Writing Campaign to Senator Kerry:

[Jocko]

So any candidate that won't let you sit on his lap for half an hour like a mall Santa Claus isn't worth your vote - or anyone else's, is that what you're saying?

When's the next mayoral election, dude? It's time for another wake-up call from reality.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

You're really quite pathetic, you know.

I mean you aren't or don't attack my argument's merits, you attack ME.

---

"Buying votes" is when a Candidate says I'll give you cash, if you vote for me.

If I showed showed up at a grocery store and swept the parking lot, and as a result the store owner gives me a loaf of bread, I didn't 'buy' the bread from him, especially given that there was no quid pro quo noted between the own and I.

Thus is my intention with spending campaign donations on immediate community improvement programs.

Moreover, even though you've been corrected you still continue to use inaccurate figures in yoour attacks.

It isn't 70 million. It is 75 million in public financing funds added to what the Senator is able to garner alone.

I believe that when the public sees this change in spending, on communities' welfare rather than on ads, that this could very well cause a rise in donations and campaign support in general. Thus giving the Senator an even larger budget.

What exactly IS your contention?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: To Jocko:

I believe that when the public sees this change in spending, on communities' welfare rather than on ads, that this could very well cause a rise in donations and campaign support in general. Thus giving the Senator an even larger budget.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Quit pandering to the "What can government do for me?" crowd.

Try involving yourself through time and effort in already-existing programs instead of throwing cash around at election time. Government "do-gooders" have been dumping trillions into welfare for decades now, with little if any measurable success.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Kodiak:

DUE TO the present Administration's Tax Cuts, there are shortfalls in state and local revenues.

What I am suggesting is "filling in the cracks left by these cuts", as best the donations would allow.

It isn't about 'look what we can do for you', but rather 'look what can be accomplished when we work together'.

I think you are being a little short sighted.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Kodiak:

DUE TO the present Administration's Tax Cuts, there are shortfalls in state and local revenues.

Asinine. Federal cuts don't affect state taxes. If anything, the cuts made state expenditures less nececcesary. This may blow your mind, but try it on for size: let working people keep more money, and the state doesn't have to spend as much on them.

What I am suggesting is "filling in the cracks left by these cuts", as best the donations would allow.

So 75 mil can undo the "damage" cause by 10 billion a year in cuts? Nice math. Care to explain this conclusion, Mr. Friedman?

It isn't about 'look what we can do for you', but rather 'look what can be accomplished when we work together'.

No, it's about meaningless platitudes spouted by an erstwhile monarch with no grasp of politics, economics or simple math.

I think you are being a little short sighted.

Yeah, well, that may be insulting coming from someone else. From you, however, it's just amusing.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

Your grasp of the facts of fatally flawed, and attacking ME personally accomplishes nothing.

 

[wjousts]

Re: Re: To Kodiak:

Asinine. Federal cuts don't affect state taxes. If anything, the cuts made state expenditures less nececcesary. This may blow your mind, but try it on for size: let working people keep more money, and the state doesn't have to spend as much on them.

Wishful thinking. The fact is that a lot of states are raising taxes to make up for the shortful of federal money so most people are finding their federal tax cut is being eaten up by raises in state and local taxes. Even if that wasn't true, your comment makes no sense. So you think a couple of hundred dollars back in a families pocket means the state won't need to spend on schools? or libraries? or roads? or police? or fire departments?

 

[King of the Americas]

To wjousts:

Thank you sir, for your retort.

Its accuracy is appreciated.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: To Kodiak:

Wishful thinking. The fact is that a lot of states are raising taxes to make up for the shortful of federal money so most people are finding their federal tax cut is being eaten up by raises in state and local taxes. Even if that wasn't true, your comment makes no sense. So you think a couple of hundred dollars back in a families pocket means the state won't need to spend on schools? or libraries? or roads? or police? or fire departments?

If you're talking about federal funds going to the states, well... that's a slightly different matter. But the fact is that if you look beyond the obvious non-adjustable services you mention and look at programs targeted at specific subsets - economic assistance programs, for instance, which every state has in abundance - less personal poverty means less demand on programs. Big difference in costs? Small difference? Who knows - but common sense dictates there will be a difference, even with a "couple hundred bucks."

For instance, if KOA got up off his fat, lazy royal ass and got a job, he might become a net contributor to the economy and the community instead of the tragic write-off of a human being he currently is. Since that's not coming anytime soon, the example will have to remain hypothetical.

 

[wjousts]

Re: Re: Re: Re: To Kodiak:

If you're talking about federal funds going to the states, well... that's a slightly different matter. But the fact is that if you look beyond the obvious non-adjustable services you mention and look at programs targeted at specific subsets - economic assistance programs, for instance, which every state has in abundance - less personal poverty means less demand on programs. Big difference in costs? Small difference? Who knows - but common sense dictates there will be a difference, even with a "couple hundred bucks."

What you say only makes sense IF people get to keep that couple hundred bucks. If it gets taken back by the state to make up the shortfall in federal funds and the shortfall caused by a downturn in the economy then it doesn't work.

For instance, if KOA got up off his fat, lazy royal ass and got a job, he might become a net contributor to the economy and the community instead of the tragic write-off of a human being he currently is. Since that's not coming anytime soon, the example will have to remain hypothetical.

Your constant personal attacks on KOA are really getting tiring. We get that you don't think much of his ideas and you've made some good points, but the attacks do you no credit. Please change the record.