Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[tuhaybey]

Still waiting for even one democrat passed law that supports the OP's premise.......

How would a law support the premise that the Democrats have a better economic track record? What I think you mean is that you are struggling to understand why it is that the Democrats have a better track record, right? You seem to think that it isn't in any part because of the more rigorous antitrust enforcement (although you haven't made a very persuasive case). Ok, that's fine. Why do you think it is that they perform better?

Regardless, I responded to your post above, so not sure what else I can do for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na

I don't get it. You think it is cultish and ape-like to vote based on which party's policies actually work better? Instead we should vote, how? Just at random?

As a side note, you shouldn't exactly call others "cult members" and "apes" if you have an avatar like that lol.

Don't ever confuse any post by Stephanie as a product of thinking. The more she posts, the more likely it seems the Great Apes are more intelligent than she.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

If we lose it, it will be because Republican voters aren't performing their civic duty to vote intelligently.

So far I've seen little evidence you harbor even a minute amount of intelligence so you really shouldn't be accusing others of being stupid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

Actually, people in blue states have far, far, more surplus income- Median Income Compared to Support for Obama

You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....

The median income in those states is higher because of the taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living. I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.

 

[tuhaybey]

The median income in those states is higher because of the taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living. I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.

I guess you missed most of my post. Again: You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The median income in those states is higher because of the taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living. I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.

I guess you missed most of my post. Again: You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....

That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation

 

[tuhaybey]

That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation

That source does not contradict what I said at all. I compared what a person making $60k in CA pays in taxes to what a person making $60k in TX pays. The difference is $189/year.

Your source says that the average Californian pays 11.4% and the average Texan pays 7.5%. But remember that the average Texan makes about $20k/year less than the average Californian. If you hold income constant, they don't differ much. The reason Californians pay a bit more is because they are much higher up the income brackets. But, even if you ignored that, 4% of your income is nothing compared to a difference in median income of $20k. People in CA make around 50% more than people in Texas. So, you cut off that 4% of what they make in CA, and they're still making 44% more.

 

[Zander]

The median income in those states is higher because of the taxes, fees, and regulations tacked on by government which drives up the cost of living. I grew up in Massachusetts and I could never afford to buy a house until I moved to South Carolina and there was I able to buy a pretty nice place in an upscale neighborhood for a fraction of what I would have paid for something similar in Boston.

I guess you missed most of my post. Again: You mentioned CA, for example. People living in CA have a median household income (the chart I linked to is per-person income, not household) $20k/year higher than the median for red states. Somebody making $60k in CA only pays $189/year more in state taxes than somebody making $60k in Texas does....

That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation

The newby thinks he can just pull numbers, statistics, and facts from his rectum. Kinda hard to take this turkey seriously. I've asked him to name one specific policy or law enacted by Democrats to support his premise- his reply? Democrats are more pragmatic and don't rely upon slogans. Hope and change anyone?

 

[tuhaybey]

The newby thinks he can just pull numbers, statistics, and facts from his rectum. Kinda hard to take this turkey seriously. I've asked him to name one specific policy or law enacted by Democrats to support his premise- his reply? Democrats are more pragmatic and don't rely upon slogans. Hope and change anyone?

Pretending you didn't see my reply isn't going to get you anywhere.

Also, you seemed to miss my response to the post you quoted too..

You're kind of struggling in this thread Zander.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.

I understand your confusion, it does take a bit of critically thinking to understand. First of all, the R's haven't taken over the Senate, and, CA has made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of Gov. Brown, a majority of Democrats in both houses and the Constitutional Amendment repealing the reactionary requirement that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a budget.

CA and Californians prepare for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Fires and floods; all but fires are rare events but we know they will occur without warning. If Californians lived in Tornado Alley our homes would be bolted to the foundation and each home would have a cellar.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

That is, of course, patently false, which I didn't even need to look up to know.

Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011 Tax Foundation

That source does not contradict what I said at all.

It does exactly that.

I compared what a person making $60k in CA pays in taxes to what a person making $60k in TX pays. The difference is $189/year.

Which is not true, as I just pointed out.

Your source says that the average Californian pays 11.4% and the average Texan pays 7.5%. But remember that the average Texan makes about $20k/year less than the average Californian.

Again, false. The difference is roughly 8 - 9k per year

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/ACS_13_1YR_B19119_States.xls

People in CA make around 50% more than people in Texas. So, you cut off that 4% of what they make in CA, and they're still making 44% more.

I think you better spend less time at this forum and more time here.

Free Math Tutorials at GCFLearnFree

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So why are you about to lose the Senate?

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.

I understand your confusion, it does take a bit of critically thinking to understand. First of all, the R's haven't taken over the Senate, and, CA has made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of Gov. Brown, a majority of Democrats in both houses and the Constitutional Amendment repealing the reactionary requirement that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a budget.

CA and Californians prepare for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Fires and floods; all but fires are rare events but we know they will occur without warning. If Californians lived in Tornado Alley our homes would be bolted to the foundation and each home would have a cellar.

Which again, does nothing to address what I said

 

[Uncensored2008]

At least when it comes to revoking civil rights and crushing the human spirit!

 

[tuhaybey]

Again, false. The difference is roughly 8 - 9k per year

Actually, the total difference is $10k. Texas is $51k and CA is $61k. The figures you're looking at where they break it up by family size are different than household median income for some reason.

But, you're right, it isn't $20k. The gap is $20k between CA and some red states. For example, Mississippi's median income is $38k- a gap of $23k. But Texas actually appear to be doing a notable step better than most red states. That said, it's still a whopping $10k behind CA, which is still a massive gap, much larger than any difference in taxation.

I think you better spend less time at this forum and more time here.

Free Math Tutorials at GCFLearnFree

Not sure where you thought I made a mathematical error, but my guess is that you were thinking that should be 46% instead of 44%. If so, that is not correct. 44% is correct because 4% of 150% = 6% of 100%. You need to figure out the amount taxed on the CA income, then state it as a percentage of the TX income. I dunno, I'm better at math than I am at explaining math, but 44% is correct.

 

[tuhaybey]

At least when it comes to revoking civil rights and crushing the human spirit!

No, that isn't remotely true. You can look up which Senators and representatives have better voting records on civil rights here- leadership-conference-voting-record-113-congress.xlsx

Most Republicans support civil rights legislation 10% of the time or less and most the Democrats are over 90%. There are notable exceptions- generally the ones you guys call "RINOs". Some of them get up as high as say 30% or 40%, but that certainly is the exception rather than the norm. In fact, many Republicans are supporting civil rights 0% of the time and many Democrats are supporting civil rights 100% of the time. So, you seem to have somehow flipped it backwards in your head.

 

[Wry Catcher]

One issue true believers in Red States. People who live in Tornado Alley rarely act in their own best interest. Is it the water, or inbreeding?

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.

I understand your confusion, it does take a bit of critically thinking to understand. First of all, the R's haven't taken over the Senate, and, CA has made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of Gov. Brown, a majority of Democrats in both houses and the Constitutional Amendment repealing the reactionary requirement that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a budget.

CA and Californians prepare for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Fires and floods; all but fires are rare events but we know they will occur without warning. If Californians lived in Tornado Alley our homes would be bolted to the foundation and each home would have a cellar.

Which again, does nothing to address what I said

You missed the "critical thinking" part, not surprisingly.

Democrats walk the walk; Republicans talk the talk. Soon even some in the Red States will recognize this truth, and even if R's still win in the back woods - unless the R's change and realize winning elections means they need to govern - the party of Limbaugh will soon die.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Not sure where you thought I made a mathematical error, but my guess is that you were thinking that should be 46% instead of 44%. If so, that is not correct. 44% is correct because 4% of 150% = 6% of 100%. You need to figure out the amount taxed on the CA income, then state it as a percentage of the TX income. I dunno, I'm better at math than I am at explaining math, but 44% is correct.

You're good at neither. You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this. If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But people in places like New York and California who vote themselves out of being able to afford to live there are making better decisions?

I can't speak for New York, but in California our state was held hostage by the GOP and the 2/3 requirement to fix what was broken. The people of CA became fed up with the inability of government to govern and changed the inequality which is inherent in the 2/3 requirement by passing Prop. 25 in 2010:

"California Proposition 25, the Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act, was on theNovember 2, 2010 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was approved.
"Proposition 25 ends the previous requirement in the state that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state's budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Proposition 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion"

Seems to me many of our problems could begin to be repaired if the Congress could be convinced to be responsible. Being fiscally conservative is not necessarily being fiscally responsible.

While that's all very interesting it does nothing to answer my question.

I understand your confusion, it does take a bit of critically thinking to understand. First of all, the R's haven't taken over the Senate, and, CA has made a remarkable turnaround under the leadership of Gov. Brown, a majority of Democrats in both houses and the Constitutional Amendment repealing the reactionary requirement that a 2/3 majority is required to pass a budget.

CA and Californians prepare for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Fires and floods; all but fires are rare events but we know they will occur without warning. If Californians lived in Tornado Alley our homes would be bolted to the foundation and each home would have a cellar.

Which again, does nothing to address what I said

You missed the "critical thinking" part, not surprisingly.

Democrats walk the walk; Republicans talk the talk. Soon even some in the Red States will recognize this truth, and even if R's still win in the back woods - unless the R's change and realize winning elections means they need to govern - the party of Limbaugh will soon die.

Which again, does nothing to address what I said

 

[tuhaybey]

You're good at neither. You have no idea what you're talking about and I'm not going to waste any further time on this. If you want to wallow in ignorance that's your privilege.

Ah, the classic "I have a really good argument that totally shows that you're wrong, I just don't feel like presenting it" line... Has that ever fooled anybody in the history of the Internet?