" it "doesn't appear the Leutholds are hurting financially" because they were able to travel internationally last year"

Thanks to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Carla,

Carol definitely has her head in the clouds. They really did not vet this whole plan out? Here is another mistake placed in print for posterity:

Jeb Bladine: It's a performance unworthy of support - News Register

There is a bigger hole which people might think about if they looked at the return address: 3421 Del Webb Ave. NE, Salem, OR 97303.

Why is a coastal dairy farmer sending out such a letter from Marion County? People in the Salem area would recognize that as a commercial address.

Turns out the plot thickens. Google the address and there is this nice map saying it is the address of Bedmart and giving a phone number. Call the phone number, and discover Bedmart is no longer there--now at a Lancaster address.

The nice man who answered the phone when I called said I was not the first call of this type, "did you get a campaign mailing?".

Pat McCormick used to live in the Salem area (maybe still does) and should have realized (if not caught up in hubris) that people in the area getting the letter would recognize the commercial area that address is in.

As a friend of mine has said for decades, such tactics are a giveaway. "When they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

The OAJKT TV ad also looks slapped together by a (lazy?)consultant, not well done like the $10 yes ad.

"Facing higher taxes of $150, small businesses like ours would be forced to lay off workers, reduce wages and benefits, or close their doors."

Hmmm? Looks good...

This has long smelled of turf battle, "We'll show them who has power!".

The Oregon Constitution begins, "We the people...".

That is the true power. If gimmicks turn off the voters who aren't activists but are serious about their vote, who will the business lobbyists and anti-taxers blame then?

If smart, the people who put this on the ballot might start thinking about how many jobs would be lost if their side won, and how the budget would be balanced then.

Public employees are customers. If they lose their jobs (or are on furlough and lose hours of work and thus pay) they are less likely to buy NIKE shoes, spend any more in any store than absolutely necessary, buy gas unless they have to and then not as much as before (DeHart of the OAJKT campaign has a gas station).

But that wouldn't impact "the private sector"? Yeah right!

Thanks for the link, Joe M. "Looking back: The Legislature didn’t establish the Rainy Day fund we all knew was needed, despite having a perfect vehicle in the “kicker” law. "

OK, legislators, are we going to have a debate on kicker reform in Feb. or not? Rumor has it that some majority legislators don't want that public debate unless the Jan. election goes the way they want.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Any legislator who feels that way should say so publicly--and in time for constitutents who don't agree with the reasoning to consider supporting a challenger.

The public doesn't deserve an open debate unless you are sure you have the votes nailed down because it is all about power in the capitol building, not what voters have the right to know?

The Constitution which legislators are sworn to uphold begins "We the people". We deserve open public debate. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a caucus should make all decisions privately and only have floor votes for show.

There was a time when all legislators were open and honest with the public. Just because there has been considerable secrecy in recent years doesn't make it right.

John Calhoun I am sure that the Leuthold's subsidize the dairy because it is such a fun hobby. Right! Working a dairy is a hard, brutal life and no one does it simply for fun.

Having done my share of field and farm work, you're spot on. Assuming, of course, they actually do the work, themselves. And maybe they have, in the past. And maybe now it's a tax loss, and a property tax reduction, and all the other benefits of the ag-business.

If Ms. Leuthold and her extended family can't make it in one of the most heavily subsidized industries in the world, maybe they should close their barn doors - or better yet, sell their farms to hardworking immigrants who actually know how to work on a farm. After 5 generations, maybe they need to stop whining and just sit back and enjoy their social security checks. Tillamook seems to be populated by an aristocracy that got its start lamenting the abolition of slavery.

It's interesting (though not surprising) how much everyone here at Blue Oregon loves the "$10" pro-tax ad but thinks the Leothold letter is "misleading". Well, let's take a look at the "$10" pro-tax ad for a moment.

First, the ad says that "big corporations and Wall Street banks" only pay the $10 minimum tax. Obviously, that is only true of "big corporations and Wall Street banks" that do business in Oregon in the first place and that have no Oregon taxable income. Most "big corporations" doing business in Oregon are paying a lot more than the minimum tax.

Moving on, of the $733 million that M. 66 and M. 67 will raise (net of the loss in taxes from the change in the unemployment comp taxation), $472 million comes from the personal income tax hike. That's not even mentioned in the "$10" ad. Another $108 million comes from the corporate income tax rate hike on profitable corporations that weren't paying the $10 minimum. $26 million more comes from new corporate fees and $17 million more comes from the new minimum tax on partnerships, neither of which is relevant to the $10 minimum. So, of the $733 million the new tax hikes are supposed to raise, at most 15% is attributable to increases of the $10 minimim (and most of that is from the gross receipts tax, not the increase from $10 to $150). The entire ad is based on the notion that $10 is unfair, but the $10 piece of the tax hikes is a very small part of what these measures will do. Seems pretty misleading to me. Bob Wiggins

If you can't convince, try and confuse.

Hey Bob! How about talking about the consequences of a no vote?

Oregonian has a short item but SJ has a better story.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20091201/LEGISLATURE/912010316/Lawmakers-release-spending-cut-options

The story says budget cuts would eliminate Project Independence funding.

How many legislators who oppose the taxes are willing to either say a) they support that level of budget cut--not just rhetoric, but actual budget decision or b) how they would avoid that budget cut by cuts or revenue increases (incl. ending tax breaks ) elsewhere?

And for Defend Oregon and Democratic legislators, here is a question:

What were the actual budget cuts after Measure 28 election? After Measure 30 election?

And OAJKT, if the Measure 30 result (which is basically what you want) did such a great job promoting job growth in Oregon, where were the jobs created after that grand and glorious election result? In which counties? In which occupations? How many people who were unemployed the day of the Measure 30 election were unemployed 6 months later?

Maybe someone running campaigns on either side thinks we "can't handle the truth" or that we need simplistic campaign messages because voters don't care about details.

But it seems to me that for those voters looking for actual data, the campaign which puts it out first might get more positive attention.

Carla, I'll be very interested to see a list of all these big corporations and Wall Street banks that you say do hundreds of millions of dollars of business a year in Oregon and that pay only the $10 minimum tax. To be in a position to be paying only the minimum tax, these unnamed big corporations must either have no Oregon taxable income, or tax credits given by our very generous legislature. Let's see some specific examples, and then we can debate them on the merits. Bob

Hey LT, I did try to answer your question a week ago about what I would do, but it was at the end of a thread and you probably didn't see it.

http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/11/the-curious-math-of-corporate-oregon/comments/page/2/#comments

I don't speak for anyone but myself, but you asked the question before and I tried to answer it. If you're ever interested in discussing this mess further, give me a call.

Bob Wiggins

Both sides are going to make outrageous, disingenuous claims on this issue. That's politics. But what matters is the vote.

Let's cut to the chase. Carla, I will bet you twenty bucks that the voters throw out the tax increases by a 52% to 48% margin or more. You want to take the bet?

It's saying that you're headed towards socialism, which is barbaric and the end of civilization. Even has some Mayflower snobbery with their European excursions.

This is Karl Rove strategy. Instead of avoiding strength and covering your own weakness, you attack directly into strength. The "taxes buy civilization" line is the strongest point on the pro side, so, rather than sidestep that, they do the Rove thing and attack it head on.

The success of the strategy only shows that people can't stop, take a step back and ask what Carla is. Or even simpler, make it a statement about the speaker (as all are) rather than the object. Look at John Kerry vis a vis Shrub. Strong point- particularly to Repubnicants- is his war record. Attack that directly. But few stop, step back and say, "just a sec. He has a war record and your guy wasn't on the job".

It's been a pretty successful strategy, to date. Kind of makes me want to watch "My Dinner with Andre".

Careful, Carla. Dave Lister is an expert on outrageous, disingenuous claims.

Hey, why not do that on a major scale (the bet)? When BO has these incredible pissing contests about ballot measures, why not set up a big betting ring on the outcome, stipulated as you have, that it go to the charity of the winners' choice?

I think you could raise some major $$ that way.

(I'm using my full name. I want to be remembered for this).

Carla, so only 100 companies have over $100 million in Oregon sales but either are losing money, or have net operating loss carryforwards, or credits so they have to pay only the minimum tax. And some of these companies are from "out-of-state". Under m. 67, these 100 companies would now pay $10 million ($100,000x100) in Oregon tax out of a total of $733 million that the new taxes are supposed to raise. 10/733 is just over 1%. So 100% of the ad addresses 1% of the tax. Seems kind of misleading to me. Bob

"maybe they should close their barn doors - or better yet, sell their farms to hardworking immigrants who actually know how to work on a farm." - Frog

Sell their farms? No, their farm should be confiscated and GIVEN to the hardworking immigrants.

Along with other small 'problematic' business owners, Leuthold and family will then be herded onto trains destined for special government re-education camps. At the camps they will be tattooed and pierced for easy future identification. They will then be taught the benefits of high taxes and homosexuality by a Democratic high priest. They will be taught they only have a precious few years to live due to man made damage to Mother Earth. They will eat only vegtables and be trained to attack people wearing fur coats.

Posted by: Crystal Nacht | Dec 1, 2009 4:19:45 PM ... and regurgitates what St. Beck preached...

You know, the funny thing about dittoheads is that they're closer to reasonable policy parodying us than promoting any agenda of their own! Must be the point of the usual name calling. Without that, it don't sound too bad!

They will eat only vegtables and be trained to attack people wearing fur coats.

Oh no. Since everyone knows that you can't really be a vegetarian, they will roast them alive and eat them for protein!

and homosexuality

Now you're wishing!

OK. It's almost 5. Your parents should be home soon. Run along!

So, tell me (gl)ass breaker... If Adolf Hitler were alive today, would he like Sean Hannity or the President better?

Carla, the letter is an argument against m. 66 and 67. Whether or not this particular business will be hurt seems less important than the fact that these tax measures together will suck $733 million out of Oregon's private economy, and that will hurt employment in the state. But since you asked, I can neither confirm nor deny that they have been at the dairy business for 5 generations but the rest of the letter seems pretty accurate. Since their farm is not a C corporation (unlike a number of other farms), the new gross receipts tax does not affect them, but since they report farm income on their personal return on Schedule C, they will apparently have a 22% increase in their personal tax rate--from 9% to 11%. That definitely affects the after-tax income of their business (assuming the business is actually producing income) or the amount of their other income they have left to subsidize the farm. That will "hurt [their] farm and the families it supports." She's a farmer whose taxes will go up if these measures pass and she's against them. She lays out her arguments. You obviously disagree with her conclusion, but it isn't untruthful. Bob

"Crystal Nacht: Dragging out the Nazi references, eh?" - Carla

Just a plug for National Socialism. Capitalism and the quest for profits are destroying Amerika.

"So, tell me (gl)ass breaker... If Adolf Hitler were alive today, would he like Sean Hannity or the President better?" Lord Beaverbrook

I think Adolf would be closer to Howard Dean. Dean has the socialist rage needed. Sean isn't a socialist and Obama is toast w/o the teleprompter - so no go, there.

Carla, an increase from 9% to 11% is a 22% increase. Not a typo. Now, back to listening to Obama. Bob

Oregon loses jobs because Oregon has lots of bad businessmen and women. Instead of adhering to the proud conservative tradition of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, businesspeople like Carol Marie have become the new welfare generation. Coddled to the point of dependency with tax breaks, they have failed to meet the challenges of a changing economy. Instead of spurring ingenuity and truly using the free market to grow, these upper middle class folks sit around thier dwindling pot of family fortune and blame the government for taking it away. Hey Carol Marie why don't you stop whining about government, feeling sorry for yourself, and making excuses and actually start trying to create some jobs? The only thing you are helping to create is a true Oregon Special---a class of poorly educated, no work ethic whiners who blame the government for their own failures.

Assuming the gross sales of dairy products remains fairly constant, and that the labor, resources etc required to produce said product also remains unchanged, there is no reason they would reduce the labor force because their net profit goes down a little bit. They might have to make some minor cost cutting changes, such as changing company cars from Caddies to Chevys, but they will not reduce the amount of product they sell to the market. Of course labor prices do rise occasionally (and they should) and the price of raw materials etc rises too (except the cost of milk it seems) but isn't that reflected in the cost to the consumer? If dairy prices are low right now, what forces are at work causing that? How does a small tax increase on revenues over $500K in Oregon have anything to do with commodity pricing? I say now is the time to stock up on ice cream, while prices are low and dairy farmers are the disingenuous dupes of the right wing smear machine.

Thank you Lou "Oregon loses jobs because Oregon has lots of bad businessmen and women. Instead of adhering to the proud conservative tradition of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, businesspeople like Carol Marie have become the new welfare generation. Coddled to the point of dependency with tax breaks, they have failed to meet the challenges of a changing economy."

Also Glen. The anti-taxers seem whiny to me.

There was that story in the Oregonian in late Sept. where AOI et al said "this is war" and reports that this was about proving their power in Oregon.

What have we seen so far? Sloppy campaigning. A man who runs and irrigation company signed the petition because he thought he would have to move his company out of state. When he found out the increase for his business would be $150 he changed his tune.

AOI put a restaurant owner's picture in a publication saying he would be hurt by the taxes WITHOUT TALKING TO HIM FIRST.

A "Tillamook dairy farmer" letter is sent from a Salem address, and it turns out the farmer in question has enough money to take vacations many of us could never afford to take--but we should worry about her business?

Pat McCormick makes some snide remark in the SJ "we are not going to put Granny on an ice floe" but the Legislative Fiscal proposals include ending funding to Project Independence to keep low income seniors in their homes. How would the anti-taxers avoid that cut?

Just ask them to take it on faith because the Legislative Fiscal report is just campaign propaganda.

Yeah, right, we learned nothing about how those folks when they were in control of the legislature had no clue how to balance the budget---just to get angry when people said gimmicks were not the way to go.

LT, your comment looks like the description of a very Sizemoric campaign. We have seen this show before!

Bob,

My math may be rusty, but an increase from 9% to 11% appears to be roughly an 18% increase, not a 22% increase. (If it is rusty, perhaps you'd be so kind as to show your work?) The tax rate would be increased (according to your figures) by 2% from (on $250k) $22,500 to $27,500. Which, of course, doesn't sound nearly so impressive as an 22% (or even an 18%) increase in taxes, but is no less accurate.

Considering the total personal income, I have a hard time feeling bad for them. Admittedly, I have a hard time feeling bad for anyone making over $250k a year in personal income, considering the first 20 years of my working life I had a gross income at or below their apparent state tax liability.

And, if it meant saving critical jobs (which, IMO, includes teachers) I would be happy to pay an additional 2% of my meager gross income. But then, perhaps I'm a bit more civic minded than some others.

" it "doesn't appear the Leutholds are hurting financially" because they were able to travel internationally last year"

Thanks to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.

Gee, maybe it has to do with hard work, thrift, intelligence, initiative, personal pride.....nah, easier to say the Bush tax cuts.

Buckman Res - I don't know about you, but I mailed my "bu$h tax cuts" back to the IRS. I didn't want the money to go to an illegal war in Afganistan, but realized the money was going to be taken out of the mouths of the homeless and down-trodden.

Peace in the middle east.

There are more than 100 corporations doing more than $100 million in sales paying only the minimum.

There are 950 C-corp's that have >$1M in Oregon taxable income, only 31 pay the minimum.

(11%-9%)/9%=22.222222%

AG, with all due respect, your math is rusty. The amount of the increase is 2 (11-9). To find the percentage the increase represents, you take 2 over the original number, which is 9. 2/9=.22222222, which is slightly more than 22%. (Many thanks to my Oregon public school math teachers.)

(And to be fair, the 11% rate applies to income over $500,000 (joint return). It's 10.8% on income over $250,000 (joint return).)

On your offer to pay an extra 2 percentage points of tax on your income, that is generous of you. But of course, despite the severity of the state's budget problems, the legislature did not choose a broad tax increase affecting everyone. Their choice was to impose such an increase only on some taxpayers, not all of them, presumably on the theory that voters would approve a tax increase they thought would only be paid by others.

Bob

A.G. Hopkins commented: My math may be rusty, but an increase from 9% to 11% appears to be roughly an 18% increase, not a 22% increase. (If it is rusty, perhaps you'd be so kind as to show your work?)

A.G., your math is rusty.

The denominator is the number you're increasing from (thus increase FROM 9 to 11%...) - so 2 divided by 9 (or 2 as a percentage of 9) = ~22% increase...

Conversely, a decrease FROM 11 to 9% would be 2 divided by 11 (or 2 as a percentage of 11) = ~18% decrease...

don't hold up to even the most basic of scrutiny.

Sounds like the usual conservative product.

The dairy industry is extremely resource intensive and environmentally destructive. Most dairy foods contribute to obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and cancer. Not to mention it's a cruel and ugly industry that makes the veal industry possible.

Carla commented: ...'That seems a highly dubious claim by Leuthold given that they've been taking some pretty swanky vacations in recent years.

Unless of course it's more important to them to travel to Europe and Africa on vacation than say...employ people at the dairy.'

eh... so far I've only seen that they've taken ONE swanky vacation - she took cooking classes in France/Italy at the same time he went on an African safari. And for all we know, they may have planned and saved for that vacation for years. What? Everybody affected by these tax increases should cancel our vacations or at the most hunker down on Oregon stacations now to prop up the local economy and so we can welcome Oregon tax increases (with Federal increases likely not far behind) with open arms? If they've been working and maybe waiting 45 years to take this vacation, seems to me they were right to take it sooner rather than later. Or are we advocating now for government involvement in deciding who can/should take vacations of what length, when, and where?

Since their farm seems to be on the way to becoming a side operation for them - if the various federal/state/local governments are going to start taking 50% or more of every dollar of income in taxes and fees, maybe it WILL become more important to them to travel to Europe and Africa on vacation than employ people at the dairy...

Then again, we don't need all those cows farting up our atmosphere contributing to 'global warming' (oh sorry - 'climate change') Andy anybody who may be working at their dairy should go get an Oregon state-sanctioned family-wage 'green job' anyway.

Maybe the Leutholds will just tell Oregon to get in line and take their chances like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Ohio, etc

Yeah....someone works hard all their life, saves their money and then goes on a dream vacation to Europe.

Fuck 'em. That's the BlueOregon Way. If everyone can't have it...then NO ONE should have it.

If one of you little communists would ever work hard enough to have something worth taking away, you'd probably be singing a different tune instead of always having your hand in someone else's pocket.

Thanks for the math refresher, everyone. Of course you are all correct. I blame my Oregon public school math teachers. (Actually, I didn't learn business math in high school, but community college. And I don't really blame them for my failing memory.)

The point, however, that a 22% increase sounds much more dire than paying 2% more in taxes still stands. If one complains about ads being misleading, one should be just as scrupulous about ones own claims. Neither the S10 ad, nor Bob's claim is untrue, but both play semantics or omit items in order to persuade. One would think that if we were to have an open and honest discourse here, we could avoid playing politics with our statements. Otherwise we're reduced to rhetoric and talking points, which I have no interest in listening to when I could be getting facts and information.

On your offer to pay an extra 2 percentage points of tax on your income, that is generous of you. But of course, despite the severity of the state's budget problems, the legislature did not choose a broad tax increase affecting everyone. Their choice was to impose such an increase only on some taxpayers, not all of them, presumably on the theory that voters would approve a tax increase they thought would only be paid by others.

It's easier to be generous when I'm making substantially more than I did 5 years ago. (well, it's easier for me, apparently not so much for others.) I believe that taxing those who can barely get by makes less sense than taxing those who can easily afford it.

As to your presumption that they assumed it would only pass if those voting for it thought it would be paid for by others; That seems cynical, assumes the worst of people, especially lower income people, and avoids the possibility that they thought that others could better afford the tax. The people who are actually subscribing to the 'only if others pay for it' mindset are those who are willing to play on people's sympathy (even if it means playing fast and loose with the truth about their situation) and spend money to avoid paying the tax.

(One wonders how much the Leutholds are spending to support the anti-tax movement, and what their actual tax liability might be under the new tax. Which, of course, would tell us more about their retirement income.)

Having been in the working class and having lived hand to mouth in the past, I have a perspective on the burden such a tax would be on that economic class that perhaps someone with a better income might no longer be able to grasp, assuming they ever lived in such circumstances to start with.

Paying additional taxes when budgets are already stretched tight increases the possibilities of a home foreclosure, which is the kind of thing which got us in this mess to start with. Perhaps we shouldn't be throwing more wood on that particular fire?

Frankly, for some of these people, $500 in additional taxes can make the difference in keeping a vehicle insured or running, which can mean the difference in whether or not they keep their job.

I'm pretty sure that giving up cooking lessons in Italy, for instance, is not going to drive the Leuthold's dairy farm into receivership, even if they were still running it, which, apparently, they aren't. And would cover the increased tax burden for 10 families, even at the minimum 250k income mark. (Sorry, fell victim to my own complaint and got a little rhetorical there. But you get my point, yes?)

Carla:

If it were now so easy for you to make your points, what's stopping you? Socialist Writer's Bloc(k)?

Useful idiot.

Well, I think this is officially a "troll blog". This was a good thread that could have gotten off the ground, but anything substantive seems not so interesting as arguing with dittoheads.

Liberals don't read these exchanges with dittoheads and think, "oh, I learned something". They think, "what a monumental waste of time". If you really care about that, maybe think, how many "progressives" might be confused by that, and how much does my comment help? For the vast majority of posts, the answer is "none", and "can't imagine it". Meanwhile people like Bob and Bill and rw and mp and Kurt and Peri and Z bring up great discussion points...but you'd rather argue with dittoheads.

Looking at the state of health care reform bill, with Sen Nuthatch from the child abusing state of Utah promising a Stupak-like amendment in the Senate, the complete non-delivery on war policy, etc., I can see why you're not anxious to engage them.

I'll be back in January to mention this again and tell you that's why you lost M66/67. Pushing back conservative ads. buys you not one vote. Spending 5 minutes to convert a progressive (no doubt a few) results in more than one more vote. At every level you'd rather argue with dittoheads, though, and that's why you'll lose this one.

Carla, You're on. $50 to the charity of choice. And the "no" side has to come in at 52% minimum. So if it is 51% I'll stay have to pay off.

By the way all, I advocated for an increase in the corporate minimum in my Oregonian column. I just wanted it structured differently.

Carla, I posted this before but don't see it now so maybe I messed up.

I accept your terms. $50 to charity of choice. And the NO side has to be at least 52% or I still pay off.

Use Minnesota as an example. Their governor, Tim Pawlenty, made a big point of cutting taxes aggressively over the course of his term in office, and now they're facing a 1.2 billion dollar budget shortfall. This is a state that normally runs about a 5% unemployment rate, and they nearly got up to 10% this year. They're a state that has a whole lot of pretty dependable jobs on the average, compared to a lot of the seasonal work we have here in Oregon. Cutting taxes didn't work at all to help out THEIR job situation. Why should it help out our job situation? Our corporate taxes are nothing in comparison to Minnesota or Washington. And they have higher employment rates. What are we going to cut that is going to directly put enough cash into businesses so that they can expand their workforce? The problem right now is that a lot of those businesses that provide the seasonal/short term/project jobs that Oregon generally has in relative abundance are not able to borrow money to bring people in to expand their productivity. It has nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with real business funding.

Benefits for everyone by taxing a few. The fact that so called progressives are accepting that logic shows how far off the rails they've fallen. That policy is nothing more than cheating. People trying to force someone else to pay for your benefits should be ashamed of their position.

Noticed some saturation TV Spots running this evening during primetime using the President as the anti tax point man per own his comments as candidate from Aug 09. Nice to see that not all of the Democrats are socialist pigs or weasels. Just some bimbo on BO and Howard Dean.... Perhaps there is hope. Measures 66/67 are toast.

"By the way all, I advocated for an increase in the corporate minimum in my Oregonian column. I just wanted it structured differently. "

Dave, columnists don't set public policy. If you don't want to run for office yourself, try selling your ideas to legislators. That's the way our government is set up.

Posted by: I earned it why cant I keep it? | Dec 2, 2009 9:37:29 PM

By peeing in a cup and committing daily fraud? You sure don't know what hard work is, or you wouldn't be wacking off here!

Posted by: Kevin | Dec 2, 2009 12:19:32 PM

I think it a fundamental mistake to smugly ass-u-me that all or even most voters are able to easily parse the wonky claims in political ads like we political junkies do.

Definitely answers "what the hell do they think they're accomplishing"?

Guess I'm a radical. If people are that thick, I would let the system crash and burn and then let people start over, knowing why they're doing what they're doing. Social Security is a great example. Very good, necessary leg. Unfortunately the public was never fully educated about it during the next 60 years, and you still have dittoheads yelling that FDR was a communist.

In fact I'm very radical on that note. Would we have neonazis today if Hitler had won? By now they would be history and no one in the next millenium would ever suggest Nazism. Carrying people on your back is fine, but without population control and/or decent education, you're eventually going to collapse under the weight.

Or not. You can always ask the taxpayers for more to fund "Project Atlas".

Poor JJ, That would be your rat race no longer mine. Man up or someone will take what you have. Oh thats right, you would be one of those who wants the hand out Measure 66/67 will provide without having any skin in the game. Entitlement is a bitch. They were born, they grew up in the gutters, they went to work at twelve, they passed through a brief blossoming period of beauty and sexual desire, they married at twenty, they were middle-aged at thirty, they died, for the most part, at sixty. Heavy physical work, the care of home and children, petty quarrels with neighbors, films, football, beer, and, above all, gambling filled up the horizon of their minds.