California now faces budget cuts ?beyond draconian?

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: PricklyPete
Closing State parks seems like a really poor decision....and I'm surprised this is allowed to fly in a state with so many environmentalists.

It is a political game, State parks are highly visible and draw lots of attention. If they cut the Department of Navel Gazing and zeroed out their budget no one other than the affected employees would notice or care. If you close start parks, cut fire and police services, and play with education the theory is the people will then beg you to raise their taxes.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Good. I want California to fall into a cesspoolish hell, like a state-wide Detroit. Then perhaps it can serve as a lesson to the other 49 states to get their f**king sh*t together

You aren't learning the lesson of California about what works well - and what doesn't.

Democrats have done just fine on state policy; Republicans have been able to screw things up by having a 2/3 requirement for passing budgets.

California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

And yet we have this thread. The only lesson it's teaching right now is that no other state should emulate it.

I also love how when Republicans are in charge, they are the problem, yet when Democrats are in charge, the Republicans are at fault. THAT's comedy. In actuality, nearly ALL politicians are at fault (there are some good ones, believe it or not).

 

[BudAshes]

the problem with california is that LA needs to be washed into the arizona bay.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Good. I want California to fall into a cesspoolish hell, like a state-wide Detroit. Then perhaps it can serve as a lesson to the other 49 states to get their f**king sh*t together and not end up in a budgetary crisis, too.

Since when are humans and governments good at learning from others mistakes when it comes to spending and gluttony?

Good point. I guess that leaves us with the only benefit being we can laugh at CA until we're in the same spot.

I agree with AndrewR. Moreover, the only good thing about CA is its awesome weather and geography. In no other way is it nice. It's crowded and expensive.

 

[LordGestle]

Originally posted by: nullzero

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

Yeah, if you're poor and want to just get high all day.

Uhmm, California has a per capita income higher than the national average. It's an amazing state, one that everyone should visit. There's a reason why so much of US culture flows from a single state.

I have been born and lived all my life in CA. And you two are both full of it... CA is a beautiful state but not all it is cracked up to be unless you are a rich person. Most of the wealth we have experienced in CA has been based off debt, cheap labor, and good weather (attracts people).

For a while CA had it good but unfortunately the good times have come to an end due to; over crowding, extreme real estate prices, high taxes, high crime, to much debt (personal and state government), over abundance of cheap illegal workers screwing over wages for everyone else who pays taxes, and getting more out of the system then you pay in.

Very true. Born and raised in Ca and seen over ther years the sense of entitlement grow to the point I know way more people living off of the system vs putting in to the system. Welfare, Disability, Unemployment, and etc are needed but are abused. Many people believe a way to improve your income on these programs is to have another child. My family on the other hand would like to have another one, but could not afford it. Yet these people keep abusing the system with no penalities.

Just goes back to Ca punishing the people that contribute, ie further taxation and cutting back on programs that these people utilize (ie parks/education), but would not dare looking into these social programs.

Still bafffles my mind in that property taxes averaged 4-7K per home in these major areas for several years, and were still under. Way to much money going out and what needs to happen is a review of all the programs, with the cost associated with each, not just something visible that will penalize the tax payer for not voting for your tax hikes. Everyone is cutting back, so it's only expected the government do the same. However, as others have mentioned, short term gains to spark controversy will not resolve the long term problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

California is a "nanny state' because they can't balance their budget and are under water. Texas is not a nanny state because they do a better job of balancing their budget. In addition, instead of overpaying their cops to "keep law and order".. Texas has the conceal carry law, allowing citizens to protect themselves (thus saving the government money). Texas also helps provide oil to the rest of the nation -- thats why the government gives Texas a lot of money... for oil. Without Texa's contribution with the oil supply, the USA wouldn't be able to function as well. Also, Texas has been very smart about their budget, that's they don't have state income tax.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

California is a "nanny state' because they can't balance their budget and are under water. Texas is not a nanny state because they do a better job of balancing their budget. In addition, instead of overpaying their cops to "keep law and order".. Texas has the conceal carry law, allowing citizens to protect themselves (thus saving the government money). Texas also helps provide oil to the rest of the nation -- thats why the government gives Texas a lot of money... for oil. Without Texa's contribution with the oil supply, the USA wouldn't be able to function as well. Also, Texas has been very smart about their budget, that's they don't have state income tax.

The definition of the term 'nanny state' has absolutely nothing to do with a balanced budget.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

California is a "nanny state' because they can't balance their budget and are under water. Texas is not a nanny state because they do a better job of balancing their budget. In addition, instead of overpaying their cops to "keep law and order".. Texas has the conceal carry law, allowing citizens to protect themselves (thus saving the government money). Texas also helps provide oil to the rest of the nation -- thats why the government gives Texas a lot of money... for oil. Without Texa's contribution with the oil supply, the USA wouldn't be able to function as well. Also, Texas has been very smart about their budget, that's they don't have state income tax.

The definition of the term 'nanny state' has absolutely nothing to do with a balanced budget.

Oh yea, you're right. 'Nanny states" spending money on social services that a state cannot afford doesn't have to do anything with a balanced budget 🙂 Hows that spending on illegal immigrates in California going? Oh, hang on, your telling me that California, unlike Texas, is under water? You don't say.. I'm shocked.. Shocked I tell you... hahaha losers.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Oh yea, you're right. 'Nanny states" spending money on social services that a state cannot afford doesn't have to do anything with a balanced budget 🙂 Hows that spending on illegal immigrates in California going? Oh, hang on, your telling me that California, unlike Texas, is under water? You don't say.. I'm shocked.. Shocked I tell you... hahaha losers.

Hey, it's not my fault you don't know the definitions of words. Indulge in your ignorance all you want.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XZeroII
So you don't like it when they raise taxes (tax increase plan was shot down) and you don't like it when they cut spending.

Oh, and you don't want a deficit.



Welcome to fairy land. Population: You.

Yup, that was basically the problem in California. Despite the talking heads on TV, it's not a problem with the state being liberal...and it has nothing to do with the current governor being a Republican. The problem is that, across every part of the political spectrum, Californians seemed to think they could have their cake and eat it too. Massive spending with outright rejection of revenue measures to pay for the spending. How exactly did they envision this ending?

50.1% required to pass new spending, 66% to pass new taxes to pay for the spending. Recipe for disaster.

66% should be required to pass new spending. 66% to pass new taxes to pay for the spending.
Recipe for success.

 

[BudAshes]

The worst part of it all are all these fast track elections they keep holding. Each one costs tax payers 10's of millions of dollars just for the paper to send out the polling guide. Not to mention the ridiculous early election that got arnold elected in the first place. CA is too big and it needs to be broken up. There is no way around it.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

I already owned you with multiple facts in another thread, while you danced and dodged around the subject. Just like you're spinning around the truth with eleison's responses.

You are not worth the time. I really wish ignore lists worked on these forums so I wouldn't have to see your inane drivel.

Stay in California...keep spending like there is no tomorrow on hand-out programs, keep passing laws limiting people's freedoms in the name of some leftist agenda (no black cars, no TVs over 40 inches, etc. LOL!), and the rest of the productive US will be forced to bail out your failed socialist experiment (unfortunately).

nanny state

?noun
a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

nanny state
n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nanny%20state

Both of those definitions describe California perfectly.

Let me state it again, and I will bold it this time so you get it. The key words in the definition of nanny state are excessive and overprotective.


Texas is not a nanny state because it doesn't have nearly the level of welfare programs and government interference in people's everyday lives as California does.

As a result of not having the same level of welfare programs and government meddling, Texas is a less taxed state with a (concept foreign to liberals) balanced budget and an economy that is actually doing okay!

:Q

Owned again and again and...again. This is too easy, and no longer amuses me. Go back under your bridge. Shoo!

Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes...darn, it is early. 😛

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Oh yea, you're right. 'Nanny states" spending money on social services that a state cannot afford doesn't have to do anything with a balanced budget 🙂 Hows that spending on illegal immigrates in California going? Oh, hang on, your telling me that California, unlike Texas, is under water? You don't say.. I'm shocked.. Shocked I tell you... hahaha losers.

Hey, it's not my fault you don't know the definitions of words. Indulge in your ignorance all you want.

Hey, it's not our fault that you're ignorant and won't admit it. Perhaps you should know the definition of words before you jump on your soapbox and make a total fool of yourself. It used to be funny, but now it happens all the time. It's no longer funny...just sad.

nanny state

?noun
a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

nanny state
n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nanny%20state

Hence, eleison was correct, and you were wrong.

Posted this definition again to make sure the complete ownage of you was very thorough. Of course, you will still claim that we didn't "provide any details" or some such nonsense.

:laugh::roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Hey, it's not our fault that you're ignorant and won't admit it. Perhaps you should know the definition of words before you jump on your soapbox and make a total fool of yourself. It used to be funny, but now it happens all the time. It's no longer funny...just sad.

nanny state

?noun
a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

nanny state
n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nanny%20state

Hence, eleison was correct, and you were wrong.

Posted this definition again to make sure the complete ownage of you was very thorough. Of course, you will still claim that we didn't "provide any details" or some such nonsense.

:laugh::roll:

No, Eskimospy was right, and you are wrong.

Eskimospy said that the definition of 'nanny state' is not 'unbalanced budget'. You provided a set of definitions confirming his statement, not saying anything about a balanced budget.

Your argument appears to be that higher state spending makes it harder to balance the budget, and therefore a 'nanny state' is more likely to hae a budget deficit.

But all the 'nanny state' has to do to balance the budget is tax enough to do so.

So, the biggest spending state around, if it has high taxes to balance the budget, is a 'nanny state' by the definitions you posted - but does not have any deficit.

So, Eskimospy was right that the definition of nanny state is not 'unbalanced budget', and you are wrong in saying he was wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234
California is the best state in the nation, and those are the lessons it teaches.

This made me laugh out loud. Sure, if you like bankrupt nanny-states, then yes, California is the "best state in the nation."

:laugh:

This gives you another chance to tell us how California is a 'nanny state' but Texas isn't. Weren't you going to detail the differences between CA and TX's welfare programs that makes one socialist and the other not? I'm still waiting for that.

I already owned you with multiple facts in another thread, while you danced and dodged around the subject. Just like you're spinning around the truth with eleison's responses.

You are not worth the time. I really wish ignore lists worked on these forums so I wouldn't have to see your inane drivel.

Stay in California...keep spending like there is no tomorrow on hand-out programs, keep passing laws limiting people's freedoms in the name of some leftist agenda (no black cars, no TVs over 40 inches, etc. LOL!), and the rest of the productive US will be forced to bail out your failed socialist experiment (unfortunately).

nanny state

?noun
a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

nanny state
n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nanny%20state

Both of those definitions describe California perfectly.

Let me state it again, and I will bold it this time so you get it. The key words in the definition of nanny state are excessive and overprotective.


Texas is not a nanny state because it doesn't have nearly the level of welfare programs and government interference in people's everyday lives as California does.

As a result of not having the same level of welfare programs and government meddling, Texas is a less taxed state with a (concept foreign to liberals) balanced budget and an economy that is actually doing okay!

:Q

Owned again and again and...again. This is too easy, and no longer amuses me. Go back under your bridge. Shoo!

Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes...darn, it is early. 😛

There's wrong, and there's obnoxiously wrong; you are the latter.

What you leave out is the high correlation between state spending on the needs of the public (nanny state)/higher taxes to pay for it, and high economic output/high wages.

Indeed, your argument is so incredibly weak, that as you grasp for evidene to support your point, you are able to find zero examples of the alleged 'state interference in people's lives' out of our 30 million people with a 160 year state history, and instead offer only rumored proposals not enacted. You mention a ban on tv's over 40"; first I heard of it, I have not seen any mention of that plan while watching the news on my 65" television.

Your argument is further of poor quality in the way that you replace objective fact with relative words such as 'overprotective'. By definition, 'overprotective' is too protective, so I guess you win the argument because you chose a word containing the conclusion, instead of actually making any argument why that conclusion is correct. You can call any state 'overprotective'. Watch this: Texas is overprotective. See, no facts needed - it's a relative word.

You even shamelessly rant against the *imaginary* bailout needed by the nation of California, and ignore the *actual* subsidization of the nation by California - how honest.

We should agree California has many differences from Texas, as blue states generally do from red states; they include higher services, higher taxes, higher productivity, higher wages. We may have different opinions on which of those is 'better'. I wonder how the picture would look if you took oil out of the picture - something having nothing to do with the economic productivity of the people from the economic system, but simply the luck of the draw on where the dinosaurs and plants happened to be millions of years ago.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BudAshes
The worst part of it all are all these fast track elections they keep holding. Each one costs tax payers 10's of millions of dollars just for the paper to send out the polling guide. Not to mention the ridiculous early election that got arnold elected in the first place. CA is too big and it needs to be broken up. There is no way around it.

The recall of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzeneggar were failures of democracy, not the size of California.

Factors combined to cause this including the ignorance of the public, the ideology of the public against paying the bills (wanting lower taxes than the spending they want costs), the poor media coverage, the money poured in (this was a Republican power grab and an Enron operation in part, as they wanted to oust Davis who refused to sign the sweetheard deal they wanted to get out of paying for their wrongs (Schwarzeneggar, their ally, signed it), and the inappropriate role of celebrity in the political system (again the public's fault)).

It was a crazy election with 135 candidates for governor, where the vote was widely split - there's a reason we have primaries - so the well-funded celebrity stood out.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Shock and awe, the liberals from California rise up to defend their "great" state! All the while trying their hardest to ignore the gigantic elephant in the room.

California is bankrupt. California is broke. Texas is not.

There is a reason for this. Of course, they will dance and deny until they are blue in the face. Some people fight so hard to deny the truth. When is enough enough? When California is $50 billion in the hole? $100 billion?

The truth doesn't need pages of diatribe spinning around the subject, trying to sound all fancy yet saying nothing. The truth speaks for itself.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Shock and awe, the liberals from California rise up to defend their "great" state!

And the ignorant redneck from Texas crawls out to attack the great state.

All the while trying their hardest to ignore the gigantic elephant in the room.

True, but you keep posting, hard to ignore.

Some people fight so hard to deny the truth.

Did your mirror leap across the room in front of your face when you wrote that?

The truth speaks for itself.

Not necessarily, but it certainly doesn't need the harm of people attacking it as you do.

Your argument has nothing but "a state facing a deficit for any reason is worse than a state not facing a deficit". Drivel.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Shock and awe, the liberals from California rise up to defend their "great" state!

And the ignorant redneck from Texas crawls out to attack the great state.

All the while trying their hardest to ignore the gigantic elephant in the room.

True, but you keep posting, hard to ignore.

Some people fight so hard to deny the truth.

Did your mirror leap across the room in front of your face when you wrote that?

The truth speaks for itself.

Not necessarily, but it certainly doesn't need the harm of people attacking it as you do.

Your argument has nothing but "a state facing a deficit for any reason is worse than a state not facing a deficit". Drivel.

Nice one. Jump to assumptions. I love it. You're attacking something that's false. Keep making stuff up...it's making you look "great"!

I do not live in Texas, nor have I ever been to Texas.

:laugh:

California is not only broke, but at a rate far greater than any other state by far.

"Great"!

:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Nice one. Jump to assumptions.

One assumption, that you were from Texas. I stand corrected, and remove "from Texas" from the phrase, now "And the ignorant redneck crawls out to attack the great state. "

I love it. You're attacking something that's false.

Guilty as charged, I attack things that are false a lot.

Keep making stuff up...it's making you look "great"!

The fool speaks the truth when attempting sarcasm.

I do not live in Texas, nor have I ever been to Texas.

That certainly helps your credibility in making statements about how great Texas is. I've been to Texas several times.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Nice one. Jump to assumptions.

One assumption, that you were from Texas. I stand corrected, and remove "from Texas" from the phrase, now "And the ignorant redneck crawls out to attack the great state. "

I love it. You're attacking something that's false.

Guilty as charged, I attack things that are false a lot.

Keep making stuff up...it's making you look "great"!

The fool speaks the truth when attempting sarcasm.

I do not live in Texas, nor have I ever been to Texas.

That certainly helps your credibility in making statements about how great Texas is. I've been to Texas several times.

Absolutely LOVE how you refused to quote the part about the gigantic budget deficit in the "great" state of California, instead focusing on personal attacks against me.

Textbook.

:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Absolutely LOVE how you refused to quote the part about the gigantic budget deficit in the "great" state of California, instead focusing on personal attacks against me.

Textbook.

:thumbsup:

The fact that California is facing a budget deficit was covered 95 posts ago and is not the current point I was responding to. I've already discussed it repeatedly, and then some more.

But, congrats on *finallY*, for apparently the first time, reading a 'textbook'.

I notice you, by the way, ignore the points on the issues.

 

[ElFenix]

Besides laying off staff, the effect to local economies will be even worse. Studies show that for every dollar spent at a state park, $2.35 is generated for the state?s general fund through the ripple effect at nearby stores, attractions such as ferries, restaurants, souvenir stores, and other amenities.

doesn't that mean they should keep the state parks open?