Budget vote coming soon

[Jeremy Mason]

You're being absurd, I think you know. I don't know if you were even born, when the American dream began sailing away.

 

[1robin]

Thanks to Ted Cruise Lines, the American dream has sailed away.

Did he or the liberals spend those trillions on crap the Chinese worked so hard to earn? Right or wrong, good or bad, the Liberal economic plan will break us. There exists no alternative and has already probably occurred, but we are still bleeding out.

 

[1robin]

I don't detect any Republicans in this thread.
(My tricorder has a setting for that.)

It must be under the economic responsibility tab that no liberal knows the existence of.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Is supposed to mean something? Do you think you're not being absurd, blaming one man's fillibuster last week for all our country's woes? Please explain to us, how exactly that one man destroyed the "American Dream". I'm all ears

​

 

[metis]

Did he or the liberals spend those trillions on crap the Chinese worked so hard to earn? Right or wrong, good or bad, the Liberal economic plan will break us. There exists no alternative and has already probably occurred, but we are still bleeding out.

Actually it was the result of what both sides of the aisle had agreed to with the issues of free trade and the rescinding parts of Glass-Steagall. Remember H. Ross Perot's about "sucking sounds" as American jobs move out.

Our politicians went for quick money but created long-term problems, and now we're stuck with the "new normal".

 

[1robin]

Actually it was the result of what both sides of the aisle had agreed to with the issues of free trade and the rescinding parts of Glass-Steagall. Remember H. Ross Perot's about "sucking sounds" as American jobs move out.

Yes we are heading towards a cliff. The Republicans at times approach it at a few miles per hour but at least honestly admit it exists and needs to be addressed. The liberals are heading towards it a light speed, and either argue no cliffs exist anywhere or cliffs are god things and anyone who does not want to fall off it is on some moral low ground they invent by torturing words to death. American jobs have moved for many reasons but the main ones are: Liberal unions making sucking the life out of companies they did not create like an economic parasite, and liberals passing the highest corporate tax rates in history.

Our politicians went for quick money but created long-term problems, and now we're stuck with the "new normal".

They are all imperfect but does it not make sense to condemn the worst by far and improve on the least wrong side. Even leaving out moral policy claims the liberals are spending the nation into the ground at break neck speed. There will (and probably already is) be nothing to improve left, if we keep on the track the liberals have been on since FDR.

 

[1robin]

Is supposed to mean something? Do you think you're not being absurd, blaming one man's fillibuster last week for all our country's woes? Please explain to us, how exactly that one man destroyed the "American Dream". I'm all ears

It means that no actual argument existed and so a digital proxy was selected to do what the human had the burden for. But who cares, it is only the greatest nation in human history that is being destroyed?

 

[metis]

Yes we are heading towards a cliff. The Republicans at times approach it at a few miles per hour but at least honestly admit it exists and needs to be addressed. The liberals are heading towards it a light speed, and either argue no cliffs exist anywhere or cliffs are god things and anyone who does not want to fall off it is on some moral low ground they invent by torturing words to death.

The deficit growth rate has been cut in half, and both parties have been able to do that, so I'm not giving credit to just one.

Secondly, when the private sector tanks, as it did oin the fall of 2008, the public sector needed to kick in or we'd be in a deep mess. Most economists that I had read or heard from even prior to Obama taking office said that even with the extra spending and "bail outs", it would take 5-10 years to recover and that we aren't going back to where we were because that was jacked up because of "the bubble", mostly because of the ready availability of sub-prime mortgages, which in tern was a by-product of both the shadow-banking system and also increased deregulation.

BTW, if one actually looks at the economic history of the U.S. over the last three decades, Democratic administrations contributed significantly less to the deficit than Republican administrations.

American jobs have moved for many reasons but the main ones are: Liberal unions making sucking the life out of companies they did not create like an economic parasite, and liberals passing the highest corporate tax rates in history.

Might as well accuse the unions of causing sun spots and hurricanes. Net corporate tax rates are at their lowest since WWII. So many of the top 50 corporations paid little or no federal corporate taxes. For example, Exxon-Mobil paid $0 federal corporate taxes, and yet we actually paid them subsidies out of tax-payer funds.

It's simply not just a "liberal" thingy and, as a matter of fact, Reagan and "W" contributed a higher percentage to the national debt than Obama did, but don't tell this to the Fox "News" crowd, OK?

 

[1robin]

The deficit growth rate has been cut in half, and both parties have been able to do that, so I'm not giving credit to just one.

What does that mean? The rate at which we are spending other people's money is not increasing as fast? That is like going over the cliff in a car that is not accelerating as fast and calling that an answer to the problem of still approaching cliff?

Secondly, when the private sector tanks, as it did oin the fall of 2008, the public sector needed to kick in or we'd be in a deep mess. Most economists that I had read or heard from even prior to Obama taking office said that even with the extra spending and "bail outs", it would take 5-10 years to recover and that we aren't going back to where we were because that was jacked up because of "the bubble", mostly because of the ready availability of sub-prime mortgages, which in tern was a by-product of both the shadow-banking system and also increased deregulation.

If you mean the government it has nothing to kick in. It produces no money but takes it from others and spends it on stuff that caused the problem in the first place. The nation has become over half those who do not produce sucking on the less than half that do. The very last thing that needs to be done is to increase the number that live off the other. The real-estate problem was known to republicans long ago. In 2002 they had hearings which I have seen. Even rhino's like McCain saw the fire wall the liberal policy of granting loans to those who had no hope of repaying them was headed towards. The liberals accused them of inventing a problem where none existed. Then blamed the problem they had caused and refused to correct when it occurred. Then they even propped up the same failing policies that got us there. Reagan grew the economy by doing he exact opposite of what Liberals have done and even with the lesson and the failure of their tactics they are still doing them at an increased rate. You can't win doing what has always failed, in spite of what has always worked.

BTW, if one actually looks at the economic history of the U.S. over the last three decades, Democratic administrations contributed significantly less to the deficit than Republican administrations.

FDR alone took the dollar from worth approx. $1.17 to approx. $.20. No one or combination of people have ever damaged the economy more. If WW2 had not broke out we would have not survived what he alone did. Obama has spent more than any president in history. Where did you get this?

Might as well accuse the unions of causing sun spots and hurricanes. Net corporate tax rates are at their lowest since WWII. So many of the top 50 corporations paid little or no federal corporate taxes. For example, Exxon-Mobil paid $0 federal corporate taxes, and yet we actually paid them subsidies out of tax-payer funds.

There were two issues there. Labor unions and taxes. I did not link them. We have the highest corporate tax rates on Earth. To get into net rates which depend on the swamp that is our tax codes is impractical for a debate and probably impractical for an accountant. What is certain is that companies can throw a dart at a map and be sure they will pay lower taxes. Are you suggesting that companies are moving to higher tax brackets and higher labor costs?

It's simply not just a "liberal" thingy and, as a matter of fact, Reagan and "W" contributed a higher percentage to the national debt than Obama did, but don't tell this to the Fox "News" crowd, OK?

http://www.justfacts.com/images/nationaldebt/total_expenditures_receipts-full.png

 

[metis]

If you mean the government it has nothing to kick in. It produces no money but takes it from others and spends it on stuff that caused the problem in the first place.

That's complete nonsense as any economist will tell you. If what you said was true, then logically China should be an economic wasteland since they have far more government ownership and regulations than the U.S. does. The government supplies services and sometimes materials, as all private businesses do, and people who work for the government earn and spend money, such as all workers in the private sector do.

When the retired treasury secretary for Sweden was asked what propelled his country to pass up most other industrialized countries in the standard of living area, including the U.S. btw, he said "Higher taxes". Tell that to the "whiz kids" at Fox and watch their heads explode.

The real-estate problem was known to republicans long ago... The liberals accused them of inventing a problem where none existed.

Another fabrication, which again makes not one iota of sense. Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled both branches of government and the presidency. Secondly, many Democrats warned of the problem, even more so than the Republicans since it is mostly Keynesian economists that saw the handwriting on the wall. Generally speaking, the conservative economists, such as Alan Greenspan is, didn't see it coming until too late (2005 in his case).

Reagan grew the economy by doing he exact opposite of what Liberals have done and even with the lesson and the failure of their tactics they are still doing them at an increased rate.

He grew the economy through massive deficit spending. Here's the term increases by Reagan (11.3 & 9.3%), "W" (7.1 & 20.7%), and Obama (18.5%). See: History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that Obama had no choice but to spend more because of the mess he inherited.

Obama has spent more than any president in history. Where did you get this?

Not according to the above, and also that chart does not include the slowing down of the rate of the deficit over the last year.

We have the highest corporate tax rates on Earth. To get into net rates which depend on the swamp that is our tax codes is impractical for a debate and probably impractical for an accountant.

It's only the net that counts.

You really need to get away from the Fox Propaganda Channel because their "talking points" are chock full of lies and distortions.

 

[1robin]

That's complete nonsense as any economist will tell you. If what you said was true, then logically China should be an economic wasteland since they have far more government ownership and regulations than the U.S. does. The government supplies services and sometimes materials, as all private businesses do, and people who work for the government earn and spend money, such as all workers in the private sector do.

Are all forms of government equal? Is what is true of a democracy, true of a communist utopia? Lessons from equality only exists between equal things. China has literally built billion dollar cities, malls, and facilities that are ghost towns, specifically because Governments are the most inefficient organizations in history. The largest mall ever constructed is completely vacant yet a large portion of their citizens starve from time to time. However China has nothing to do with this. The Government lives off of others, what it provides it forces others to pay for. It is a bloated inefficient mess and is currently more so than at any time in our past.

Abstract: The great and calamitous fiscal trends of our time—dependence on government by an increasing portion of the American population, and soaring debt that threatens the financial integrity of the economy—worsened yet again in 2010 and 2011. The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction of both trends or face economic and social collapse. Yet policymakers made little progress on either front since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published. Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes. Related to these disturbing trends, publicly held debt continued its amazing ascent without any plan by the government to pay it back. As if those circumstances were not dire enough, the country is about to witness the largest generational retirement in world history by a population that will depend on currently bankrupted pension and health programs.
The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

I can only give one of the latest examples as there are far too many to post. The latest government shutdown. Obama said that since the government has done nothing in history in a efficient manner we should hand over 1/6 of our economy to those most incapable of administering their own lives much less ours. The most important 1/6. He did so by bribes, legal fiats, arm twisting, and defying the constitution. It was to save us money. It is not even in fully implemented and every month brings a higher cost and new problems. This will be the worst disaster in US legislative history and ruin the greatest medical care on Earth. Finally the Republicans said enough is enough. A guy who owned a non-government inn park called a show the other day. Obama had ordered him to shut down so as to maximize our discomfort so we would force a resolution on something over half the people do not want. He refused, so rangers were actually paid to force him to close. So they spent money to stop him from earning money that he paid a portion of into the government. This is dishonest, illegal, tyrannical, and economic insanity and is repeated all over the nation.

When the retired treasury secretary for Sweden was asked what propelled his country to pass up most other industrialized countries in the standard of living area, including the U.S. btw, he said "Higher taxes". Tell that to the "whiz kids" at Fox and watch their heads explode.

He was perfectly wrong. What propels Sweden's success is the largest per capita un tapped natural resource supply on Earth. A politician who is arguing for higher taxes is not something any lesson can come from. We are the only ones with more resources but the liberal EPA has made our own resources in-accessible. However if it is a choice between getting them more to tax money to spend in an effort to buy votes then the moose and endangered minnows will be ground under foot by the same people that protect that at any cost to humanity at this time. It is our last hope. However it will be squandered as well and will only delay the inevitable. If you doubt me on Sweden I have exhaustively explained what is going on there in detail in this forum.

Another fabrication, which again makes not one iota of sense. Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled both branches of government and the presidency. Secondly, many Democrats warned of the problem, even more so than the Republicans since it is mostly Keynesian economists that saw the handwriting on the wall. Generally speaking, the conservative economists, such as Alan Greenspan is, didn't see it coming until too late (2005 in his case).

I saw the entire hearing. I know exactly who said what. It can even be found in it's entirety. Do you want a link? The bubble came from two main sources. Carter's affordable housing legislation and Clinton's doubling down on the same plan.
Keynesian economics is what causes the problems, not ever what fixes them. It is not complicated.

1. Liberals have a long tradition of spending money to recruit voting blocks usually among the lower classes that far outstrips republicans spending in excess on things like the military (which by the way bankrupted Russia).
2. They did this through Carter's mandate that let institutions lend money without much risk. They gave loans to people who did not qualify because they were backed up by our tax money (not Carters private stash).
3. Clinton allocated more money (much more) to the programs and made it even easier to buy what could not be paid for.
4. Republicans tried many times to revoke that legislation but liberals over and over said there was no problem.
5. The economy started taking a few hits and a chain of defaults cascaded and as usual every trick known to a dishonest man was put forth to blame only those that tried to stop it.
6. It has not even been corrected by current liberal policy and the same cycle is beginning again.

Getting stuff wrong is necessary but blaming others and then not correcting it for the sake of power politics is unacceptable and unsustainable. Do you even admit that there is a cliff coming and we are still heading towards it fast?

He grew the economy through massive deficit spending. Here's the term increases by Reagan (11.3 & 9.3%), "W" (7.1 & 20.7%), and Obama (18.5%). See: History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never said Reagan did not increase the deficit. Obama has spent more money than he ever did and we still have terrible unemployment and economic unsustainability. Reagan grew the economy at break neck speed, created far more jobs, and buried the USSR in an arms race which tore down the Berlin wall. Obama has only managed to take over much that was private in Reagans day and is proceeding to ruin it as fast as possible, get our ratings downgraded for the first time, embarrass us on a global scale, and create the most non-transparent, racially charged, and partisan government in my lifetime.

Note that Obama had no choice but to spend more because of the mess he inherited.

I see you have finally at least admitted he did spend more. I see however we are still at the blame everyone else stage. He spent enough money to employ every unemployed person in the nation and unemployment actually grew. How is that even possible? How can you put almost a trillion into the economy and it get worse? That is a special kind of wrong that is difficult to even imagine.

Not according to the above, and also that chart does not include the slowing down of the rate of the deficit over the last year.

How is the slowing in the rate of increase over one year a meaningful argument. When the rate of the increase involved in killing something slowing is the best argument a side has then there is something dreadfully wrong with that side.

It's only the net that counts.

The amount of information it would take to get into the effects of our diabolical tax codes on the net is beyond the scope of a post.

You really need to get away from the Fox Propaganda Channel because their "talking points" are chock full of lies and distortions.

I do not watch fox. I have seen less than an hour total of fox news in my entire life. However it is far more accurate than any other network which is reflected in it's ratings and the lack of ratings for all liberal networks.

 

[metis]

Are all forms of government equal? Is what is true of a democracy, true of a communist utopia? Lessons from equality only exists between equal things. China has literally built billion dollar cities, malls, and facilities that are ghost towns, specifically because Governments are the most inefficient organizations in history. The largest mall ever constructed is completely vacant yet a large portion of their citizens starve from time to time. However China has nothing to do with this. The Government lives off of others, what it provides it forces others to pay for. It is a bloated inefficient mess and is currently more so than at any time in our past.

Abstract: The great and calamitous fiscal trends of our time—dependence on government by an increasing portion of the American population, and soaring debt that threatens the financial integrity of the economy—worsened yet again in 2010 and 2011. The United States has long reached the point at which it must reverse the direction of both trends or face economic and social collapse. Yet policymakers made little progress on either front since the 2010 Index of Dependence on Government was published. Today, more people than ever before—67.3 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries—depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions. The United States reached another milestone in 2010: For the first time in history, half the population pays no federal income taxes. Related to these disturbing trends, publicly held debt continued its amazing ascent without any plan by the government to pay it back. As if those circumstances were not dire enough, the country is about to witness the largest generational retirement in world history by a population that will depend on currently bankrupted pension and health programs.
The 2012 Index of Dependence on Government

I can only give one of the latest examples as there are far too many to post. The latest government shutdown. Obama said that since the government has done nothing in history in a efficient manner we should hand over 1/6 of our economy to those most incapable of administering their own lives much less ours. The most important 1/6. He did so by bribes, legal fiats, arm twisting, and defying the constitution. It was to save us money. It is not even in fully implemented and every month brings a higher cost and new problems. This will be the worst disaster in US legislative history and ruin the greatest medical care on Earth. Finally the Republicans said enough is enough. A guy who owned a non-government inn park called a show the other day. Obama had ordered him to shut down so as to maximize our discomfort so we would force a resolution on something over half the people do not want. He refused, so rangers were actually paid to force him to close. So they spent money to stop him from earning money that he paid a portion of into the government. This is dishonest, illegal, tyrannical, and economic insanity and is repeated all over the nation.



He was perfectly wrong. What propels Sweden's success is the largest per capita un tapped natural resource supply on Earth. A politician who is arguing for higher taxes is not something any lesson can come from. We are the only ones with more resources but the liberal EPA has made our own resources in-accessible. However if it is a choice between getting them more to tax money to spend in an effort to buy votes then the moose and endangered minnows will be ground under foot by the same people that protect that at any cost to humanity at this time. It is our last hope. However it will be squandered as well and will only delay the inevitable. If you doubt me on Sweden I have exhaustively explained what is going on there in detail in this forum.



I saw the entire hearing. I know exactly who said what. It can even be found in it's entirety. Do you want a link? The bubble came from two main sources. Carter's affordable housing legislation and Clinton's doubling down on the same plan.
Keynesian economics is what causes the problems, not ever what fixes them. It is not complicated.

1. Liberals have a long tradition of spending money to recruit voting blocks usually among the lower classes that far outstrips republicans spending in excess on things like the military (which by the way bankrupted Russia).
2. They did this through Carter's mandate that let institutions lend money without much risk. They gave loans to people who did not qualify because they were backed up by our tax money (not Carters private stash).
3. Clinton allocated more money (much more) to the programs and made it even easier to buy what could not be paid for.
4. Republicans tried many times to revoke that legislation but liberals over and over said there was no problem.
5. The economy started taking a few hits and a chain of defaults cascaded and as usual every trick known to a dishonest man was put forth to blame only those that tried to stop it.
6. It has not even been corrected by current liberal policy and the same cycle is beginning again.

Getting stuff wrong is necessary but blaming others and then not correcting it for the sake of power politics is unacceptable and unsustainable. Do you even admit that there is a cliff coming and we are still heading towards it fast?

I never said Reagan did not increase the deficit. Obama has spent more money than he ever did and we still have terrible unemployment and economic unsustainability. Reagan grew the economy at break neck speed, created far more jobs, and buried the USSR in an arms race which tore down the Berlin wall. Obama has only managed to take over much that was private in Reagans day and is proceeding to ruin it as fast as possible, get our ratings downgraded for the first time, embarrass us on a global scale, and create the most non-transparent, racially charged, and partisan government in my lifetime.

I see you have finally at least admitted he did spend more. I see however we are still at the blame everyone else stage. He spent enough money to employ every unemployed person in the nation and unemployment actually grew. How is that even possible? How can you put almost a trillion into the economy and it get worse? That is a special kind of wrong that is difficult to even imagine.


How is the slowing in the rate of increase over one year a meaningful argument. When the rate of the increase involved in killing something slowing is the best argument a side has then there is something dreadfully wrong with that side.

The amount of information it would take to get into the effects of our diabolical tax codes on the net is beyond the scope of a post.

I do not watch fox. I have seen less than an hour total of fox news in my entire life. However it is far more accurate than any other network which is reflected in it's ratings and the lack of ratings for all liberal networks.

Lots of words, but after reading the first paragraph I just stopped reading and just skimmed a bit because it's sheer nonsense as anyone who has studied economics can tell you. My oldest daughter was in China two years ago, and if I forwarded the above to her, it probably would take several months to get her to stop laughing. And a close friend of mine's daughter has been working in China for the last two years, and she coud tell you a thing or two.

China's rate of growth is impressive enough to have economists projecting that they will pass us up probably by around 2020. Your Swedish remarks are nothing short of total nonsense because it stereotypes their situation in regards to resources. Your remarks about Obama are actually laughable.

For what it's worth, if you're going to just ramble on and on posting nonsense like the above, all I'm going to do is to ignore most of what you may write.

BTW, let me suggest getting the book "Freefall" by Joseph Stiglitz, who's a Nobel Prize winning economist, and he takes you through the events point-by-point that took us up to the Great Recession.

 

[1robin]

Lots of words, but after reading the first paragraph I just stopped reading and just skimmed a bit because it's sheer nonsense as anyone who has studied economics can tell you. My oldest daughter was in China two years ago, and if I forwarded the above to her, it probably would take several months to get her to stop laughing. And a close friend of mine's daughter has been working in China for the last two years, and she coud tell you a thing or two.

What I said is a matter of common knowledge and can be proven to a certainty. I can give you pictures of those vacant cities and malls. You may consider facts nonsense but most of us do not and if facts can't settle the issue then it is emotionally based and is incapable of being resolved.

China's rate of growth is impressive enough to have economists projecting that they will pass us up probably by around 2020. Your Swedish remarks are nothing short of total nonsense because it stereotypes their situation in regards to resources. Your remarks about Obama are actually laughable.

Stereo type or not it is a demonstrable fact. Again if facts are nonsense just say so and I will stop this futile discussion. Regardless of my facts being right communism is not an equality with a democracy and is not relevant. Your unsupported commentary about Obama requires no response.

For what it's worth, if you're going to just ramble on and on posting nonsense like the above, all I'm going to do is to ignore most of what you may write.

BTW, let me suggest getting the book "Freefall" by Joseph Stiglitz, who's a Nobel Prize winning economist, and he takes you through the events point-by-point that took us up to the Great Recession.

I see facts and evidence are of no use. Cognitive dissonance is impossible to overcome. I will leave you to your preferred reality. I only wish that our politicians did not do the same thing and in the process destroy the last great hope for mankind of Earth. A bunch of people gave everything they had to create the greatest nation in history. It is a shame to watch it be destroyed by vote buying economic insanity disguised as benevolence. You want me to read an entire book but you would not even read my post? Joseph Stiglitz sounds like a character in that crazy Inglorious Bas....ds movie. I will concentrate on debating your theological claims alone.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

He was perfectly wrong. What propels Sweden's success is the largest per capita un tapped natural resource supply on Earth.

This is simply not true.

A politician who is arguing for higher taxes is not something any lesson can come from. We are the only ones with more resources but the liberal EPA has made our own resources in-accessible. However if it is a choice between getting them more to tax money to spend in an effort to buy votes then the moose and endangered minnows will be ground under foot by the same people that protect that at any cost to humanity at this time. It is our last hope. However it will be squandered as well and will only delay the inevitable. If you doubt me on Sweden I have exhaustively explained what is going on there in detail in this forum.

This is not only false but it's DEMONSTRABLY false by both history and the current support for reduced taxes which is supported by a minority only.


Your knowledge on Sweden is nil, absolutely nil.

 

[1robin]

This is simply not true.



This is not only false but it's DEMONSTRABLY false by both history and the current support for reduced taxes which is supported by a minority only.


Your knowledge on Sweden is nil, absolutely nil.

You have burned all your bridges. As much as I wish to tear this to peace's it is not worth what I would have to put with to do so. I asked you for civility many times. It is too late.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

You have burned all your bridges. As much as I wish to tear this to peace's it is not worth what I would have to put with to do so. I asked you for civility many times. It is too late.

I don't really care if you respond or not it's just that when you regurgitate the absolute crap you've been fed it's annoying to someone who has lived in Sweden for 40+ years and who knows the history and politics as well as the latest politics (the latest proposed reduction on income taxes has minority support among the population) it's kind of annoying.

Mainly because you're flat out wrong.

 

[1robin]

I don't really care if you respond or not it's just that when you regurgitate the absolute crap you've been fed it's annoying to someone who has lived in Sweden for 40+ years and who knows the history and politics as well as the latest politics (the latest proposed reduction on income taxes has minority support among the population) it's kind of annoying.

Mainly because you're flat out wrong.

And this is exactly why I do not.

 

[metis]

I don't really care if you respond or not it's just that when you regurgitate the absolute crap you've been fed it's annoying to someone who has lived in Sweden for 40+ years and who knows the history and politics as well as the latest politics (the latest proposed reduction on income taxes has minority support among the population) it's kind of annoying.

Mainly because you're flat out wrong.

Which area of Sweden, might I ask? Part of my family was from Skanee, and when they came here they settled into the little town of Skanee in the U.P. of Michigan near where my wife and I live.

BTW, thanks for pointing out the absurdity of what someone else had posted on this thread as it gets very frustrating here at times.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Which area of Sweden, might I ask? Part of my family was from Skanee, and when they came here they settled into the little town of Skanee in the U.P. of Michigan near where my wife and I live.

BTW, thanks for pointing out the absurdity of what someone else had posted on this thread as it gets very frustrating here at times.

You mean Skåne? That's the most southern "landscape" in Sweden (nowadays it's both a "landscape" and a "commune", Sweden is divided into landscapes, communes and cities/towns)

I'm from Stockholm.

Not to worry, i've dealt with him before where he accused me of being insulting and using profanity because i used the phrase "god damned" after which he in three consecutive posts called me dishonest, immature and a liar. I find his hypocrisy amusing. I guess he just doesn't like it when someone points out that he's wrong and he can't reply without looking silly and rather to admit that he was wrong he'll go with some silly "i'm not talking to you anymore" whine.

 

[metis]

You mean Skåne? That's the most southern "landscape" in Sweden (nowadays it's both a "landscape" and a "commune", Sweden is divided into landscapes, communes and cities/towns)

I'm from Stockholm.

Yes, "Skanee" is the anglicized spelling here in Michigan. I also have relatives just north of Stockholm but I can't remember the name of the town.