT AT TROLLING.

Would you please stop quoting and bothering with him? All you are doing is arguing with someone who is throwing stuff out for you to react to and you’re falling for it hook line and sinker.