Dayton, Republicans take budget views on the road

Spam, off light, and a peanut. Great response to the facts, children.

Sorry your fantasies don't conform with reality. Enjoy your denial.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You're so smart. People will never hide wealth, now that your brilliant solution has been found.
Must be easy living in a child's world like you do.

I don't hear you coming up with anything better.

Truth wrote:

Spam, off light, and a peanut. Great response to the facts, children.
Sorry your fantasies don't conform with reality. Enjoy your denial.

You're just the fool we all thought you were. Carry on with your vomit-fest.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Another broom-pusher who confuses marginal rates with effective rates. Shocking.
http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/Documen...

The second I see someone trying to argue "effective rates" I know who the communist in the thread is.

For taxpayers making over $10 million per year, half of their taxable income is from capital gains and is taxed at a rate of 15%.

If you're a wage earner, that's the rate you pay for earnings between $8,375 and $34K.

Keep licking those boots. They're not laughing at you, they're laughing with you. Beers at BBQs and all that.

Truth wrote:

Government spending as share of economic growth, by president
Carter 12.2%
Reagan 20.0%
Bush I 17.4%
Clinton 6.0%
Bush II 19.8%
Fools.

Being the intelligent person you are, I am sure you understand the concept of the Rahn Curve, correct?

If so, how how you argue against the theory of diminishing returns based on advanced government spending levels?

Hussein Abdi Hassan wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't hear you coming up with anything better.

Better than a simpleton's solution? Gosh, I don't know how that can be done.

It's not an income problem it's a spending problem.

You can't spend more than you make.

IrishMN wrote:

<quoted text>
Being the intelligent person you are, I am sure you understand the concept of the Rahn Curve, correct?
If so, how how you argue against the theory of diminishing returns based on advanced government spending levels?

1) That has nothing to do with what I said. You just saw the real-world evidence that Republican presidents spend far more on government relative to GDP growth than do Democrats. It's a fact and it goes against your ideological assertions. So naturally you ignore it.

2) An economy doesn't distinguish between a government dollar and a consumer dollar. To say that there's some sort of sweet spot percentage is foolish. Rahn is a wingnut hack who's married to Reagan-worshipper Peggy Noonan. No developed economy spends 15% of its GDP on government. Not even close.

Bangladesh government spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in Asia. How's that working out for them?

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Another broom-pusher who confuses marginal rates with effective rates. Shocking.
http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/Documen...

You are one smart cookie there, aren't you?

The study you are using as factual is nothing more than partisan projections (see page 38 of the report where they speak of the difficulties in arriving at accurate projections) to further a particular political cause. The fact that is was done at the direction of a Democrat Legislature in 2006 makes the entire report suspect.

It is fascinating that those that advocate for tax equality with the total tax expenditures by income brackets are going to use only the income tax as the vehicle to punish the evil rich.

Property tax as a percentage of income? It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that if I live in a $250K house and make twice as much as someone else living in a house valued the same, my tax burden is not as high as the other person's.

The same can be said for sales tax, sin taxes, vehicle taxes, and every other tax collected based on individual consumption rates.

So what?

Your point is bogus when you whine about effective rates of taxation. Those are the direct result of earning differentials and lifestyle choices.

TaxTaxTax wrote:

It's not an income problem it's a spending problem.
You can't spend more than you make.

When's the last time a Republican president had a balanced budget or a surplus? Just point him out.

What astounds me is the absolute apparent sense of perpetual entitlement the unions project.

No one else in society seems to have that attitude.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
When's the last time a Republican president had a balanced budget or a surplus? Just point him out.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
1) That has nothing to do with what I said. You just saw the real-world evidence that Republican presidents spend far more on government relative to GDP growth than do Democrats. It's a fact and it goes against your ideological assertions. So naturally you ignore it.
2) An economy doesn't distinguish between a government dollar and a consumer dollar. To say that there's some sort of sweet spot percentage is foolish. Rahn is a wingnut hack who's married to Reagan-worshipper Peggy Noonan. No developed economy spends 15% of its GDP on government. Not even close.
Bangladesh government spending as a % of GDP is the lowest in Asia. How's that working out for them?

Keep spouting your crapola. No one is advocating for zero expenditures.

When you throw a "Bangladesh" factoid like that into the mix, you are showing that you are out of ammunition and you are now waving the white flag of surrender.

Well done, Bozo.

Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Why? Because you feel it should?
That's precisely the time it shouldn't shrink.
Take an econ course and this will become obvious.

A quick look at history shows that when times are good, government grows. But, you say when times are bad, government should grow, too? So government should always grow bigger and more expensive, regardless of the society's ability to pay for it?

You're starting to show your true colors, Ms. Truth.

I've taken plenty of econ courses. I know that your Keynesian fantasy doesn't work.

Truth wrote:

Government spending as share of economic growth, by president
Carter 12.2%
Reagan 20.0%
Bush I 17.4%
Clinton 6.0%
Bush II 19.8%
Fools.

The fool is the person who brings Federal spending to a thread on State spending, and then lists percent of GDP growth instead of government spending as a percent of GDP.

what argument are you trying to make with this crap?

TaxTaxTax wrote:

It's not an income problem it's a spending problem.
You can't spend more than you make.

Sure you can, It's called credit.

upnorth wrote:

Jeff T in MPLS
Quit whining and pay your fair share. Imbeciles like yourself have only one thing on your mind, how can I get everyone else to carry your weight. Shame on you, the budget cannot be fixed by cuts alone, most people with a brain know this and understand a need to boost revenue to get out of the hole Pawlenty put us in before he ran off to play national politics and avid the mess he made.

I am neither whining nor asking anything from anyone. I do pay my taxes and work for a living.

You are the imbecile as you seem to think I have asked anyone anywhere to "carry my weight". I post often...please cite proof of my asking for that...

...unless you are a liberal liar.

Most people with brains, which you have just proven you are not part of that group, know you cannot spend more than you take in.

The budget can be fixed with cuts alone. There goes your EBT card and General Assistance now!

Better go get a job, gutless, anonymous loser.