[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Good job doing your part to make sure this discussion isn't about health care.

Do you have something substantial to contribute, or just trying to be hyteckit #2 ?

-t

[mrtew]

I'm sure everything will be fine once the recession blows over and everyone gets jobs and starts paying taxes again. You're only hearing so much about it because the Bush recession was so bad and the Republicans want so much to blame it all on Obama and Nancy etc and get back into office. Don't worry so much.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Eug 

How much power does Arnie have to address this?

Here is a good article about that.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Economic practicality.

I think we could argue about the validity of the claims of economic practicality of these programs, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is valid.

What standard do you use to determine that "economic practicality" trumps individual rights?

[OldManMac]

What's that old saying? As California goes, so goes the nation? No wonder the old, white, Tea Party codgers are scared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us...er=rss&emc=rss

[Laminar]

White people are the worst.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think we could argue about the validity of the claims of economic practicality of these programs, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is valid.

What standard do you use to determine that "economic practicality" trumps individual rights?

What standard do you use to determine that individual rights includes the right for people to decide what to pay the government for on an individual basis? We all pay for various roads, services, and pay via various taxes, etc. whether we benefit directly or not. If we are unhappy, we can vote for somebody that will change this, this is what elections are for. Various safety nets are things that we have evidently agreed to as a nation via the politicians we have elected.

Individual rights are not trumped just because we are not happy with whom we elected and what he/she is doing, so long as what they are doing is legal. Maybe temporarily threatened, but only until the next election.

[hyteckit]

How is the situation in California unique? It's not.

It's the economy stupid.

Many states are incurring massive deficits. US is becoming a service oriented economy. Our manufacturing industry is practically gone and has been outsource to countries like China.

The US economy is now driven by the service industry and consumer spending.


It's people like turtle who refuse to believe Pres. Bush and the Republicans in congress f*cked up the economy, outsourced all manufacturing industry, and want more of our jobs in the US to be giving to foreigners through H1 Visas.


States like Texas and Florida are incurring multi-billion dollar deficits as well.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's not rocket science which explains [the responses of liberals in just about EVERY subject on this forum]. Abject stupidity, deflection, feigned confusion, unfunny and irrelevant satire, and trolling.

In other words, precisely the reaction you'd expect from those trying to defend the indefensible.

Yup.

And of course, California represents UNCHECKED liberalism without any stops. In other words: a complete train wreck which is no longer even just a future certainty, but a present REALITY. Laugh now, but for the rest of the nation: you're only so far behind us with whatever level of liberalism you've got pulling you down.

[hyteckit]

Texas is toast. I mean Texas size toast.

Texas two-year deficit may hit $18 billion.

Texas two-year deficit may hit $18 billion: Moody's | Reuters

Budget Woes Cloud Texas Governor's Re-Election - WSJ.com

Texas Budget Deficit Shatters Myths About California's Deficit | California Progress Report

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here is a good article about that.

to reduce state workers’ pay to Federal minimum wage [...] —which the union-friendly Chiang claims is impossible due to the state’s antiquated COBOL-based payroll system.

So f*cking unbelievable.

CA, home to most big computer and software companies in the world, but they can't fix a COBOL program to allow minimum wage ?

If that's true, they deserve to go bust.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

What's that old saying? As California goes, so goes the nation? No wonder the old, white, Tea Party codgers are scared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Wait, aren't you in fact both old and white?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wait, aren't you in fact both old and white?

Yes, but I'm not scared of people who are different than me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I'm sure everything will be fine once the recession blows over and everyone gets jobs and starts paying taxes again. You're only hearing so much about it because the Bush recession was so bad and the Republicans want so much to blame it all on Obama and Nancy etc and get back into office. Don't worry so much.

Let the above be Exhibit A of the message that will guarantee lost seats this fall.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Yes, but I'm not scared of people who are different than me.

No rather, you're scared of yourself which is much more telling.

[OldManMac]

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well is there any response to the Texas deficit issue as noted above?

I know very little about these two economies, but if you blame California's massive deficit(s) on teh lib/dems, then what's the explanation for Texas?

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What standard do you use to determine that individual rights includes the right for people to decide what to pay the government for on an individual basis? We all pay for various roads, services, and pay via various taxes, etc. whether we benefit directly or not. If we are unhappy, we can vote for somebody that will change this, this is what elections are for. Various safety nets are things that we have evidently agreed to as a nation via the politicians we have elected.

Individual rights are not trumped just because we are not happy with whom we elected and what he/she is doing, so long as what they are doing is legal. Maybe temporarily threatened, but only until the next election.

I didn't say or imply any of this, you have it wrong.

You also are evading my question. Let me rephrase it: When you assert that the government propping up the economy is "more right" than a person's right to keep their own property for the sake of their right earn a living, is that a moral evaluation or not? If it is not a moral evaluation what is it?

Also let me amend my question: WHY specifically is economic practicality more important than property rights?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well is there any response to the Texas deficit issue as noted above?

I know very little about these two economies, but if you blame California's massive deficit(s) on teh lib/dems, then what's the explanation for Texas?

greg

It certainly is the same sort of thinking, to a much lesser degree. Texas spends huge amounts on education, health and human services etc, "economic development" etc.. Things that I don't think government should be focusing its resources on. They also have billions in unfunded pension liabilities. They could reduce their budget by 75% if they spent their money on just protecting people from crime/harm and stop trying to control and support them.

That being said they also have a better credit rating and some emergency cash. They are generally in far better shape than California despite the similar budget numbers. They also have the good sense to not to impose income taxes.

I think we all know that the economy is the impetus behind state revenue losses, but why is it that we just resign ourselves to the idea that they can't just CUT THE BUDGET? (GASP!) Project a 20% deficit? So eliminate the non-essentials from the budget and trim the rest across the board. Trim it until it breaks even.

Really, your world won't end if the government cuts back for a few years…or forever.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well is there any response to the Texas deficit issue as noted above?

I know very little about these two economies, but if you blame California's massive deficit(s) on teh lib/dems, then what's the explanation for Texas?

greg

Part of it is the lack of income tax and other government controls, but I'd venture that a large part of the problem is the difference in immigrant numbers. I saw last year that 24% of the illegals in this country are in California, with only 16% in Texas according to the Congressional Research Office or GAO.

[Brien]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It certainly is the same sort of thinking, to a much lesser degree. Texas spends huge amounts on education, health and human services etc, "economic development" etc.. Things that I don't think government should be focusing its resources on. They also have billions in unfunded pension liabilities. They could reduce their budget by 75% if they spent their money on just protecting people from crime/harm and stop trying to control and support them.

That being said they also have a better credit rating and some emergency cash. They are generally in far better shape than California despite the similar budget numbers. They also have the good sense to not to impose income taxes.

I think we all know that the economy is the impetus behind state revenue losses, but why is it that we just resign ourselves to the idea that they can't just CUT THE BUDGET? (GASP!) Project a 20% deficit? So eliminate the non-essentials from the budget and trim the rest across the board. Trim it until it breaks even.

Really, your world won't end if the government cuts back for a few years…or forever.

I'm all for cutting the budget, but I really don't buy the argument that government shouldn't fund education. As it is, California should probably be spending MORE than they already are, which is (or was) last place when it comes to amount spent per student out of the 50 states. They've already cut PE, music, and the rest of the arts, and now they're closing schools and talking about removing history and science programs from the elementary schools to save a buck.

I'm sorry, but as someone with two teachers in the family, I just can't sit here and watch our public education go down the shitter.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Brien 

I'm all for cutting the budget, but I really don't buy the argument that government shouldn't fund education. As it is, California should probably be spending MORE than they already are, which is (or was) last place when it comes to amount spent per student out of the 50 states. They've already cut PE, music, and the rest of the arts, and now they're closing schools and talking about removing history and science programs from the elementary schools to save a buck.

I'm sorry, but as someone with two teachers in the family, I just can't sit here and watch our public education go down the shitter.

Public education IS in the shitter. The more they spend, and the more control the government takes the worse education has gotten.

Public education is just another of those things that we have been doing for so long people think that it's the best or the only way to do it.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I think you are attributing (along with most Americans) too much power to the Oval Office. The US isn't a totalitarian dictatorship, so don't act as if one person is responsible for corporate decisions.

They'll never listen.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Part of it is the lack of income tax and other government controls, but I'd venture that a large part of the problem is the difference in immigrant numbers. I saw last year that 24% of the illegals in this country are in California, with only 16% in Texas according to the Congressional Research Office or GAO.

Uhm, yeah, CA had estimated 37M population in 2009, TX est. 24.8M

So CA had 49% more people living there, which is coincidentally exactly 16% x 1.49 = 24%.

Bottom line: both states had about the same per capita "burden" of illegal immigrants.

-t

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Okay.

Thanks Pres. Bush, Republican Congress, and Republican California governor for outsourcing all our manufacturing jobs.

So, it's STILL Bush's fault even after almost TWO YEARS of mismanagement by the Tax-n-Spend Democrats? When will the Dems actually admit they wasted time & Money with only a double dip recession to show for it?

[Brien]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Public education IS in the shitter. The more they spend, and the more control the government takes the worse education has gotten.

Public education is just another of those things that we have been doing for so long people think that it's the best or the only way to do it.

Well, yeah, it is in the shitter, I'll give you that. However I can't think that privatizing the system is an ideal solution, either.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Part of it is the lack of income tax and other government controls, but I'd venture that a large part of the problem is the difference in immigrant numbers. I saw last year that 24% of the illegals in this country are in California, with only 16% in Texas according to the Congressional Research Office or GAO.

I'm not sure what your argument is with regard to illegals. Are you saying that both States' deficits are proportional to the amount of illegal immigrants in each State...i.e. that illegal immigrants are the cause of this government deficit?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that concept to be honest.

greg

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I didn't say or imply any of this, you have it wrong.

You also are evading my question. Let me rephrase it: When you assert that the government propping up the economy is "more right" than a person's right to keep their own property for the sake of their right earn a living, is that a moral evaluation or not? If it is not a moral evaluation what is it?

Also let me amend my question: WHY specifically is economic practicality more important than property rights?

I was trying to cut to what I thought the point of your leading question was. Your question is still leading. I have no idea what what I wrote had to do with property rights.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, it's STILL Bush's fault even after almost TWO YEARS of mismanagement by the Tax-n-Spend Democrats?

Dude, the libs here still blame Maggie Thatcher for everything TWO DECADES after she retired.

It's what libs do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Dude, the libs here still blame Maggie Thatcher for everything TWO DECADES after she retired.

It's what libs do.

That's quite the generalization.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That's quite the generalization observation.

Yes, it is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes, it is.

Sorry, I forgot for a moment who I was talking to...

Carry on

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Do you have something substantial to contribute, or just trying to be hyteckit #2 ?

-t

You essentially said, "Let's not make this a racial issue. By the way, all black people are stupid and unemployable."

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, it's STILL Bush's fault even after almost TWO YEARS of mismanagement by the Tax-n-Spend Democrats? When will the Dems actually admit they wasted time & Money with only a double dip recession to show for it?

During Pres. Bush's term, the bad economy is blamed on 9/11, Pres. Clinton, and Pres. Carter.

Let me see. Oh right, we'll still spending time and money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yup. Still Pres. Bush's fault.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let me see. Oh right, we'll still spending time and money in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yup. Still Pres. Bush's fault.

Didn't Barry promise to bring the troops home from the sandpits as soon as he got in?

YouTube - Obama promises to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Didn't Barry promise to bring the troops home from the sandpits as soon as he got in?

YouTube - Obama promises to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.

Maybe he was talking about Iraq.

So Pres. Obama did kept his promise. Pull troops out of Iraq before the deadline.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So Pres. Obama did kept his promise. Pull troops out of Iraq before the deadline.

I don't know how twisted your mind's got to be if you're coming out with that after watching the video I just posted.

[The Final Dakar]

lol

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I don't know how twisted your mind's got to be if you're coming out with that after watching the video I just posted.

Did Pres. Obama mention Afghanistan in the video? Or just the title mention Afghanistan?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Did Pres. Obama mention Afghanistan in the video? Or just the title mention Afghanistan?

Whichever sandpit he was talking about, he said the first thing he'd do as president is bring the troops home from it and end the war.

Since your troops are still in both sandpits, we can assume that the first thing Barry did wasn't "bring the troops home".

Thus, how the hell can he be keeping his promise?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Whichever sandpit he was talking about, he said the first thing he'd do as president is bring the troops home from it and end the war.

Since your troops are still in both sandpits, we can assume that the first thing Barry did wasn't "bring the troops home".

Thus, how the hell can he be keeping his promise?

The Iraq War is over as US troops head home - mirror.co.uk

Pres. Obama talked about ending the Iraq Ward in 2007 during his presidential campaign.

Troops were being pulled out of Iraq since 2009, when Pres. Obama became president.

Deadline to end combat was set to August 2010.

The last U.S. combat brigade was pull out in Aug. 19, 2010.

Combat in Iraq is considered over. US troops remain in Iraq to train and advise Iraqi policemen.

washingtonpost.com




When Pres. Obama became president, his promise on Feb. 27, 2009.

Remarks of President Barack Obama – Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq | The White House

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country. As I have long said, we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq. Initially, this force will likely be made up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.

[Doofy]

Leaving 50,000 troops in place isn't a withdrawal.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You essentially said, "Let's not make this a racial issue. By the way, all black people are stupid and unemployable."

WTF ?

Go away. All you do is trying to instigate.

-t

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Leaving 50,000 troops in place isn't a withdrawal.

Dude, we still have 35,688 troops in Japan.

Doesn't mean we are still fighting WWII with Japan.


We still have 28.500 in Korea.

Doesn't mean we are still fighting the Korean War.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I was trying to cut to what I thought the point of your leading question was. Your question is still leading.

I know that. Also, my question wasn't intended to be leading, this time. I am merely trying to point out to you that a moral evaluation is made by you, me, or anyone else in the situation we were discussing. You are/were denying that.

I have no idea what what I wrote had to do with property rights.

I know this too, that is part of the problem. Taxes have everything to do with property rights. They are the forced removal of a person's private property: money. Some amount of tax may be necessary, but this idea that they should just take however much they want from us in whatever form they want to take it, to fund whatever schemes and programs they want to or to cover any and all of their irresponsible spending…this has to go. Taxes need to be highly restricted not only because they are a detriment to the economy, but because they are a direct violation of a person's right to their own property and to their life and pursuit of happiness. You are taking by force that which a person needs to live.

So when a person makes the claim that someone is in "need" and we must take care of that person's "needs" via government expenditures, they are talking about the taking of money by force and gifting that money to other people. It is an assertion that another person has a right to your property and thus the government must enforce that right. So it is not a matter of choosing how our money is spent by government on an individual basis. It is a matter of expecting and demanding that the government respects a person's rights above all. The protection of a person's rights is their first and best function, not control.

You want a safety net? It's called charity. They work more efficiently than the government equivalent every time.

[besson3c]

smacintush: I didn't say that I can't fathom a possible connection between safety nets and property rights, I said that I don't know what the particular thread we had going had to do with property rights. If you want to segue into property rights, fine, but I'll remind that you I wasn't making a point about property rights, I was answering a specific question that you asked.

That being said, I do appreciate that you asked me for clarification rather than just launching off into a rant du jour like many other people in these sorts of debates do.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Dude, we still have 35,688 troops in Japan.

We still have 28.500 in Korea.

Time to leave.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Time to leave.

Yeah. I think it's time too.

Crazy wasteful spending.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

smacintush: I didn't say that I can't fathom a possible connection between safety nets and property rights, I said that I don't know what the particular thread we had going had to do with property rights. If you want to segue into property rights, fine, but I'll remind that you I wasn't making a point about property rights, I was answering a specific question that you asked.

My point was that if California (or Texas, or other states, or the Federal government…) were to respect peoples property rights as and reject the idea that it is the government's role and responsibility to take care of us, control us and manipulate the economy these budget problems wouldn't exist. They act as if it is their right to do whatever they want and our duty to cover the costs and the people support that by their constantly begging for more help, more "freebies", more control over "those other guys", more central planning etc..

It all comes back to the belief that government has the duty to care for us and that duty takes precedent over our rights.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

My point was that if California (or Texas, or other states, or the Federal government…) were to respect peoples property rights as and reject the idea that it is the government's role and responsibility to take care of us, control us and manipulate the economy these budget problems wouldn't exist. They act as if it is their right to do whatever they want and our duty to cover the costs and the people support that by their constantly begging for more help, more "freebies", more control over "those other guys", more central planning etc..

It all comes back to the belief that government has the duty to care for us and that duty takes precedent over our rights.

Until you address my economic practicality counter-argument to this, I don't really see the point in continuing this particular conversation...