Nudged

[Anti Federalist]

Tipping Point?

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/08/23/tipping-point/

By: eric 24 August 2014

The work-to-reward ratio has been in steady decline for decades, but may have shifted decisively and perhaps irreversibly since the bottom fell out in 2008. It’s bad enough (but still tolerable) when they take 35 percent of your income, but the remainder is sufficient to provide for the necessities plus some extras. When you can still comfortably indulge occasionally.

But what happens when your income drops by a third or more – and they’re still taking 35 percent? Or more? And when the cost of necessities – gas, for example – has doubled during the same time?

All of a sudden, you find you’re working harder and longer for less. You notice there’s not time for much outside of work. Mainly, you’d just like to get some sleep - and now sweat the cost of groceries. Indulgences are a memory. Your stuff has become a burden(rant on that here).

I added it up recently.

I own two trucks (both older, the newest a 2002 model) and five motorcycles (the newest a 2003 model). Even so, I am still paying about $60 a year each to maintain “registration.” That’s $420 annually. Add in yearly state “safety” inspections ($15 each) plus the rancid “personal property” tax my state levies (ranges from $70 per on the low end to $150 on the high end) and I’m easily hemorrhaging $1,000 a year just to maintain the fiction that I “own” my vehicles.

Mind that this does not include insurance – which (legally) I am just as obliged to pay, though my money is filched for the benefit of a private mafia as opposed to the public one. If you include the cost to maintain insurance – and my costs are relatively low because I’m a married, middle-aged guy with a “clean” driving record, who owns older, paid-for vehicles and thus I can still choose a minimum-coverage/liability-only policy – the “cost to own” figure easily doubles.car expense pic

Now, factor in the cost of gasoline – which has doubled. And motor oil and so on.

Owning – that is, being allowed temporary and conditional use of - a vehicle has become a pricey proposition.

And more than just that – it’s a hassle.

Is it any wonder more and more people – especially young people – are beginning to abandon ship? In researching my pending book about the end of America’s love affair with the car, I found a very interesting statistic: An all-time record high percentage of people in the 18-35 bracket have never had a driver’s license. Many of them, when asked, state that they have no desire to ever get one. They’d rather walk, or bicycle or use public (government) transportation.

Kids approaching 16 in prior times pined for the day when they could get their driver’s license – and their first car – almost as much as they ached to lose their virginity. It was a rite of passage – and much more importantly, it was about fun.

And freedom.

Not anymore.

And the reason why is obvious.

They – TPTB – have systematically sucked the fun out of driving with their ridiculous laws and over-the-top punishments (see for example my recent piece about “reckless” driving). Their fees and taxes and mandates and so on have imposed stultifying costs that have made owning a car a 3,200 pound albatross of debt and expense that smarter people are beginning to realize just ain’t worth it.

And that is exactly what was intended.

You’ve probably heard about Agenda 21 – the U.N. blueprint for consolidating the proletariat (that’s us) into urban “cores” where we can be more easily handled. The first critical step toward that end is getting us out of our cars and the best way to do that is to get us to loathe our cars. To make us sick and tired of driving, period. This method is infinitely more effective than passing laws directly forbidding us to to drive. The subtler route is to pass laws telling us that driving at reasonable velocities is “speeding” – and subject us to constant harassment by cops and endless mulcting by insurance mafiosi. Tell us we must wear seatbelts – and that we have to spend 5-10 minutes before every trip (even if it’s just a 5 minute trip to the store down the road) strapping not just our infants but our five-year-olds into Hannibal Lecter-esque “safety” seats . . . that we’ll be taxed by mile, with government (and insurance bed buddies) tracking us all the way… it begins to grind.

Acquiring a license has become torturous – a Byzantine ordeal that, of course, has very little to do with learning how to control a car and a lot to do with learning that one must obey, obey, obey. Teens may not drive after dark, or with other teens in the car. Which pretty much makes driving pointless.

Or rather, not much fun.

Which is exactly the point.

A week ago I wrote about a fellow car journalist who got jail time for the High Crime of driving 93 MPH in a new Camaro ZL1 (see here). What the hell is the point of owning a car like the Camaro ZL1 if you are not allowed to drive it faster than 80 MPH anywhere (in my state) without incurring a possible jail sentence? It’s like being a young, good-looking guy who’s allowed to go to a party with lots of good-looking young girls around… but told he risks huge fines and even a stay at Hotel Graybar if he does more than talk with any of them.

“Frustrating” doesn’t begin to cover it.

It’s brilliant, this indirect death by a thousand cuts. What people like the infamous Cass Sunstein, one of Obama’s string-pullers, call nudging (see here). That is, using negative incentives – offers you can’t refuse – to push the cattle (that’s us) in the desired direction. To get us out of our cars, for instance – and into “public” (government) transportation.

Not by illegalizing cars or driving, per se.

But but making it miserable and exorbitantly expensive to own a car and to drive. After a certain point, most of us will give up our keys voluntarily . . . eagerly.

Mission Accomplished.

Throw it in the Woods...

[youngbuck]

What other forms of nudging are there? For example, I know that they are trying to raise electricity rates in the rural areas of my state. That nudges people to the compact-city control grids. I know they are making it harder and harder for people to do things on their own land, whether it's raising cattle or growing crops. Want a pond on your land? Hah! You think you live in America?

I'm sure there are dozens of other insidious ways they're working toward their Agenda 21-goal.

[Brian4Liberty]

A week ago I wrote about a fellow car journalist who got jail time for the High Crime of driving 93 MPH in a new Camaro ZL1

I feel double-plus safe with this guy in prison.

[jkr]

POST
OF THE
YEAR!!!

[jclay2]

This idea needs to be expanded. The author is dead on. I would love for someone to write the same article about home "ownership". It is not quite as bad as cars on a % basis, but given that owning property used to be the ultimate sign of independence, I think it is more important.

[heavenlyboy34]

I own two trucks (both older, the newest a 2002 model) and five motorcycles (the newest a 2003 model). Even so, I am still paying about $60 a year each to maintain “registration.” That’s $420 annually. Add in yearly state “safety” inspections ($15 each) plus the rancid “personal property” tax my state levies (ranges from $70 per on the low end to $150 on the high end) and I’m easily hemorrhaging $1,000 a year just to maintain the fiction that I “own” my vehicles.

Mind that this does not include
insurance (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#) – which (legally) I am just as obliged to pay, though my money is filched for the benefit of a private mafia as opposed to the public one. If you include the cost to maintain insurance – and my costs are relatively low because I’m a married, middle-aged guy with a “clean” driving record (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/#), who owns older, paid-for vehicles and thus I can still choose a minimum-coverage/liability-only policy – the “cost to own” figure easily doubles.car expense pic

Love Eric to death, but he needs to be corrected a bit here. If you have to pay taxes just to "own" something, you are a renter, not an owner. :(

[phill4paul]

Love Eric to death, but he needs to be corrected a bit here. If you have to pay taxes just to "own" something, you are a renter, not an owner. :(

He goes on to admit that it is fiction.


I’m easily hemorrhaging $1,000 a year just to maintain the fiction that I “own” my vehicles.

[PaulConventionWV]

This is why I'm moving to China next year and taking my job with me.

[DamianTV]

Gas only doubled? Here, Im still paying four bucks a gallon. Thats more than tripled for me. And of course, everything is transported everywhere, which takes gas, which causes the price of everything to go up. Ahh the good ol Petro Dollar. The cost of gasoline is one of many problems this country has, and by no means unrelated to the rest of the problems as well...

[56ktarget]

Taxes are the lowest it's been in decades. Troll harder.

[FindLiberty]

It's not caused by those annoying "taxes" (they only serve as a pick pocket's clever distraction).

It's the fed printing press running FULL SPEED AHEAD 24x7x365.33 that's conjuring up HUGE amounts of fiat dollars that causes all prices to rise!

This allows government to grow as large as it wants to become...

[FindLiberty]

Taxes are the lowest it's been in decades...

LOWEST? Are real estate taxes actually going down for anyone (outside of places in obvious decline like most of Detroit)?

Those taxes are rising to keep up with the (fiat) inflated costs, wages and retirement for all the local tax tics that are attached to (and sucking the substance from) the property and backs of all the non-government mundane hosts.

[56ktarget]

Estate taxes were almost completely eliminated by extension of bush tax cuts.

[Anti Federalist]

Estate taxes were almost completely eliminated by extension of bush tax cuts.

He said "real estate" taxes, meaning property taxes, or, more properly, the rent we serfs pay the local government Liege-Lord for the privilege of squatting on the King's land and living under the illusion that we Mundanes actually "own" anything.

[Seraphim]

The exact same thing is being done to Americans in regards to their health care. Same. Damn. Thing.

[acptulsa]

Taxes on the rich are the lowest it's been in decades.

Fixed that for you. I'm surprised to see someone who is pretending to be a populist approving so warmly of this state of affairs.

Of course, you aren't from here, you aren't here, and you wouldn't actually know...


'All I know is just what I read in the papers, and that's an alibi for my ignorance.'--Will Rogers

...but that's really not much of an alibi.


Troll harder.

We aren't trolling this forum, you are. This is the home of our adult conversation, not the place where tripe is regurgitated to feed the baby birds. But when we do go out to other sites, we don't troll harder than you, we troll smarter.

And I know that sounds to you like bragging, but if anything I'm damning myself with faint praise...

[56ktarget]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, wrong again acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?12430-acptulsa)

[RJB]

Fixed that for you. I'm surprised to see someone who is pretending to be a populist approving so warmly of this state of affairs.

Of course, you aren't from here, you aren't here, and you wouldn't actually know...

Acptulsa, he needs to have his neocon strawmen images of us. If you keep destroying them, he'll explode.

Seriously, 56k, do you know what libertarian/constitutionalists/paleoconservatives/classical liberals/Ron Paul republicans believe versus your average FOXNews republican? You've made some off the wall statements about us.

[phill4paul]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, wrong again acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?12430-acptulsa)

Did they figure in "sin tax?" Because I know for a fact the Federal Tax went up a dollar in 2009 on cigarettes, ostensibly for a program that has since been ended (SNAPS), and that was on top of regular increases. And that is just the Fed. The states have increased their percent of the take also.

Which chimes right on into being "nudged."

[JK/SEA]

erosion of the dollar might be a factor in this. No?

[acptulsa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, wrong again acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?12430-acptulsa)

Am I? Consider the 'All the News that Fits the Agenda' people unimpeachable, do you? Well, then, let us look at what they said, shall we?


According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.

Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income.

Sounds suspiciously like what I said. And while they are vague, I don't think this even talks about people who aren't people, but corporations and LLCs.


Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.

How can you have faith in this when they can't even be bothered to tell you if they're talking about $25,000 1980 dollars, which was decidedly middle income back when the dollar had a modicum of value, or 2014 dollars? And as something of an aside, are they even talking about what percentage of the total population the middle class has shrunk to?


Lower-income households, however, saved little or nothing.

This, too, sounds suspiciously like what I said. So, by their reckoning, I seem to be batting at least .667. So, how am I dead wrong again...?


Acptulsa, he needs to have his neocon strawmen images of us. If you keep destroying them, he'll explode.

Are you trying to discourage me or encourage me?

[Anti Federalist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, wrong again acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?12430-acptulsa)


¶A household making $350,000 in 2010, roughly the cutoff for the top 1 percent, on average paid 42.1 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 49 percent for a household with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980 — a savings of about $24,100.

¶A household making $52,000 in 2010, roughly the median income, on average paid 27.7 percent of its income in taxes, compared with 30.5 percent in 1980, saving $1,500.

¶A household making $22,000 in 2010 — roughly the federal poverty line for a family of four — on average paid 19.4 percent in taxes, compared with 20.2 percent, saving $200.

And what is never figured into these numbers is the unseen taxation and compliance costs.

When you add them in the numbers go to almost 50 percent for family of four.

My question to folks like 56k is this: how much is enough, and what right to have to lay claim to any of it?

[acptulsa]

And what is never figured into these numbers is the unseen taxation and compliance costs.

Obamacare is enough to break a family making $22,000--despite the fact that they might get a subsidy, and even if they had insurance before, because the cost of these 'bells and whistles you'll never use' one-size-fits-all plans has really gone up that much.


'There is one rule that works in every calamity be it pestilence, war or famine, [real or manufactured,] the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor[, especially if they're foolish enough to be liberals,] even help arrange it.'--Will Rogers

[RJB]

Are you trying to discourage me or encourage me?

Sorry. I was trying to be funny. He constantly acts like he's scolding the Sean Hannity forum. Talking sense to him will cause his head to explode.

[Danke]

A lot of people look at their yearly State and Federal Tax forms and think that is what they are paying in taxes. There are a lot more, even the hidden tax of FRN printing/inflation. And products and services cost more as the tax burden is passed on to consumers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eqG7tvrzk

[DamianTV]

erosion of the dollar might be a factor in this. No?

More specifically, the Petro Dollar...

When the Gold Standard was dumped, it was because other countries were getting pissed that the US continued to just "print up" money. So the Gold Standard was dropped so we could just "print up" more money! When it was dropped, the US made a deal that ALL OPEC Oil would be traded in US Dollars, creating the Petro Dollar. And we still havent stopped "printing money" and screwing over the rest of the world. But in order to achieve a Petro Dollar, constant warfare became a necessity. Bomb the shit, or free the shit, out of any country that does not want to trade OPEC Oil in US Dollars. And the more countries that dont back a Petro Dollar, the more countries we go to war with. Hmm, why do we have so many problems with Oil Producing Countries? Oh, cuz we cant just print up money to control them, and they can farm their own oil. No, the US wants ALL Oil to themselves, and thinks that the endless money printing / endless wars / endless inflation will never have any sort of negative consequences at home. The costs of all these endless wars / endless money printing / Petro Dollar goes right into the price of living everywhere around the world. We "export our inflation" and take goods from other countries. The results are crappier products or more expensive products.

The US has made a gigantic shit sandwich and expects everyone else in the world to take a bite.

[francisco]

Taxes are the lowest it's been in decades. Troll harder.

Most delusional post I've seen in a very long time.

Only a person who pays no taxes would even think of making such a claim.

Anyone who actually does pay taxes knows that 56target's assertion is a bald, contemptible lie.

[acptulsa]

Sorry. I was trying to be funny. He constantly acts like he's scolding the Sean Hannity forum. Talking sense to him will cause his head to explode.

Well start selling tickets, then.

And don't forget my percentage.


Most delusional post I've seen in a very long time.

Only a person who pays no taxes would even think of making such a claim.

Oh, I'm sure he does. But he's not in the U.S. He has admitted that before.

[DamianTV]

A new favorite quote: "We are being Nickeled and Dimed to death. And there are only so many Nickels and Dimes in a Dollar..."

[MRK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/most-americans-face-lower-tax-burden-than-in-the-80s.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Lol, wrong again acptulsa (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?12430-acptulsa)

Did you just link another article to show why someone was wrong without showing what part of the article shows they are wrong or what exactly they said was wrong?

[acptulsa]

Did you just link another article to show why someone was wrong without showing what part of the article shows they are wrong or what exactly they said was wrong?

Of course he did. The article confirmed at minimum two thirds of what I said. So, how could he do otherwise?

[56ktarget]

And what is never figured into these numbers is the unseen taxation and compliance costs.

When you add them in the numbers go to almost 50 percent for family of four.

My question to folks like 56k is this: how much is enough, and what right to have to lay claim to any of it?

And where did you pull that stat from? Out of thin air, most like.

[56ktarget]

Obamacare is enough to break a family making $22,000--despite the fact that they might get a subsidy, and even if they had insurance before, because the cost of these 'bells and whistles you'll never use' one-size-fits-all plans has really gone up that much.
Throwing up baseless assertions without proof. I love it!

[acptulsa]

Like that, do you?

And I suppose that if I said, if you like your insurance you can keep it, you'd have swallowed that whopper hook, line and sinker? Talk about baseless...

[56ktarget]

And what did Obama's promise have to do with the discussion we were having? Nothing, troll harder.

[acptulsa]

And what did Obama's promise have to do with the discussion we were having? Nothing, troll harder.

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

[56ktarget]

I'm not an obama supporter. Troll harder.

[acptulsa]

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

I'm not capable of trolling a libertarian forum. I don't get hard from trolling. And the discussion we were having was you insinuating that the facts were baseless, and I need to prove them every single time I bring them up because you're too lazy to go find the bushel baskets of proof that have already been laid out on this forum. Which I found amusing because you love to be lied to, so long as Obama is doing it (no wonder you're happy as a clam, you get to swallow fresh batches of his shit nearly every day).

Troll smarter (oh, sorry, that was a violation of the ADA, wasn't it?)

And you thought you were the only person in the world capable of using copy and paste...

[JK/SEA]

I'm not an obama supporter. Troll harder.


It's rather apparent who you are, and frankly, the honeymoon you've had in here should end.

[Anti Federalist]

And where did you pull that stat from? Out of thin air, most like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_tax

Now then:


My question to folks like 56k is this: how much is enough, and what right to have to lay claim to any of it?

[56ktarget]

Nice link, too bad it doesn't have year to year breakdowns like my NYT article does in order to determine if tax rates today are lower or higher than historical averages, which was the discussion we were having. Try harder.

[acptulsa]

Nice link, too bad it doesn't have year to year breakdowns like my NYT article does in order to determine if tax rates today are lower or higher than historical averages, which was the discussion we were having. Try harder.

That chart doesn't have tax rates at all, Einstein, because the rates of 'hidden taxes' are neither fixed nor published. But just because you can't count all your cockroaches doesn't mean you don't have them. No one promised to quantify the degree to which we are 'nudged', and no one but you is being silly enough to say, 'If you can't put a number on it it doesn't exist,' like we're talking about football players.

Why don't you put a little effort into this for a change?

[Anti Federalist]

Nice link, too bad it doesn't have year to year breakdowns like my NYT article does in order to determine if tax rates today are lower or higher than historical averages, which was the discussion we were having. Try harder.

The overall tax burden may be 40% or it may be 60%.

Do you not wish to answer my question to you?

[56ktarget]

LOL at actupulsa, if you actually read the NYT article you would find a lovely chart broken down for all income sizes year after year.

@Federalist

Thats not the discussion we were having. We were not talking about if taxes are too high, but how they match up with rates in the past. And it's been conclusively proven they are lower now than 20-30 years ago.

[helmuth_hubener]

This is why I'm moving to China next year and taking my job with me.

Awesome! Are you studying Mandarin?

[acptulsa]

LOL at actupulsa, if you actually read the NYT article you would find a lovely chart broken down for all income sizes year after year.

@Federalist

Thats not the discussion we were having. We were not talking about if taxes are too high, but how they match up with rates in the past. And it's been conclusively proven they are lower now than 20-30 years ago.

Oh, you mean the article that proved me two-thirds correct and wasn't specific enough about the other third? That was ages ago. The conversation has moved on to compliance costs and inflation-as-hidden-taxation. Do have the courtesy to keep up.

Or are these puzzles too adult for you?

Oh, and you do realize that chopping the 'Anti-' off of someone's handle is not creating a nickname for them, but insulting them, right? Would you call a peacenik 'warhawk'? Because the forum does have rules against lobbing insults.

[Anti Federalist]

Thats not the discussion we were having. We were not talking about if taxes are too high, but how they match up with rates in the past. And it's been conclusively proven they are lower now than 20-30 years ago.

I disagree with that "conclusion".

Regardless, I am well aware of what the conversation was.

I had a new question to add to it.

One that you do not care to answer...duly noted.

[acptulsa]

I had a new question to add to it.

One that you do not dare to answer....

Fixed that for ya.

[Prominence]

Great OP and good job on the 56K troll. The New York Times says so lalalalalala

[56ktarget]

I disagree with that "conclusion".

Regardless, I am well aware of what the conversation was.

I had a new question to add to it.

One that you do not care to answer...duly noted.
You did not care to acknowledge the previous conclusion so why would I move on with the next question?

[kcchiefs6465]

You did not care to acknowledge the previous conclusion so why would I move on with the next question?
Because your conclusion was bullshit, perhaps?

ETA: And regardless if it were true, what gives someone the right to another's property? Is it simply a majority? A majority making laws?

When does it cease to be robbery?

Hypothetically: You make $10 an hour. The people around you want Netflix. They take $9 from every hour you work. A majority, mind you. What difference does it make the rate? Whether if they take a dollar or ten? It's the same principle.

If your argument is that the good this money stolen from people is going for distinguishes it from say, said robbery for Netflix, I'd only offer you to look into the matter more.

Take the Rich Off of Welfare by Mark Zepezauer would be a good place to start. The money stolen is wasted, regardless of a certain percentage turning out to vote, in such a disgraceful manner words really lack on how to describe it.

While the murder of innocents may be the most flagrant, they piss money away in some truly incredible ways.

[acptulsa]

You did not care to acknowledge the previous conclusion so why would I move on with the next question?

No, he did not acknowledge it. In fact, he denied it. And the New York Times backed him up on that. In the very article you quoted. As I pointed out. Two or three times.

And you would move on to the next question because you wanted to have an adult conversation. Which, apparently, is not the case.

Saying the same thing over and over does not make it so. Not even if you click your little spangly red slippers together when you say it. Sorry, dude. That's just the way life is.