3 ms·
I love it that you claimed I had an "extremely loose understanding" which, we must presume you know because you're psychic, right? And then you go on to quote
by lzw 16y ago
I love it that you claimed I had an "extremely loose understanding" which, we must presume you know because you're psychic, right? And then you go on to quote numbers showing that spending went up %50. Of course, you must attack me personally, because at the end of the day, I'm arguing for fiscal responsibility, and your position is that you and people like you better know how to run our lives, and so you feel the right to take, at gunpoint, money to spend on initiatives you personally approve of, and it really shouldn't matter what us peons with a "loose understanding" think, right?
Which is, of course, why you hate the initiative process. About the most democratic process in the state.
- timr 16y agoThe fact that spending went up by 50% over the course of a decade is not automatically indicative of fiscal irresponsibility. Inflation alone accounts for more than half of that increase. The remainder can be explained by many factors -- but the onus is on you to prove that the spending was irresponsible. Also, someone with a full understanding of the situation would know that the per-capita state tax rate in Washington has barely changed since 1999 (here's one source: http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationbysubject/taxtopics/propertytax/onepercentqna.aspx http://dor.wa.gov/content/getaformorpublication/publicationb...). The state did not, as you assert, start "raising taxes to keep spending at bubble levels". Perhaps you have a detailed knowledge of the history of taxation in Washington state, but your comment leaves little indication that this is true.