vt.Buzz ~ a political blog

Political notes from Free Press staff writers Terri Hallenbeck, Sam Hemingway and Nancy Remsen

1.10.2008

State of State: wrap-up

"Affordability" certainly was the word of the day around here in Montpelier. Both Gov. Jm Douglas' State of the State speech and Democrats' response evoked the image of hard-working Vermonters struggling to make ends meet. Douglas proposed half a dozen steps he said would help folks -- some more health care cost-reduction steps, an affordable housing package, the promise of a one-time $25 million property tax cut, help with reducing home heating costs. Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington agreed that compromise is within reach on affordable housing and said health care would be Democrats' priority, too.
Douglas called for raising taxes -- he called it "closing a loophole" -- on unearned income. He told the audience it is "grossly unfair" that people who earn a paycheck pay taxes at a higher rate than those who simply collect income from their investments.
Much of the governor's speech listed a series of small initiatives or investments in new technology, training and business development.
Today was a day for kind words and exhortations and promises of cooperation. But if history is any guide, those kind words and promises are headed for the archive vault along with the speeches. Then the real work will begin.
That's it from the Statehouse. Thanks for checking in with this experiment in live blogging.
-- Candace Page

posted by vt.Buzz | 3:34 PM |

Comments:

Over time, tax revenues are determined by economic and productivity growth.

Vermont's Legislature - and to a lesser extent our Governor - are like children in that they will continue to go on kicking and screaming; refusing to accept of this reality.

The alternative - which is what we're witnessing before our eyes - is a diminution of our standard-of-living.

This will continue for quite some time, thereupon, a new day will dawn when the people will have had it.

# Posted by:

Tom Licata | 5:09 PM, January 10, 2008

I'm all for a tax increase that has the strict purpose of funding business growth> I'd prefer Green and Tech, but I can compromise on that.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 5:20 PM, January 10, 2008

Anonymous: Taxes don't fund business growth, capital formation and cnvestment capital fund busness growth

# Posted by:

Tom Licata | 5:26 PM, January 10, 2008

It is fantastic that the Governor has decided that people whose income is derived, in whole or in part, from investments, should pay taxes at the same rate as those of us who go to the weatshop every day and get a paycheck and a W-2 at the end of the year.

It will be interesting to see what some of our left-wing trust-fund liberals do with this.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:22 PM, January 10, 2008

No offense Candy, but the Governor is one of the most boring people to populate the planet. His speech will be reprinted in both statewide papers.

So why the need for the moment by moment blog? What was going to happen? Was he going to drop trou? Announce his love for Jason Gibbs and support for gay marriage?

Seems to me we could have had a much more comprehensive analysis after the speech than blogging during it.

In the spirit of productive criticism,

a Page Admirer from UPI days

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:09 PM, January 10, 2008

Agreed. What a waste of internet memory. Ms. Page might have been better served trying to pull and write an actual story out of the governor's lightweight speech instead of typing up a minute-by-minute update. Those of us who can hear, see and read will be able to follow the governor's speech, believe it or not.

New tongue twister:

State of our State Stands Strong.

Is that Gibbs' genius speechwriting? Even Douglas tripped over it.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:10 AM, January 11, 2008

I think the point of the posts was to get people thinking about and discussing the issues addressed by the governor. Unfortunately, they evoked more criticism than thought.
Easier to do, I guess.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:17 AM, January 11, 2008

"Anonymous: Taxes don't fund business growth, capital formation and cnvestment capital fund busness growth"

Only in a strict free market world, which we don't have.

For Vermont, It's the chicken and the egg. You have to start somewhere and clearly the $500 million given to IBM from NY and the $500 million-1$ billion incentives given to auto manufacturers are examples of taxes funding business growth. There are plenty more examples in Maine, Cambridge, RTP, etc, in the creation of regional growth centers. Plus there are numerous examples at the federal level involving the military and various national labs.

VT doesn't have a competitive chance when only utilizing pure free market dynamics.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:07 AM, January 11, 2008

"It will be interesting to see what some of our left-wing trust-fund liberals do with this."

This is double edged sword. This tax ensnares many different types of Vermonters. It ensnares Vermonters who have assets that have been passed down through generations.

There was a very rabid mulitple generation caller on the Mark Johnson show this morning who blamed Symington for Douglas' unearned income tax proposal.

For some reason, there is this notion that the trustfunder group is the only existing group that receives differential treatment in Vermont. BUT, the reality is that the tax laws that benefit trustfunders also benefit multi-generation vermonters, retirees, and upper middle class.

There is a reason that this tax hasn't gone anywhere in the past and that is that it impacts more than just the so-called trustfinders.

So, it will be interesting to see how this pans out across the entire state.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:24 AM, January 11, 2008

sorry, no sleep...

differential=preferential

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:25 AM, January 11, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous: Taxes don't fund business growth, capital formation and cnvestment capital fund busness growth"

Only in a strict free market world, which we don't have.

Don't confuse the whacks with the facts. They have neither the intelligence or the incentive to learn anything that would threaten their ignorant, ill-informed, thoroughly-discredited and sliced, diced and pureed world view.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 4:48 PM, January 11, 2008

So, tell us, jw, what's your analysis of how business growth and capital formation happen?

That's what I thought, you don't have one.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:09 PM, January 11, 2008

Anonymous said...

"So, tell us, jw, what's your analysis of how business growth and capital formation happen?"

"That's what I thought, you don't have one"

Really? We went over that already.

Ya gonna try and tell me Tax Incentives and Tax Stabilization aren't a consideration?

Knock yourself out, laff. I love watchin' ya make an ass outta yourself so I'm lovin' life a lot these days.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 10:37 PM, January 11, 2008

Candy neglected to say that the Governor's call for closing the 40% capital gains exemption would be coupled with a cut in the top marginal rate. So he gets to sound good talking about "fairness" but wants to give the money right back to the highest earners. Classic.

As for the comment about the 40% exemption helping multi-generational Vermonters; two thoughts. First, according to the Tax Department, almost half the benefit of the 40% cap gains exemption goes to the top 0.2% of all filers. That about 600 filers out of 300,000. Eighty six percent (86%) of the benefit goes to the top 6.2% of filers. The average benefit from the exemption for those earning less than $60,000 was under $100 in 2003.

Second, thanks to Bush, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15% by the feds. How much more of a break do folks need?

Finally, if we're concerned about farmers and small business owners, we could simply say that you can keep the exemption if the investment that gave rise to the gain was from an investment in Vermont. Simple.

As for Mr. Licata's comments: business growth doesn't happen at all without public investments in schools, roads, public safety, colleges, workforce training, and the rest. But we can't make those investments without money. Most working folks are tapped out. The wealthy have had a great run since Reagan. Taxes for the rich have declined significantly in the last 25 years. And during that period this country has not made the investments necessary to build for the future.

If you don't think taxes and gov't. expenditures matter for business success, you should think again.

# Posted by:

Doug Hoffer | 11:35 PM, January 11, 2008

# Posted by:

Doug Hoffer | 11:35 PM, January 11, 2008

How do you build wealth as a resident of this state with our extremely high personal income tax rates?

If the legislature moves any more burden to the income tax I will pack up my family and my company and head out to Nevada, near Lake Tahoe where the lifestyle is equally nice and there are no state taxes.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:01 AM, January 12, 2008

What this state needs is more Tom Licatas and fewer Doug Hoffers.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:20 AM, January 12, 2008

"If you don't think taxes and gov't. expenditures matter for business success, you should think again."

Right. So if we want to foster business growth (which provides jobs and more taxes), we should work on business-friendly initiatives.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:06 AM, January 12, 2008

I am not a high earner but I want a
state income tax decrease.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 10:22 AM, January 12, 2008

"How do you build wealth as a resident of this state with our extremely high personal income tax rates?"

I suspect some readers don't understand the graduated income tax. VT's top rate doesn't apply until the first dolar after $349,700. Most states have the top rate kick in at $30-$60,000. It makes a HUGE difference.

In fact, there are only about 1,400 filers in the whole state that pay at the top rate.

"I am not a high earner but I want a state income tax decrease."

Everyone wants to pay less. But you would probably be surprised at how competitive VT is compared to other states. For example, if you are married with two kids, own your home, and have an AGI of $80,743, you pay about $1,406 in state income taxes. That is less than half what you would pay in CT, ME, MA, MN, NY, NC, WI, and OR (the states used in the JFO Tax Study that have an income tax).

Sure you can move to Nevada. Good luck. They're running out of water. Plus, their gas tax is 24% higher than VT, the tax on liquor is higher, and the property tax is about 50% higher than in VT (and they don't have income sensitivity).

"Right. So if we want to foster business growth (which provides jobs and more taxes), we should work on business-friendly initiatives."

That's exactly what investments in infrastructure and workforce training are. Every survey of CEO's for years has said the same thing. They want well educated & trained workers, infrastructure, and quality of life. That is what we should be doing.

# Posted by:

Doug Hoffer | 11:28 AM, January 12, 2008

God, here we go AGAIN! The same phony baloney from the JFO "study" showing how cheap Vermont is to live in! Apparently Doug Hoffer thinks that if he lays low for a month or two people will start believing the scam they didn't believe back then! Jeezum crow, I may have fallen off the turnip wagon, but it wasn't last night!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 11:52 AM, January 12, 2008

Of course, there's the fact that anyone making $349.7K/year can afford a CFP or CPA to shield assets and taxable income and reduce that figure to one substantial degree or another before deducting the expense of the service as well.

Perhaps that's why, according to the 6/28/07 Edition of The UK's Times On-Line: "Warren Buffett said that "he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

Of course, what the hell does Warren Buffett know about Business, Business Investment or making money and why the folk would anyone listen to the likes of him when they can get financial advice from the coalition of the clueless likes of tiny bubbles and his anonymous little friend?

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 11:54 AM, January 12, 2008

Anonymous said...

If you don't think taxes and gov't. expenditures matter for business success, you should think again.

"Right. So if we want to foster business growth (which provides jobs and more taxes), we should work on business-friendly initiatives."

Well, little fella, if ya keep givin' tax breaks to business, the costs need to be shifted to the residential property tax and the backs of the individual taxpayer which kinda torpedoes your alleged point and your bogus "rising tide lifts all yachts" gop-slop nonsense argument.

Again.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 12:57 PM, January 12, 2008

Don't let the door hit ya in your ignorant, ill-informed ass on the way out the door if you think you can snag some cheap Lake Tahoe Area Real Estate, little anonymous fella.

Christ, you're even more clueless than you think I think you are.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:01 PM, January 12, 2008

bubba said...

"God, here we go AGAIN! The same phony baloney from the JFO "study" showing how cheap Vermont is to live in!"

When, precisely, did you establish the JFO Study was "phony baloney" bubbles?

"Apparently Doug Hoffer thinks that if he lays low for a month or two people will start believing the scam they didn't believe back then!"

Again, when did you establish that it was a "scam" and who the folk is buyin' your horsebrit?

"Jeezum crow, I may have fallen off the turnip wagon, but it wasn't last night!"

Who says you've been around that long?

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 1:09 PM, January 12, 2008

Ah, 4 off-the-meds posts in a row by jwpsychosis.

"I suspect some readers don't understand the graduated income tax."

And Perfesser Hoffer is back. Hi, Doug!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:37 PM, January 12, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Ah, 4 off-the-meds posts in a row by jwpsychosis."

I suspect some readers don't understand the graduated income tax.

"And Perfesser Hoffer is back. Hi, Doug!"

And laffy boy's still got bupkis.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 5:24 PM, January 12, 2008

Ya gotta expect these types of posts when yo've got a whack-job like Candy Page writing the comments.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:09 PM, January 12, 2008

Candy Page is one of the most respected journalists in Vermont, pal. She knows more about this state and its politics and people than you could ever know. And she knows how to write about it insightfully and incisively.

Get a life -- and while you're at it, get a clue.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:19 PM, January 12, 2008

"The wealthy have had a great run since Reagan. Taxes for the rich have declined significantly in the last 25 years. And during that period this country has not made the investments necessary to build for the future."

Yeah, Reagan was the beginning of the end. He cut funding on a how bunch of stuff. Those who were PhD's ended up doing MS level jobs.

More recently, the United States LOST the top500 spot.

This statement is entirely true.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:37 PM, January 12, 2008

Miller said...

"Candy Page is one of the most respected journalists in Vermont, pal. She knows more about this state and its politics and people than you could ever know. And she knows how to write about it insightfully and incisively."

"Get a life -- and while you're at it, get a clue."

Don't hold your breath. They're ignorant, ill-informed, knuckle-draggin' nitwits and they like it that way.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 8:37 PM, January 12, 2008

Anonymous said...
"The wealthy have had a great run since Reagan. Taxes for the rich have declined significantly in the last 25 years. And during that period this country has not made the investments necessary to build for the future."

"Yeah, Reagan was the beginning of the end. He cut funding on a how bunch of stuff. Those who were PhD's ended up doing MS level jobs."

Yeah, if only Carter had thought to run up huge deficits he probably would have been reelected.

Carter appointed Paul Volcker to head the Fed in 1979. His austerity measures to nuke inflation resulted in a Credit Crunch that sent interest rates through the roof. Carter bit the bullet and did what was right even though it cost him the election.

Reagan took the WH in '81, took credit for ending the Iranian Hostage Crisis when he had nothing to do with it and instituted Reaganomics well over a year after Volcker took over.

Reagan's OMB Director, David Stockman said, "Help, Mr Wizard!!, maybe this supply side horsebrit isn't such a good idea after all," within a year and admitted "supply-side was just a Trojan Horse to bring down the top rate, but it's hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers,"

The Economy didn't turn around until late '83 or early '84.

All Reaganomics ever did was run up the Debt and the Deficit and Cheney is still walking around claiming Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

Then again, like most gops, there's no evidence that Bush or Cheney give a damn about anything or anyone but Bush and Cheney.

Volcker was the one who crushed inflation and provided the safe harbor environment for investors and Carter gave him that opportunity at the cost of his own reelection opportunities.

The Economy flourished in spite of Reaganomics.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:36 PM, January 12, 2008

Reagan's tax cuts swelled the treasury with big bucks, created the greatest job growth in history. Unfortunately, the dimocrat congress never stopped spending more than they could pay for. jw, ask your idol Dougie which branch of our government authorizes spending. DUH! By the way, how did you like Carter's 12 % and up inflation?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:48 AM, January 13, 2008

Job growth is the `80s was no where near as large as the `50s, `60s, and `70s.

As for spending, I guess you've forgotten Reagan's enormous increases in defense. While the Congress went along, it was at Reagan's request.

# Posted by:

Doug Hoffer | 9:03 AM, January 13, 2008

bubba said...

"Reagan's tax cuts swelled the treasury with big bucks, created the greatest job growth in history."

That gop-slop nonsense is almost as brain-dead and bogus as your ridiculous claims that Japan and Nazi Germany posed no threat to us in WWII.

While that is without question, the single-most ridiculous thing you've said and bogus claim you've made, I'm sure you'll top it before long.

As for you Reaganomics rubbish, that's just pure unadulterated horsebrit hume and you don't have an ounce of evidence to substantiate it any more than you do for the rest of your knuckle-draggin' nitwit-nonsense, tiny bubbles.

All Reagan did was increase the debt and the deficit just like the clown we've got now. There was never the Debt or a Deficit until Reagan brought in his trickle-down trash. It didn't work then any more than it worked for the first six years of this schmuck.

"Unfortunately, the dimocrat congress never stopped spending more than they could pay for."

Nice try, nitwit.

First of all, gop-slop for brains, Reagan had a gop Congress for the first six of his 8 years and never submitted a balanced budget to Congress so, once again, the only thing you've managed to prove is that you don't know your sorry butt from your elbow.

"jw, ask your idol Dougie which branch of our government authorizes spending. DUH! By the way, how did you like Carter's 12 % and up inflation?"

I didn't like it any better than Ford's WIN Buttons or Reagan's 13.5 percent inflation in 1981, nitwit.

Paul Volcker ended the Nixon/Ford stagflation Carter inherited from them. He ended inflation and brought down interest rates in spite of Reaganomics, so once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Dismissed.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:26 AM, January 13, 2008

Guess that's why Jimmy Carter is without question the worst president of the 20th Century. Cozied up to every anti-American dictator he could find, lost Iran (not to mention the hostages he just left), gave away the Panama Canal, created the worst inflation in American history, pretty much destroyed the moral and confidence of most Americans, tried to dismantle our military, etc. I can still remember going to a grocery store in the late 70's and seeing cans of food with at least three stickers on top of each other! (each higher) As time passes, trash like Carter get resurrected by the communist "Amerika" haters, thinking everyone has forgotten what disasters they were at the time. I guess you were living in some filthy hippie hovel in Marshfield at the time, poop, living off food stamps in some "community" of the mentally impaired.

Good DAY!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:59 AM, January 13, 2008

Actually, the most beloved liberal leader in the world currently seems to be Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. His country now has an inflation rate of 22.5%, highest in the Americas. Guess he listens to the Hoffers and Krugmans!

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 12:15 PM, January 13, 2008

bubba said...

"Guess that's why Jimmy Carter is without question the worst president of the 20th Century."

No, that would be Warren Harding, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush, tiny bubbles. Carter's not even in the conversation.

"Cozied up to every anti-American dictator he could find, lost Iran (not to mention the hostages he just left), gave away the Panama Canal, created the worst inflation in American history, pretty much destroyed the moral and confidence of most Americans, tried to dismantle our military, etc."

Actually, they were in the air as Reagan took the oath. Too bad the 241 Marines in Beirut Reagan got slaughtered in '83 didn't have Carter to get them out alive and in one piece.

Perhaps if Carter had only chosen to trade arms for hostages like Reagan did so he could have that treasonous trash, Ollie North illegally fund the Contra Death Squads in Nicaragua.

Then again, even with the arms to Iran, Reagan didn't always get the hostages out of in one piece, either. Maybe you should ask their survivors how Reagan stacked up against Carter, little fella.

"I can still remember going to a grocery store in the late 70's and seeing cans of food with at least three stickers on top of each other! (each higher)"

You may be able to take a trip down memory lane before ya know it, sport, the way the Economy is tanking with this incompetent, illegitimate trash schmuck.

"As time passes, trash like Carter get resurrected by the communist "Amerika" haters, thinking everyone has forgotten what disasters they were at the time."

In other words, the facts become available, Reagan is exposed for the fraud he was and Carter - like Truman before him - looks a lot better than his critics and the cretins like Joe McCarthy and MacArthur who attacked him.

"I guess you were living in some filthy hippie hovel in Marshfield at the time, poop, living off food stamps in some "community" of the mentally impaired."

And you'd be wrong about that, too, sport.

As much as we'd like to help you and your anonymous little buddy out, Bubbles, we can't always do as much as we'd like given the hole the nitwit in chief has put the Country into.

I'm afraid you and laffy boy are just gonna have to do more with less.

If ya can't book passage on the rat line to Argentina, perhaps ya can bunk with the Dukestir.

Besides, the worst inflation was in 1981 when Reagan was President.

Feel free to look it up.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 2:32 PM, January 13, 2008

bubba said...

"Actually, the most beloved liberal leader in the world currently seems to be Hugo Chavez of Venezuela."

What sheep had to die to provide you the entrails from which you've divined this nonsense and why??

Don't turn your back on the Humane Society, bubble boy.

"His country now has an inflation rate of 22.5%, highest in the Americas. Guess he listens to the Hoffers and Krugmans!"

And the sheep guts predicting this crap came from.....?

Bubble boy's got bupkis.

Dismissed

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 2:46 PM, January 13, 2008

"It didn't work then any more than it worked for the first six years of this schmuck."

Actually, in a twisted way, Reganomics worked. Tax cuts and huge military spending (ironic Keynesianism) gave us big deficits, but it definitely primed the economic pump. Bush I and Clinton came along and tamed the deficits, and enjoyed a decade's worth of prosperity. You could certainly argue that Reagan's extreme Keynesianism started the prosperity that lasted until the late 90's, albeit with huge deficits at the outset that had to be cured by his successors.

Isn't that exactly what Keynes called for?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 3:23 PM, January 13, 2008

Interesting argument. However, too many big words for poop, so be prepared to be "assaulted" in little poopy's usual oft-repeated canned reply that he uses when strung out on Prozak or had too much sugar.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 4:38 PM, January 13, 2008

" The average benefit from the exemption for those earning less than $60,000 was under $100 in 2003."

This masks the fact that the number of people earning under $60k is great and that a $100 average benefit ends up being a significant amount of money. Secondly, multi-generational people claiming gains won't be a huge number of people, but they do exist and probably in numbers similar to the so-called trustfunders group. Thirdly, multi-generationals tend to have realty based gains and paying gains on a land sale is easily avoided or reduced simply by posting losses that are either not actual expenses or expenses that have been wildly inflated. So the actual dollar amounts will be somewhat skewed to appear as though fewer people have gain.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 9:30 AM, January 14, 2008

bubba said...

"Interesting argument. However, too many big words for poop, so be prepared to be "assaulted" in little poopy's usual oft-repeated canned reply that he uses when strung out on Prozak or had too much sugar."

In other words, bubble boy's got bupkis.

Tell us some more stories about FDR causing the Depression and Japan and Nazi Germany posed no threat to us during WWII, bubble boy.

That's entertainment.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:45 AM, January 14, 2008

Show us where he said FDR *caused" the depression.

He said FDR didn't get us out of it until WWII came along. Many
economists and historians agree.

Can you have a discussion with people without misrepresenting what they wrote?

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 7:17 PM, January 14, 2008

Anonymous said...

"He said FDR didn't get us out of it until WWII came along. Many
economists and historians agree."

Many don't.

"Can you have a discussion with people without misrepresenting what they wrote?

Ya mean like this, little fella:

Anonymous said...

jw: "Yaw retahded!"

Bubba: "No, you ah!"

jw: "No, you ah! And so is everyone else on heah."

Feel free to show just where I said what you allegedly have me quoted as saying, little fella.

Or this:

Anonymous said...

"So, tell us, jw, what's your analysis of how business growth and capital formation happen?

That's what I thought, you don't have one."

Feel free to show just where I said anything about my "analysis of how business growth and capital formation happen," little fella, and the factual basis for your assertion I don't have one.

And this:

Anonymous said...

"In other words, you got:

"Blah, blah, schmuck, blah, blah, shmendrik, blah, blah, dismissed, blah, blah."

Feel free to point out just where I'm being quoted saying that, little fella.

That's what I thought.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 12:19 PM, January 15, 2008

"Feel free to point out where I ever said anything that I actually said, implied, or suggested."

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 6:58 AM, January 16, 2008

Anonymous said...

"Feel free to point out where I ever said anything that I actually said, implied, or suggested."

About what? You're gonna have to be more specific, little fella.

In other word you've got bupkis.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:03 AM, January 16, 2008

Anonymous said...

"It's pretty clear that people fear a Pollina candidacy. Every time he runs for office or even opens his mouth people complain he's done something illegal or unfair."

Nah, he's just responsible for infecting the Vermont Bloodstream with Brian Dubie.

If you're aware of any other Pollina "accomplishments" on behalf of the State of Vermont, feel free to refresh my memory.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:24 AM, January 16, 2008

blah blah bupkis blah blah bupkis blah blah bupkis blah blah.

# Posted by:

Anonymous | 8:39 PM, January 16, 2008

Anonymous said...

"blah blah bupkis blah blah bupkis blah blah bupkis blah blah."

That's the most persuasive, factually-based argument you've made yet, little fella.

Keep up the good work.

You may just make 4th Grade yet.

At least the tanking economy is takin' folk's minds off the war and the high price of gas, little fella. That should make ya feel better about things.

Always a pleasure.

# Posted by:

JWCoop10 | 9:33 PM, January 16, 2008