Good post. Re: " facts be damned.", I think we need to move on a bit to realize the problem is not so simple. Facts don't exist apart from a conceptual framework, common assumptions and an agreed logic. That is what has broken down with the TEA partiers. Their connecting the dots has all the external validity of a kindergartener's drawing of "my family". You get an emotional collage. It's not so much that it's factually incorrect, as that it isn't a mature, objective picture. Taht fine for flag waving and 4th of July parties, but when they conclude "I really don't like my family and I'm going to burn the house down", to use the finger-painting metaphor, they've jumped the shark.

I'm in agreement with Noam Chompsky. If you don't have some sympathy for their motivation, you aren't a progressive. It's liking having sympathy for a gang member tho. You can totally understand where they're coming from, and still think that they're getting almost everything wrong. I profoundly believe that unwanted people..unwanted children, are the only true source of evil in this world.

That's an interesting image. Wonder how partiers would react to a phalanx of liberals marching on their gathering with signs that say, "we're giving the trees the day off", and then proceed to give hugs to all the TEA people?

• Alisa in Tillamook

Facts don't matter! I believe it therefor it is true!

One factor this report does not highlight is that 47% of US households had no Federal Tax liability.

See: Nearly Half of US Households Have No Federal Tax Liability

Another factor in lower taxes paid by Oregonians is that household income has fallen, too. The high unemployment rate is certainly a contributor here.

So going from paying some tax to paying no tax is surely skewing the stats just a little.

Some republicans are protesting for the reason just because they are PERSONALLY paying less in taxes, does not mean they think OTHERS should be forced to take that extra burden. I know it shakes the very foundation of BlueOregon to confront the idea that republicans might not be the evil, selfish, greedy corporatist pigs that some of you like to paint us. But just because the pain isn't being experienced by someone personally does not preclude them from finding fault in the principle. How many of you liberals protest policies that would never effect you in a million years? What would you say to someone who told you to stuff it and that your opinion didn't matter because you were not personally impacted.

My guess is that you would tell them to stick it.

So....Chuck Sheketoff......stick it.

Dan wrote:

But just because the pain isn't being experienced by someone personally does not preclude them from finding fault in the principle. How many of you liberals protest policies that would never effect you in a million years?

Did you notice falling down the rabbit hole, Dan, or did you remain asleep even when you hit the ground? You believe Republicans should be admired for defending the economic interests of the wealthy, who [if you pay attention to facts] continue to become wealthier as the rest of us stagnate economically or become poorer. Most Democrats, liberals, and progressives I have worked with have spent quite a bit of time protesting policies that do not primarily effect themselves. Usually the people who are hurt by these bad policies are poor, ill, marginalized, or otherwise dis-empowered. We do not spend much time supporting the interests of folks who are doing quite well already. Republicans appear to be doing fine with that already.

Please answer me this:

In one of my business I hired a professional to install windows 16 years ago in a apartment building by a bonded and certified vendor:

The city is now saying since it wasn't (to code)back then in 1994 I ( a capitalist) need to replace all of the work.

It was an energy savings certificate project also.

Now if I had done armed robbery, or arson, or most class 2 or 3 felonies, it would be just THREE years because of the statute of limitation.

16 year and no statue of limitation because I'm a business, trying to help someone, a tenant 16 years ago with leaking, cold windows.

Why does the law treat criminals better than the bureaucratic regulators treat good and honest business people?

Could or should I claim it was with malice, and try to get it change it to a criminal issues, because surly the City of Portland? Oregon would gives better legal treatment?

Someone?

Mike M's post has the story partially correct when he mentions that just over half of U.S. households actually pay income tax. What he fails to mention (and where the 98% figure comes from) is that many of those households also get a refundable credit. So not only do they pay zero tax, but they get money back from the federal govt that they never paid in the first place. And the study says nothing about other benefits handed out such as food stamps, S-Chip, WIC, and other programs, some for "working Americans" and some for Americans who either cannot or will not work.

It's astonishing to me that any organization would publish a study using the phrase "working Americans" which clearly excludes many working Americans simply because they work hard enough and earn enough money that they don't receive a refundable credit.

Easy now Chuck. These report DON'T say that Oregonians (or tea party members for that matter) will have a NET decrease in taxes. Rather, these report talk about how broad a few of the Obama stimulus tax credits are.

Hey Chuck and you say recession.

I want to know how many Government employees got an increase in:

1 pay, 2 benefits 3 retirement 4 Tenyear

When many American lost their jobs.

It's true awful when you believe government is unethical!!!

dsdh332edsededfde,

And your problem is relevant to this conversation because...?

Hi Sal, I can appreciate your question, but it's not tax cuts alone that cause deficits. It's also record levels of spending. And yes, I absolutely opposed that - I don't care who is in the Oval Office. As for tax cuts, I generally support those on the principle that people who have extra money will put that back into their businesses, hire more people, develop more technologies and stimulate more economic movement in the community. I know my company sure does. It's not like we are stuffing all that extra tax-cut cash under the mattress, or writing ourselves a big fat paycheck while twisting our mustache with an evil cackle. We are reinvesting in our business and community.

It comes down to the appropriate role of government. R's like me think that government should do less, and therefore it should cost the citizens less to operate. D's seem to think government should do more and therefore government should take more to accomplish whatever tasks are assigned. We will likely argue about that balance until the end of time.

I agree that we need to try to understand the tea party rank-and-file. Last year I saw the bagger tax day protest at the Capitol and stopped to talk with some people. The worst part of the day was the opportunistic haranging of the crowd by republican legislators with angry talk and scare talk.

But the people--I recognized many of them as though they were from my own neighborhood growing up. With certain exceptions, they are sincere working people but with low information. (Yes, there were some racists there and probably some paid provocateurs--maybe one and the same.) But many working people are justifiably angry and confused by the inability of their pay to keep up with runaway expenses--medical insurance, gasoline, utilities, etc., let alone unemployment. (I'd mention taxes, but I suspect that many people there fall below the federal minimum.) And so they are easily manipulated by the anti-government corporate propaganda fed out to them, some of it over the media and some from behind the scenes.

I hope progressives are making an effort to respectfully talk with some baggers in low-key settings. These people are not dumb, just underinformed and vulnerable right now, and therefore prey to incitement. But I believe many will also engage in rational discussion.

Hi Jake Leander,

Thanks for the comment:

Afraid to admit the many failed government programs, While your putting many business under!!!

These bureaucratic wasteful programs are what your clamming you want for raise money for.

Your answer repeated is feed me more money, kill more jobs, cause class warfare and hurt those that have more than you!!!

Thanks Jake

Gee, Patrick. Glad to know I'm not dumb. Just underinformed. That is likely the most condescending attitude I've seen so far. You aren't angry or bitter...you just honestly believe you are smarter or somehow have access to "the truth" moreso than the rest of us drooling, knuckle-dragging conservatives, or those who don't know any better and are therefore just duped into protesting something they don't really understand.

I'd lay a bet that I am as literate and as well-educated as most of the people here at BlueOregon. I have access to pretty much any information available. I also possess the ability for critical thought, civil debate, rational discourse and even the humility to embrace new and different ideas. And yet I'm not a liberal. How is that even possible? Did your world just implode, Patrick? Are you ok?

Are you seeking praise for your harrowing journey down from the Ivory Tower to mingle with us tea-bagging hoi polloi and grace us with your noblesse oblige? Thank goodness Patrick is here to lead us out of the wilderness and up to economic and social enlightenment! Our saviour!

(I'd hate for you to go away empty-handed.)

dsdh332edsededfde,

What language was that last comment? I tried a translation website, but all I got back was gibberish.

"It comes down to the appropriate role of government. R's like me think that government should do less,..."

Yet R's like you presided over the largest expansion of government from 2000 - 2008 since WW II (fact check: Clinton at $18k per household vs. Chimpy McFlightSuit at $21k per household). Hell even Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) said at the time "The Republican party is simply not interested in small government now."

But go ahead and click those ruby-red slippers three times and repeat "republicans did not create the deficit" until you can say it without laughing.

Dan wrote:

R's like me think that government should do less, and therefore it should cost the citizens less to operate.

If you compare government spending in the US to that of other developed nations, the glaring difference is this: The US spends much more on the military, almost as much [47%] as the total of the rest of the world. Total defense spending is 53% of federal spending. Why is it that "R's like you" put so little effort into demanding that this profligate spending be curbed? Instead, you complain about promoting a decent life for non-wealthy Americans, protecting the environment, educating children, and protecting consumer interests.

What's with that?

Don't tell the teabaggers this, or they'll want to move here and contribute to our already astronomical unemployment rates and housing prices. If anything, we should be deporting Californians to ease both!

Jake and Scott...to my misjudgment, I resisted the temptation to paint you all as socialist, bed-wetting, pot-smoking, tree-hugging, vegan, union-goon, fur-protesting, hybrid-humping, wiccan-worshiping, Alinsky-devotee, class warrior recycle-nazis.

So don't think you are scoring any cheap points by foisting the entire sum of your fault-finding with republicans on my shoulders, just because I have the stones to come into your clubhouse. Don't presume to know what I protest with my own party, or what compassions I have or don't have for those different or less fortunate. Perhaps open-minded only works when you are hearing what you want.

... foisting the entire sum of your fault-finding with republicans on my shoulders, just because I have the stones to come into your clubhouse.

No, Dan. It's because you wrote the ridiculous things above. I would not foist upon the shoulders of all Republicans the opinion that they are virtuous because they defend the interests of the richest against those of the poorest. That's your claim to fame, buddy.

Oh, now I get it - Dan is an "R" without the baggage. Dan's a "R" without the deficits, corporate welfare, two failed wars, and the near destruction of the economy. Dan's a different kind of republican.

Get over yourself. It doesn't work that way.

Ohhhh....I get it. And I bet you will be first in line to take credit for anything that democrats are able to accomplish, because after all, you are a democrat and therefore eligible for praise and accolades. Will you man up and accept responsibility for all the failings of the democrat party when the bill comes due?

I guess when it's all over, we are just left with our own actions. That, and you are a ridiculous douche.

Jake

Chucks has been quoted

"Good government works. We believe that government plays a necessary and positive role, and we are vigilant and critical in pursuit of improved effectiveness and efficiency."

In Pursuit of improved effectiveness and efficient, I complanied about how government is unfair, and not working, let alone efficient, and all I get is insults from the people who claiming government is works well.

You can't stay out of your own KoolAid.

Where is the effort to improve? It's Chuck's claim

How hypocritical is this.

I guess this is Chucks parody, on the word "GOOD"

dsdh332edsededfde,

The post is about 2009 federal taxes paid by Oregonians. You wrote about your problems with City of Portland code enforcement. Your grasp of argumentation is on par with your grammar and word usage.

I'm pissed about the speed trapping in downtown Milwaukie, but that doesn't have much to do with federal taxation either, does it?

To be fair, Chuck used "their" when he should have used "they're" in the last line of his post.

Can we agree on these items:

Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit

Bush increased the size and scope of the federal government and mant republicans remained quiet. Many independents and some democrats raised questions. Few, if any democrats questioned bigger government.

Military (defense) spending figures are scewed by rapacious legislators "bringing home the bacon" to home districts by authorizing spending on equipment and material the military doesn't need, or want. The latest F-22 jet and Osprey V-22 come to mind along with some Ohion class submarines we haven't needed since the end of the Cold War. Maintaiing too many bases in foreign countries also raises the number.

Obama has spiked the deficit within the past 14 months at a higher rate than even Bush the younger.

Chuck you, like so many of the jackasses who have hijacked the "progressive" message, have become a bore. You have nothing intelligent to add to the debate, and you are making matters worse with your typical, elitist spoiled brat of the upper-middle class attitude. Here's something that would shame you, if people like you had any honor:

One Marine’s ‘Liberty Walk’ for the Rest of Us

“I just walked through the town of Norwich,” he told me as a car passed and the driver honked his support for Bell, “and there is a strong tea party movement there. The tea party movement, for the most part, is just a bunch of disgruntled Americans. They know something is wrong and they are ready to be engaged. A lot of the people in my area who are in the tea party are Democrats. People are confused. They are shellshocked. They don’t know what to think. But acting like these problems started Jan. 20 [the date of the presidential inauguration] is absurd. To single out the current president and not the presidents before him is not productive for trying to figure out what is going on.”

Trying to score political points by playing to the smug assholes here with cliches and stereotypes makes you a big part of the problem and definitely not part of the solution.

Well Jeff, I can certainly tell you that the federal government is collecting LESS in ss taxes.

As a matter of fact, the SS Trust Fund will be dipped into this year because receipts are below payments. This is 6-7 years before the CBO and SS Administration projected. It will also escalate the Trust Fund depletion date currently estimated at 2037.

Thanks Jake Leander

Chucks quotes: "Our goal is to improve decision making and generate more opportunities for ALL Oregonians."

"Credibility. Our effectiveness demands independence, rigor, and transparent reasoning."

"Because Facts matter"

Facts do matter and the facts are your full of Hypocritical Parody, the facts are you want to grow Government, you attack me and are all pissed off because I ask for help, even though CHUCK claimed help for ALL, there is no transparency, and Chuck's quote "Our effort for efficiency", wow do you really want me to go here! Let me see, is that secret code for tax and spent!!!

No wonder there is a very large lack of trust for government.

Jake I might be handicapped by dyslexia, but I at least I was honest and dropped being a democrat once I realized when government was un-ethical selling only itself, instead of helping the people.

Jake when will you stop drink your own KoolAid.

PS. Thanks again for the comment.

Well Jeff, I can certainly tell you that the federal government is collecting LESS in ss taxes.

As far as it goes, this is correct. Part of "as far as it goes" is "compared to win". Compared to four years ago because of the unemployment rate the government is collecting less. Compared to two years ago as the baby boom started to retire the amount in principle also is down on top of the decrease expected due to the unemployment rate. Since baby boomers are expected to delay retirement until 68-70, if the unemployment rate were to improve (which seems unlikely though), the SS taxes should stabilize for a period, and perhaps over all continue to be greater then project if people were all to retire at 67 as the calculations we typically here assume.

There are, of course, two unarguable ways to fix the supposed problem looming for SS:

1) Remove the wage base so that people who make over $106,800 (this year) pay the same percentage of their income as people who make less.

2) Increase the (non-SS) taxes on unearned income, including long-term capital gains, to pay for public needs that people on SS would otherwise have to find ways to defray themselves.

However, just like Democrats were outed as the actual opposition in the recent health insurance fiasco to reform which benefits working and poor people, and instead are the party of corporate welfare, they also are in the lead against those kinds of tax reforms. The Democratic Party has become the party of the selfish liberal, comfortable class rather than working and poor people. Democratic Party, including DPO, concern for working and poor people has become the symbol of condescending, hypocritical social responsibility mainly to gratify the egos of the comfortable and definitely not threatening their privileged position in society.

And sorry Jeff, you're just a typical ignorant, egotistical Blue Oregon Democratic idiot who disgraces the epithet of "commie" and "pinko" that some really fine, principled people have suffered with honor.

Kima, you left off the third unarguable way to fix the crisis - RAISE the RETIREMENT AGE.

In all honesty, early retirment should probably be 67 instead of 62 and regular retirement 72 instead of the graduated 66-68.

And of course we could also means test SS eligibility. That would warm the hearts of many progressives.

I could tell right off I was paying less in federal taxes...I accidentally downloaded and filled out a 2008 form for state and federal, then filled out a 2009 form for both. Got a few hundred more back on my federal taxes, and it seems like I paid a little less in state taxes...though it might have been my imagination. I made about the same amount as last year, but instead of paying back 100 bucks to the state, I only had to pay 50 to the state. The federal refund, though, was much better than last year.

Kima, you left off the third unarguable way to fix the crisis - RAISE the RETIREMENT AGE.

Kurt you are exactly right. Of course, that's in effect what people are doing to a statistically significant level as a population by individually choosing to not retire at 67, albeit typically because their 401Ks have tanked twice in the last decade.

sal, sal sal

your quote"Police? Firemen? Military? Prisons? Social Security? Public roads? Public schools? Medicare? Unemployment insurance?

Those basic categories constitute the bulk of federal, state, and local government spending."

Can I buy what your smoking,

1) Public schools, police, Medicare are the major part of the General Fund, in Oregon, it's currently about 13, billion. And that contains most of our need service and is run fairly well.

The Other Fund that currently about 27 billion and twice the size of the General Fund and that is where the wasted bureaucracy is. look it up.

Steve's Novick qoutes "The 2009-11 total budget represents a 9.3% increase over the 2007-09 biennium’s legislatively approved total budget of $51.2 billion."

"The State General Fund budget, which goes to education, public safety and the state's share of health care, actually went down from the previous biennium"

The Other Fund is TWICE the size of the general fund. (2x) and that grew by 2.6 billion at 27.7 billion. This fund in the last 3 biannual budgets went up roughly 30%.

So while we claim we don't have money to pay the schools, and police while the majority the private sector has been in a very hard recession.

During the majority of that time period, during the last 3 budget cycles, hardly ever discusses, the Other Fund has grow at a massive 30%, and is now twice of the size of the general fund.

We fight about the smaller 13 billion to save schools,and services we like, while we look the other way as 27 billion goes crazy.

So yes schools and services are being squeezed, while other funds and departments are exploding, and that not including the off balance sheet creative finance government created for BETC.

Yes, how un-ethical, Oregon politicians raised the TOTAL budget an addition 9%, while cutting schools, and those same politicians then told us that they need to raises taxes with 66-67 to support the schools.

The NEXT DAY after 66-67 was approved by a vote, our governor asked to taxes us, even more, taking away the kicker, to help of course...the schools.

It gives you an awful feeling inside when you learn that your government is un-ethical.

Kima lies when he/she spews:

" A lot of the people in my area who are in the tea party are Democrats"

Unless, of course 8% is "a lot." (USA Today/Gallup poll)

Then Kima lies again with:

"...just like Democrats were outed as the actual opposition in the recent health insurance fiasco"

Really? Care to site your sources? Can you say "party line vote?"

And then Kima real blows chunks with:

"The Democratic Party has become the party of the selfish liberal, comfortable class rather than working and poor people. Democratic Party, including DPO, concern for working and poor people has become the symbol of condescending, hypocritical social responsibility mainly to gratify the egos of the comfortable and definitely not threatening their privileged position in society."

So which is it Kima - the party of privilage or the party of entitlements? Can you site your sources on the whole "gratifing the ego" bullshit?

Oh, and Dan:

"...and you are a ridiculous douche."

And I bow to your superior debating skills...assclown.

Hey Randy Durig of Durig Capital - you must be really excited that the Dow, once in the 7000 territory, just blew past 11,000. Must be a really exciting time for you and your clients with Obama in the White House!

Unlike the W recession years...

p.s. With regards to the stock market, Democratic administrations have outperformed Republican administrations for the last 60 years. But of course, you already knew that.

Dan wrote: "I know it shakes the very foundation of BlueOregon to confront the idea that republicans might not be the evil, selfish, greedy corporatist pigs that some of you like to paint us."

Never painted all of you evil. Just some. The rest is obvious.

I cannot wait for the new Blue Oregon. It's hard to track the actual conversation thread anymore due to the trolls.

Chuck Sheketoff your quote:

"Professional Standards and Privacy Practices All employees, volunteers, and board members of the Oregon Center for Public Policy will read and abide by the Center’s Confidentiality Policies and Procedures. This document will be provided to new employees, board members or other volunteers who are engaged in fundraising activities. They also can be found in board members’ meeting notebooks. All staff, board, and volunteers that have access to restricted information will be required to sign the OCPP’s Confidentiality Agreement. Restricted information includes donor giving histories, personal, financial, and/or legal information that is publicly available and collected during the prospect research process or provided by the donor or prospect himself/herself. Safeguards are in place to ensure that the information is not disclosed or shared more widely than is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was gathered. We also take measures to ensure the accuracy/integrity of this information is maintained."

Chuck are these your standard?

"Scott in Damascus" you're a typical ignorant "Blue Oregonian" jackass:

Kima lies when he/she spews:

" A lot of the people in my area who are in the tea party are Democrats"

That was a quote from a Chris Hedges piece quoting a military veteran walking through PA. And just how dumb are you that you think a national average has any relevance to local political patterns anyway?

"...just like Democrats were outed as the actual opposition in the recent health insurance fiasco"

Exactly, a party-line vote for corporate welfare in opposition to poor and working people. And continued talking point lies about the supposed benefits that are NOT in the bill and NO cost controls so people are not going to be able to afford policies they actually need. You demonstrate exactly the lack of intelligence that has come to define the people who have come to be the face of the Democratic Party.

So which is it Kima - the party of privilage or the party of entitlements? Can you site your sources on the whole "gratifing the ego" bullshit?

I'll repeat due to mangling of the original statement:

The Democratic Party has become the party of the self-servingly pseudo-liberal, comfortable privileged class, rather than the party of genuinely liberal values in defense of working and poor people. The Democratic Party, including the DPO, has become a clique that demonstrates a LACK OF GENUINE concern for working and poor people, but in fact practices a transparently condescending, elitist, hypocritical form of sham social responsibility, primarily to gratify the egos of the comfortable and protect their privileged position in society.

Thanks Sal

School understand is the school budget got cut by over 200-400 million +- when addressing this to Steve Novick he said "The State General Fund budget, which goes to education, public safety and the state's share of health care, actually went down from the previous biennium"

Which to me is yes. With at the same time it appears Oregon received billions for schools from the Fed.

New york times quotes "Obama stimulus money totalling $100 billion was directed to states for education... The new studies align with results of a broader, 50-state survey on the stimulus program carried out by the National Conference of State Legislatures. The conference’s survey, based solely on an examination of the states’ stimulus applications, found that 20 states said when applying that they intended to spend 100 percent of their stabilization funds in the 2008-9 and 2009-10 school years.

The 20 states were Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin."

Now if Oregon Gov is claiming they need the kicker money now for a rainy day fund when at the same time they tell the fed they" intended to spend 100 percent of their stabilization funds in the 2008-9 and 2009-10 school years."

Yes the budget went up by close to but under 5 billion. Yes we got a lot of federal money just for schools, and Yes the schools still got cut.

Do the math. I just don't beleive any of 66-67 was for the schools, it all got redirected, of course before and after the vote. The accounting to do this is easy, what you and I was told was we didn't have enough money for the school and their services, we did, it all went elsewhere.

And yes I was a big democrat at one time, but now I beleive Government is un-ethical pulling tricks. Putting itself ahead of the people it works for.

Do you have any clue what my politics are? I suggest a beer dude(tte). That's WAY too much bile.

Do you post here Jeff? Do you know what Google is? Just how bizarrely clueless are you:

EDITORS Kari Chisholm Jeff Alworth Charlie Burr Carla Axtman

Yes, you make little secret of "your politics", as even the most cursory Google search limited to "www.blueoregon.com" shows. One wonders if you've had a few too many beers with a bizarre comment like that.

Just because Jeff's comment was so bizarre, I thought it appropriate to post the results of this google search that led me to a number of posts and comments before I commented:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=%22Jeff+Alworth%22&as_sitesearch=www.blueoregon.com

About 10,800 hits, the overwhelming majority posts and comments by Jeff. On Blue Oregon, a "progressive" political blog. Of which Jeff is an editor, poster, and commenter.

So when you say Jeff: Do you have any clue what my politics are?, should we take that to mean these 1000s of posts and comments on Blue Oregon are not reflective of your actual political views? Just checking.

Why let a inconvenient little thing like a fact get in the way of a wild eyed foaming at the mouth paranoid hallucination?

And BTW, President Obama is a space creature from the planet Gargon and has been sent here from the future by a master race of robots in order to force Americans to live healthier, happier and more prosperous lives by enjoying the benefits of increased access to affordable health care.

Don't look now, UL, but if they said it was the planet Xenu and that they have a plan for your life, they would get tax exempt status! If I rescue cats and have no financial activity, and incorporate to avoid personal liability if a volunteer is bit, or something like, I can pony up $150. To date, every one of the editors is on record as saying that that would be my "fair share". The system is so screwed, it makes no sense to debate any of this. You'll always be dissecting microfauna. The big picture, the system it self, never makes one iota of sense.

More than the common good is engendered by out taxes. Are you a shill, Chip, or really that myopic?

To all the teabaggers that have nothing better to do: learn a lesson from Al-Quaeda. If you're barely able to read and write, make videos, don't try to make your case on a blog. You're not equipped.

• Alisa in Tillamook

Sal thanks, I'm and sorry for my many errors, when I tired my dyslexia is higher.

Let me understand your point, your telling me in a hard recession. We increased the budget 9.3% percent, or 4.7 billion , and the money from 66-76 wasn't for schools, as most of the 66-67 litterateur, I read claims, but your quote:

"As to the Measure 66-67 money... the money was intended to fill a revenue shortfall."

Yes, first 66-67 was claimed to be for school. Please see the 66-67 campaign that makes this statement just 100% false, not false to you or me, but very False and wrong to the voters.
http://voteyesfororegon.org/.

Yes, I know measure 66-67 money was for a revenue shortfall, and so do you, but read your campaign literature, that yes on 66-67 campaign makes claims as if it was almost just for the school!!!!

So yes the 66-67 was a parody to the voters about schools.

Point 2 your claiming that the budget went up 9.3% which is about 4.7 billion and the government still had a revenue shortfall of $ 700 million.

Now I believe this is accurate, plus this 9.3 percent government growth occurred when the private sector has been hard by a very big economic downturn.

Yes the world got hit hard and almost every private industry had to downsize. Some of the small business I work with, had to downsize just to survive, and I know some small business didn't survive, while at the same time state government grew very close to double digits.

Yes State G told the public you needed more money for schools, when the real truth is "Government couldn't control their spending."

Yes I believe the government was very un-ethical. Claiming money was for schools, that you and I agreed the money wasn't for, and the truth was the $700 million shortfall was simply because the State couldn't control their spending!

In private business they might call that bait and switch.

Now since the problem was never dealt with, properly, and I believe ethical, now Oregon is looking at close to a 2 billion dollars budget shortfall.

Sal Thanks for you comments, I enjoyed debating the real issues.

no you won, Your attacking yourself, and your own union with this claim:

your quote

"sloganeering web sites of a group that failed to make its case to the people of this state"

It's the yes on 66-67 campaign you just called "sloganeering" your own union, your so quick and attack you just attacked your own campaign.

http://voteyesfororegon.org/.

It's your own union!!

PS I love you quote "sloganeering" the yes on 66-67 campaign.

Nice

It's the yes on 66-67 campaign you just called "sloganeering" your own union, your so quick and attack you just attacked your own campaign.

It's your own union!!

Oh, so Sal is a union member? And you know that how?

Check out all the counties where Ye on 66 & 67 got at least 45% of the vote. http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/

If you matched those numbers to the numbers of union members in those counties, the numbers would be the same?

How's this for an alternative scenario?

The legislature passed a budget--all the budget and tax bills passed Ways and Means Subcommittee, Full Committee, both House and Senate chambers and were signed by the Gov. That is the way the process is supposed to work.

However, some lobbyists and others who didn't get their way decided to spend a lot of money getting what turned out to be numbered Measures 66 & 67 on the ballot. However, not every small business person supported the No side.

Ordinary folks sent this link to their friends. http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/research_report_301302.pdf

Not everyone paid attention to the TV ads, they just talked about the measures with family, friends, and others.

No on 66 & 67 was poorly run and cocky. An AOI lobbyist was quoted in the Sept. 27 Sunday Oregonian saying "we will take this to the voters, it will be war, it will get ugly".

What was truly ugly was the arrogance and incompetence of the No campaign. The "dairy letter" was mailed from an address in the Salem warehouse district which had recently been a Bedmart store. There was no positive alternative, just "we'll figure it out" or "they should have listened to us".

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/10/the_restaurateur_that_wont_fee.html was about someone whose picture was used in a business publication without his permission.

When a chart was finally published a couple of places in January, some of us began to understand why the No campaign hadn't published it in the fall. The "small businesses" such as small Oregon C corps and Oregon S corps which were supposedly going to be hurt by 66 & 67 turned out to do better under 66 & 67 than under the AOI plan or the OBA plan.

But, by golly, large C corps (incl. those from out of state) had lower taxes under the AOI plan.

My guess is what turned the election was things like the lack of a detailed alternative (and memory of what happened in the era of 28 and 30 with the uncertainty which led to budget cuts), people who just didn't believe that the "all funds budget" had mystery money which would prevent cuts, ordinary folks being tired of hearing that cuts or mystery money are better than taxes on business, and attitudes like the one from my state rep.

When asked in person about alternative proposals, the answer was THESE ARE BAD TAXES. That is not a serious answer. Pressed further, "we don't know what will happen after the election, but there will be an answer", led to "we do know what will happen after the election---Ways and Means will start working on how to fill the budget hole, and if you don't think that will involve budget cuts....

And then, of course, there was that stupid bakery commercial. To say the only people who didn't like it were union members is to say that all columnists for the Statesman Journal (a private company, located just blocks from the state capitol, employing residents of the city of Salem) are unionized.

One of the larger cities in Oregon, Salem is located on both sides of the Willamette River. Not only the state capital, it is the home to Riverfront Park (with the carousel), Willamette University, Salem Hospital, and other businesses large and small.

People with residential addresses in the city of Salem have no more power over what the legislature passes than residents of any other city. The marble building with the gold man on top houses the legislature, where members from across the state decide state policy.

The last line of the bakery commercial, "Thanks a lot, Salem!" offended many locals who know that the city of Salem is not the legislature--they come into town, pass legislation, and then go home. An SJ columnist wrote a column about that shortly before the election.

Marion County may be the home of state government, but it often votes Republican. By the narrowest of margins, Marion County went for Yes on 66 & 67. Could that possibly have been due to anger over the ad?

"Exactly, a party-line vote for corporate welfare in opposition to poor and working people. And continued talking point lies about the supposed benefits that are NOT in the bill and NO cost controls so people are not going to be able to afford policies they actually need. You demonstrate exactly the lack of intelligence that has come to define the people who have come to be the face of the Democratic Party."

Did you even read the final bill signed by the President? Yeah, I didn't think so.

By the way, since you seem to have so much foaming-at-the-mounth anger towards Progressives in general, care to compare and contrast Obama's most recent tax break to the middle and lower class with republican 2000-08 era policies for those making less than $250,000 a year?

Ya know, just to keep the discussion from going off topic.

Excuse me: It's was a union lead campaign, that you attacked:

Yes I heard about the endless sausage and back room deals in the process of putting together budgets, and your using this to prove it's been done ethically.

And yes it is well funded and coordinated, it's using our teacher our schools, Yes I read "Alinsky for Teacher Organizers" and it has worked very well, It's sick, using my children!!! it's now bubbled, and hopefully is being to pop, it's economy problem, killing jobs. taking away from small business that create jobs.

I use to be on your side, the first book on politics I read was Ralph Nader's, I tried to help Jesse Jackson, but that was when I felt the democratic party was right! and doing a good job. That when I learned about Alinsky model.

John F Kennedy was my hero, until at least I learned about his private life. But he wanted to contain government and often attacked undesirables unions.

You stopped working for the people, now I believe your hurting America with the endless big government.

Now it morphed into this unethical thing, that has a underlying singular focus to grow government.

The trolling going on here puzzles me. Are these "conservatives" trying to come off as literacy-challenged and incapable of evaluating their own words for elemental consistency with logic and commonly accepted reality? Or are they writing this way to make their presence unpleasant? They are swaying very few readers, to be sure, but they may delusionally believe they are.

Perhaps they engage in social display of the pride in obtuseness and lack of general knowledge shared by many Shrub supporters and common among many gabby conservatives these days. They're short on making sense, and long on stating their nonsense with conviction and entitlement.

I sometimes feel the need to respond to this nonsense, but it grows tiring quickly, as they repeat he same patterns with different bits of infoi. Perhaps some of it is cybernetic.

Indeed he is.

Oh, they're not bitter... (from a protest today).

...but I do hate them newfangled fonts! Or is there subtext, "I still use a manual typewriter"? Maybe Hersey fonts are a racist conspiracy. Proves Mike Bellotti is a socialist.

Nearly half the people in the USA pay no federal taxes - and you actually think that's fair? You're out of your gourd. Furthermore, when (or if) Obamacare kicks in, that's when the tax hikes are going to kick in and absolutely wallop the American economic engine. This is a recipe for disaster.

Yes, we have the facts. And we will shout them out loud and clear in the streets April 15th, despite the left's efforts to lie and slander and now even sabotage. Well, it won't work, lefties.

Scott

So, are those things taken out of the first dollar from paychecks of burger flippers, janitors and the folks who bring the food to marker that they call social security and medicare not taxes? That 12.5% flat deduction from dollar one?

And, if you think the employers pay half, I'm sure that any business person will tell you that they consider it a cost of compensation, and really is 100% borne by employees.

Chuck,

That report is rather useless for any serious discussion of tax policy. (of course, it is perfect fodder for idiots like yourself who love to report only half the news)

That report only looks at the result of four programs which did indeed reduce taxes. But somehow it fails to list any of the tax increases that were made. A smarter person would see the bias in a report like that but evidently you're too stupid to realize that data was missing from the report. Or maybe you thought we would be too dumb to read the report and see that it was nothing more than a one-sided PR stunt?

Andy,

What report would you suggest for a useful discussion on tax policy that refutes the data provided by the "stupid" reports in Mr. Sheketoff's post?

Tea party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, tend to be Republican, white, male, and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama administration is more rooted in political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Hey Chuck! In the words of Joe Biden: 'Big f---ing deal!'... Your post here only proves you have no idea what is motivating the Tea Party movement.

To arm yourself with some facts that really do matter on this topic, suggest you read this article in today's NY Times:

'...The Times/CBS poll offers a detailed look at the profile and attitudes of those (Tea Party) supporters.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich...'

So it's NOT all about how much Tea Partiers are paying in federal taxes... if anything, they'd be more inclined to think too many people are not paying ENOUGH in federal taxes.

Some more suggested reading:

'It doesn’t take an economist to understand what public debt at Greece-like levels of 90 percent of GDP by 2020 inevitably portends. Nor to realize the effects of the yawning disconnect between federal spending at 24 percent of GDP and revenue at 19 percent of GDP. Nor to understand the most basic of all budgetary concepts — that the bill, after the fizzy party, after all the huzzahs over “making history,” always comes due, and with interest.

This is why the country has a roiling tax revolt prior to any imposition of significant tax increases. The tea-party movement is an act of preemption, based on the simple calculation that higher spending eventually means higher taxes. For all the tsk-tsking about its supposed irresponsibility, the movement is attuned to the future in a way that the president — who hopes to evade or hide the consequences of his budgetary choices for as long as possible — is not.'

Yet in the very same article that Albatross links to comes this quote:

"I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth I think he’s a Muslim ..."

And yet another recent poll of actual teabaggers (as opposed to the phone poll above of about 1000 self-described teabaggers) at rallies in California in Nevada, more that 60% of the attendees were on some sort of government assistance (i.e. medicare, unemployment, food stamps).

If they are truly that educated, they really need to invest in some sort of spell-checker at their rallies.

Dear Scott: you said - Yet R's like you presided over the largest expansion of government from 2000 - 2008 since WW II (fact check: Clinton at $18k per household vs. Chimpy McFlightSuit at $21k per household). Hell even Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank) said at the time "The Republican party is simply not interested in small government now."

Are you stupid or just nuts? No conservative was on board with Bush's spending. And your guy Obama, you want to tally up what we are in for here? Bush will be a piker compared to the new bailouts, healthcard, cap and trade, CO2 taxes/costs. To even make such an absurd argument is totally beyond the pale, Obama is the spendster of all spendsters.

Dear Chuck, Yes, I paid much less tax than I paid last year. That is because my (private) business was off over 40% in '09 and I made 40% less money!!!! And everyone I called on, private businesses, have all been on their face as well, so the folks that didn't get laid off already have had furlough days and pay cuts. So yes, we have paid less overall taxes. Yippee. Teddy K. is already crapping his pants because local tax revenue is and has been in the hole, and, surprise, he is just figuring that out now? But hey, we can't POSSIBLY lay off any govt folks, so those expeditures cannot be touched, right? Asinine. How long do you think this can last?