Shouldn’t that be fucko offo?
Anyway, I’m only here to say Gotcha Ya
Eye gues’s sew.
GaWd
GaWd responds to my “are you sure” question with
I knew you wouldn’t let me down…
Let’s start with the second statement on the page that you say is 100% correct. I would start with the first, which I could prove too, but the second is quicker, and therefore I can dismiss you sooner.
This statement… #2, on the cited page , that is 100% correct,
GDsPageOfFibs
The Statement in question;
Even in this period of national recession, California’s taxpayers will pay less in taxes in Fiscal Year 2002-03 than they did when Governor Davis took office.
Well, does he mean less taxes or less tax on the money they earn (% per 100) DOESN’T MATTER, wrong either ways, and misleading, and all that. GD took office in January 1998
Personal income tax for the years 1997 to 2002/3 (2003 obviously projected), tax rates and other information presented is from the Governors Budget summary 2002/2003 From pages 6, 21, 22, 23 and (practically all in between) The PDF file is cited below.
PERSONAL INCOME TAX REVENUES Dollars in Millions
[list*]YEAR / INCOME TAX / TOTAL TAX REVENUES / Tax per $100 of Income
[li]1997-1998 …7.52*** [/li][li]1998-1999 … 7.48***[/li][li]1999-2000 … 8.20[/li][li]2000-2001 - 44,614 Million – total* 88,128 Million 8.05[/li][li]2001-2002 - 38.455 Million – total* 78,114 Million 7.04[/li][li]2002-2003 - 42.605 Million - total* 84.117 Million 7.44***[/li]
*total includes sales tax, and other taxes like, gift, inheritance, tobacco, etc.
***Tax per $100 of income
PDFSummaryFile
Is this an error? A lie? a Mistake? or a deception? As you can see we paid more in 2000/2001 than 2002/2003
IN FACT, if you look at the tax revenues collected in California, from 1997/98 up, since Davis took office, EVERY YEAR Has been higher than the years before he came to office. (in income taxes received)
If you interpret that sneaky little statement as meaning 2003 taxes are lower than 1998 taxes, or - taxes lower now (2002/2003) than they were 5 years ago, (1997/1998) or(1998/1999) then, well, he is still wrong. As you see from the chart above, per 100 of income, more was taxed, therefore, the tax rate was higher…
EITHER way, his statement is incorrect, misleading, or, as they say, figures don’t lie, but liars…
Look at the totals on page 23, WE HAVE paid MORE every year since he has been in office than any year before he came into office, by at least 10% (Sales & Income)
since GD took office in January 1998
Now, do you believe this statement;
Even in this period of national recession, California’s taxpayers will pay less in taxes in Fiscal Year 2002-03 than they did when Governor Davis took office.
Sneaky little lie isn’t it.
27.8 billion in 1998, and 44.6 Billion(projected) in 2003
GaWd, I would be a little more careful when given a tacit warning like “are you absolutelty sure” in the future. There may be something you missed. Like there was here.
GAME OVER…
*“there is no recall, I assure you, there is no recall. look you can come to the airport and see for yourself, there is no recall. if this were not so, I would not tell you this.” *- Baghdad Grey 2003
…Davis is now accompanied wherever he goes by the four horsemen of an individual’s political apocalypse: pity and contempt, silence and ridicule. …
Huge Hewitt - WorldNetDaily.com_
I’m totally ignoring your post Beryl. Not because you’re right and I’m wrong, but because neaither of us knows exactly when that page was produced. It’s a problem I’ve been trying to figure out since yesterday. I do believe by the phrasing used on that specific page that it was written in probably early 2002, or at least long before the problems with our great state’s $$ situation became apparent.
Also, I specifically meant that the statements you portrayed as false in your first post were correct-that Davis accelerated the VLF reduction, because he did. THat’s the only thing that you’ve mentioned as an issue with that page, and you’re wrong.
Sam
GaWd, Beginning with your post;
I responded, .(after quoting the above statement,) with…
You are absolutely sure about this?
You replied……….
When the smoke cleared, you posted, in response to my proving the deception in the second statement on the questioned page, and thereon declaring Game Over:
So I see you point is now this;
I confused you with the very skillfully written, confusing and ambiguous question,
“are you absolutely sure about this”
The way you are trying to weasel out of this Sam, proves my point in and of itself. IF the page had no deceptive and false facts, you would not have to be doing this weasel dance now?
Mine is a sure bet, there is “deception and misstatement” in just about everything Davis does. “Just About” that is.
However, before any of this, you posted…
I put this in the middle of this post because it is as logical here as it was at the beginning of yours. I have a question though?
What were you responding to after you were “ignoring my post”?
So here we are at the bottom line again. Regardless of any approach you choose, you can’t go on without admitting that the “100% accurate page” is “misleading, inaccurate, deceptive, false, or fraudulent” When you do that, It’s Game Over.
I’ll let you choose which of the above best describes the page.
Sam,
If you agree that the page is deceptive, defect, help save California.
“I assure you, not a single person will vote against me, this is true. I am the beloved leader. This is a trick, the republican guard and their trickery has deceived you. I must go now ant cut taxes further.” Baghdad Grey
Look, I won’t disagree that I over-generalized my responses to you and generally made myself look like an ass because I didn’t go and do some math.
What I will still disagree with you on is your statements about the VLF, and the date the page was published(because, IMO, it’s important to how the context of the document is taken).
I do not agree, therefore I will not defect. Your last self-aggrandizing, inane post was glossed over(hence the statement about ignoring it). You committed so much Auto-fellatio in that last post that your neck must hurt like a motherfucker. It’s a Sunday night and the last thing I want to do is get neck-deep in Mooncalf-shit. I’ll get to it tomorrow.
Sam
P.S.-I still won’t “defect”(a little too much mother Russia in your speech, friend). Know why? Because a politician is a politician is a politician. Anyone you had put in office last term would have ended up in a mess quite the same.
GaWd Comrade. Thank you for your greeting of good cheer. Please, I not wish you look at, like butt. Never did so. You write words that make me blush so. And family name, Mooncalf very good name, in motherland Mooncalf translates to;
"Graceful swan floating in lazy circles above green grassy mounds still covered in lazy wisps or morning dew while the early autumn day dawns in brilliant splendor the single swan unloads the contents of its bowels high above GaWd, who just happens to be looking skyward when the package arrives.
So why do you complain about being neck deep?
Show Mooncalf where, I’ll fly over that way tomorrow morning.
Absolutely, the mess Grey left him.
Again Sam, we have positions open for intelligent persons. Why not be part of the solution?
The State he loves is apparently a State of Intoxication. :wally
Comrade Mooncalfski, I’m a part of the solution. Unfortunately, the way our political system is set up, I’m also part of the problem-as are you and every other voting californian.
I vote for the lesser of 2 evils mainly…this time around I vote for the lesser of 135 Evils. Arnie’s a bufoon, the other 133 “candidates”(and I use that term VERY lightly) are smoking crack and Cruz Bustamante seeks to make the problem even worse with his tax package.
Therefore, when faced with these lovely choices I must stick by Gray Davis. He fucked up. The state’s in a mess, however, electing a republican Gov(the Terminator) in a democratic legislation is not a solution. Even if he COULD do some good(which I assure you he cannot), he’d be shut down by the dems just based on philosophy/party line alone.
GaWd I hate politics(politiks to you, Comrade).
Sam
GaWd: I was going to stick by Davis until he signed into law driver licenses for illegal aliens. I’m sure I won’t be supporting Bustamante either. And as a Republican, I’ll also say that I’ll not vote for any of my fellow Republicans on the current slate. “We live in interesting times” doesn’t always mean we live in good times. 
Well Monty, I guess I’m just a big ol’hippy liberal. I could not care less that aliens will get licenses. In fact, I think if they are forced to apply for papers and get insurance to be licensed it’s somewhat of a good thing.
I think Davis’ signing that law was to leverage the Hispanic vote-Bustamante is Mexican and courts heavily the indians so he’s got that vote locked up…I’m pretty sure that’s why Gray signed it in. Can’t think of any other reason.
Fuck it, let’s all vote for Mary Carey Cook.*
Sam
*- I say that very lightly because splitting the vote away from the majority candidates is an insane idea and can fuck California in a big way. I therefore suggest voting for one of the 3 front-runners lest we end up with a pornstar or a short motherfucking sitcom child-star as our governor.