Comments

2
I do like it, thank you.
3
LOL @1. What an astute nincompoop.
4
So you're just going to speculate rather than calling up a meteorologist? Are you really that lazy?
5
Cliff Mass is having the time of his life this month. :-)

And I agree, LOL at #1.
6
I too get a perverse toddler thrill from telling people what to do -- Get Used To It.
7
Both kids played soccer in it on Saturday. I think people are used to it.
8
@7
Are you saying I don't have to be an arrogant fuck?
9
((so) get used to people telling you to get used to it <tail-recursion>)

i like it! it's got variety.
10
Hate it. Although that line of heavy rain on Saturday was cool. Check out the radar pic:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/nexrad/i…

You don't see a neat line like that often here. Practically unbroken from Everett to Longview.
11
Quick somebody from Denver chime the fuck in so we know what the weather is like there!
12
@8, I don't mind arrogant fucks. It's the passive-aggressive whiners I can't stand. If you end your rant with 'just sayin', I'm going to rip your ironic beard off and stuff it in the pocket of your Patagonia parka.
13
80° and sunny, @11. Thanks for asking.
14
@12
would be nice if the violence and nastiness (beard-ripping) on Slog could be more tangible, real, actual, corporeal. Instead we have mighty soldiers debating with their tender fingertips, an ultimate passive-aggressiveness. Oh well, it's all in response to the Slog Authors, monkey-see monkey-do.
15
So, midday on Monday and still no comment from Goldy or The Stranger on how McGinn pushed for millions of dollars in regressive taxation on Friday. Here, I thought it would have been tackled on Friday evening or over the weekend.

And, I thought Goldy was doing better by making a post on regressive taxes in Washington this week. I guess not when it hurts The Stranger's boy McGinn, they don't give a shit. They only care about the weather.
16
@1 Clausius Clapyron and the strengthening of the global hydrological cycle are related but different. You know what moisture advection is, right, and how it differs from moist thermodynamics?

@7 they don't usually call us. Not sure why, most meteorologists are friendly people who love to nerd out about the weather.
17
By @7 I meant @4.
18

Based on this past fall, warmer and wetter is the climate for the entire globe.

This maps to my general projection that eventually everyplace will be...Seattle.

19
Love it.
20
@ 15, what possesses someone to post like that and neither provide a link nor describe in detail the alleged regressive tax and when McGinn pushed it? You do one or the other, or else you're just spitting in the rain.
21
Wish @15 and his comrades at the Fear-inducing Seattle Times would get a life- or play in a thunderstorm.
22
I'm more concerned about the state of the sun. It seems so much darker than in past Septembers. Are we getting further from the sun? Is the sun shrinking? What's going on with the sun?
23
@20 Here you go. $0.01/oz, or 8% on a 20 oz bottle, or 20% on a $7 12 pack of soda.
24
@21 Ad hominem counter argument. No substance to be found. Try again.
25
@ 23, thanks. Regressive is right.
26
Goldy's too busy licking McGinn's ass clean to do its pretend "journalism".
27
Why's everybody so mean. Stop acting like you're on the internet. It's pretty out no matter where we are, if we live here.
28
@25 yeah. I'm not saying this for S&G'S. I'm saying this because Seattle has the choice between a mayor who just went on the record supporting regressive taxation and a senator who has previously pushed regressive taxation at the state level and has also voted for corporate tax reduction.

Goldy here has just finished writing about how regressive Seattle is, yet nobody criticizes either politician for regressive taxation policies.
29
@28 - Since taxing sugared beverages is also done to discourage unhealthy habits and to offset healthcare cost, it's hardly a typical regressive tax. Such tax work precisely because they are applied uniformly to consumers of targeted product. The regressive nature of such tax isn't a bug, it's a desirable feature.
30
I think I support global warming now.
31
I love it when people complain about the weather here.

"Cool story tourist"
32
@29 So, you're saying that rich people should only be able to afford the myriad of unhealthy things.

The regression isn't from users to non users, it's from rich to poor. And, it's totally a bug in the tax, and a ploy to get a higher percentage of income from the lower classes. That's what sales taxes and sin taxes are. They're taxes that are geared to be low enough to not scare anybody away, but high enough to take more money. And they take higher percentages of money from the lower classes than the higher classes. This is taxation 101.
33
@29 Also, you need to stop lying. This taxation of sugared drinks in no way shape or form offsets health care costs. It goes straight to parks and rec. Health care will not be cheaper because of soda taxations.
34
@32 - Obesity is a public health crisis that touches all income bracket and everyone should be discouraged from consuming junk food or it won't work no matter how much taxing of the wealthy you do. Moreover, nutrition education goes a long way toward stretching income dollars for those with little money, so it's silly to exclude them from bearing the cost of poor food habits. I am also in favor of much more direct methods to decrease junk food consumption as it is as great of a problem as tobacco use. btw, if you think taxes on tobacco aren't made to scare anybody away, you aren't paying attention.

@33 - Silly me. I didn't realize that park use had nothing to do with population health. One could almost wonder why planners think it is important to have parks in towns. Do you know?
35
@34 You just changed the argument away from the fact that IT IS A REGRESSIVE TAX. There is nothing that isn't regressive about it.
36
@35 - You refusing to answer the points I make doesn't mean that I am changing the topic or that I am lying. As I said, if it weren't a regressive tax, it couldn't do what it intends to do, which is reducing junk-food consumption for all tax brackets. Either you want to be proactive in reducing junk food consumption or you don't, but taxing the wealthy alone isn't going to help decrease junk food consumption among the poor.
37
@36 Your refusing to address that the tax is regressive taxation means that you are changing the topic. Cigarette taxes and alcohol taxes are also heavily regressive taxation.

Sin taxes will NOT reduce junk food consumption for all tax brackets. At BEST, it will reduce for the lowest income brackets who won't be able to afford it anymore. Tobacco usage is still frequent, and is increasingly more common among the higher tax brackets than among the lower tax brackets. Alcohol usage is still just as frequent among the higher tax brackets than among the lower tax brackets (who have to resort to stealing alcohol, as displayed by the frequency I see the anti-theft caps).

You're concern trolling in an effort to push a completely regressive new tax that should be the complete and diametric opposite direction we should be pushing taxation. If we weren't already taxing the poor at a rate of 7 TIMES the rate that we're taxing the rich, regressive taxation wouldn't be such a big issue. But, when the lowest 20% are paying 16+% while the rich are paying <3%, you're just putting an increasing burden on the poor, and that fucking sucks.
38
@37 - Your claim that I am avoiding discussing that it is regressive is very baffling since I keep pointing out to you that the regressive nature of that tax is a desirable feature that will enable its success.

It has nothing to do with sin and everything to do with making sure that pushers can't peddle their junk at the expense of health care programs and our ability to afford them.

Taxes to modify behavior affect all tax brackets insofar once a large majority of consumers is affected, the economies of scale of manufacturing a product for the wealthy alone aren't the same.

I am not sure what else you are going to accuse me of doing next but rest assured that I am strongly committed to progressive taxation (always have been so), except when the tax is needed to affect the behavior of all involved; however, I am also for forcing such consumer taxes to be progressive through tax credits for necessary (as of now) products, such as in the case of a carbon tax.
39
I am not sure what else you are going to accuse me of doing next but rest assured that I am strongly committed to progressive taxation (always have been so), except when the tax is needed to affect the behavior of all involved

How noble. You're everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party. Your use of except means that you're not always strongly committed to progressive taxation. You're just a hypocrite, and a moron on top of it.
40
@39 - Your polemical skills are lacking, which explains why you continuously have to resort to accusations that you appear to pull out of your behind.
41
@40 No, I just realized that you're one of those people who wants to use the government and taxation to control people while still deluding yourself that you're a progressive person. There's no arguing with that kind of stupidity. There's no arguing with a person who says that they strongly support progressive taxation, and then in the same sentence say they also support regressive taxation when it suits them. That's called hypocrisy.

And, p.s. Sin taxes are taxes that you put on something that you believe is a detriment to society. Alcohol, tobacco, sugared drinks. These are all sin taxes, and they are the most regressive taxes we have. Saying "this has nothing to do with sin" is either a lie, facetiousness, or complete ignorance.
42
@41 - Government and taxation are institutions of the republic that we have designed to reach our goals, which now include sustainable universal health care. Taxation is a tool to redistribute services and modify behavior. These are just facts. There is nothing stupid about them. They just are.

Do you need links to what associations of physicians say about obesity or should I just let you ramble on about sin?
43
@42 Your stupidity amused me, and it had some content for a little while. Now you're just being painfully obvious troll.

Previous efforts: 8/10
Most recent post: 2/10
44
@43- When you are done with posturing for the gallery in your head, perhaps you'd like to consider that to be progressive one has first to be a republican. Using taxation to change behavior is no more "stupid" than using taxation to redistribute access to service. That you can't tell I am dead serious points to the intellectual morass in your head.
45
Thanks, anon1256. We know the McGinn is on the side of the angels. That's why we're going to stomp him straight into the ground in the election. Stick a flag in that turd and float him in your own pitcher of sugar-free Kool Aid!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.