LOGO
General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here.

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 02-18-2009, 08:14 PM   #1
girlsround

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
510
Senior Member
Default Case study in Republican insanity: California to go belly-up?
We're quite a long way into the Twilight Zone already.

I guess you have to laugh. Maybe Kidicious will have to get a job, and stop hitting on his alcoholic bipolar neighbours.

edit: I guess he'll have a lot more to choose from, since I heard that a bunch of prisoners will have to be let out, because the state can't afford to keep them in gaol.

This is ****wittery of epic proportions.
girlsround is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:22 PM   #2
johnbeller

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
488
Senior Member
Default
or get this. They do what my state does and cut the state budget enough to create a balanced budget.

don't tell me a state as big as Cali doesn't have plenty of pork to cut.
johnbeller is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:27 PM   #3
ppfpooghn

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
NV doesn't have rules that prevent tax increases absent a 2/3 majority.

And yeah, for some reason I doubt that 30% of a state budget is useless "pork."
ppfpooghn is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:28 PM   #4
bomondus

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
education. That's what my state is cutting.
OK. Then the future taxpayers of California will be that much stupider.
bomondus is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:39 PM   #5
tomsmuidh

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
573
Senior Member
Default
It looks like if the Dems can't convince another Republican to join them, they'll have to start over.
tomsmuidh is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:49 PM   #6
Yfclciak

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
490
Senior Member
Default
California's problem is that they have to fund some of that pork because the people voted for it to be funded. They can only cut some things, and they can't raise taxes at all.

It's pretty obvious they need to either lose the binding referendums or the super-majority for budgets rule.
Yfclciak is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:54 PM   #7
Sydneyfonzi

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
652
Senior Member
Default
this shows democracy doesn't work. Up with fascism.
ftfy.
Sydneyfonzi is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 08:58 PM   #8
twinaircant

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
Look at what they've cut already. If they are going to let prisoners out, what more do you think there is to cut?
QFT. I can't wait to see taxpayers start complaining (in the press or even in court) about their daughters getting raped and their sons getting shot because prisoners got set loose early, only for the sane to respond "you were the cheap bastards that refused to pay for locking them up, and you got what you paid for!"

Of course, when a halt in various entitlement checks results in massive riots and looting, the response too the lootees can be the same. This is what you wanted. You did this.
twinaircant is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 09:09 PM   #9
Texdolley

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
524
Senior Member
Default
QFT. I can't wait to see taxpayers start complaining (in the press or even in court) about their daughters getting raped and their sons getting shot because prisoners got set loose early, only for the sane to respond "you were the cheap bastards that refused to pay for locking them up, and you got what you paid for!"

Of course, when a halt in various entitlement checks results in massive riots and looting, the response too the lootees can be the same. This is what you wanted. You did this.
I just don't want those prisoners heading my way. We have gotten so much crime from California. In fact, I blame all of our crime on California . Back in the day we only had mob killings. Then the California gangs moved in...
Texdolley is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 09:40 PM   #10
RilmAlime67

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
470
Senior Member
Default
Half of those prisoners shouldn't be locked up in the first place. So yea, let those non-violent offenders go. Good for the budget, good for the state.
RilmAlime67 is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:22 PM   #11
horoshevapola

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
351
Senior Member
Default
They're laying off 20,000 people this week. That's not enough cuts for you?
horoshevapola is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:31 PM   #12
gamecasta

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
538
Senior Member
Default
This shows direct democracy doesn't work. Up with republicanism.
Direct democracy works fine as long as you have an educated public. Direct democracy plus private financing means that really bad policies that favor the rich get passed.
gamecasta is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:37 PM   #13
Gudronich

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
451
Senior Member
Default
No, what percentage of the state workforce is that?

8.36%
http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/demo/index.shtml
Gudronich is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:45 PM   #14
Amoniustauns

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
395
Senior Member
Default

What do you base this 20%+ number on?
Amoniustauns is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:51 PM   #15
MannyLopez

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
511
Senior Member
Default
Direct democracy works fine as long as you have an educated public.
You have quite an imagination!
MannyLopez is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 10:55 PM   #16
iiilizium

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
321
Senior Member
Default
He himself included ?
iiilizium is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 11:22 PM   #17
Nutpoode

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
469
Senior Member
Default
Thue's got a point...

-Arrian
Nutpoode is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 11:30 PM   #18
Mboxmaja

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
510
Senior Member
Default
What do you base this 20%+ number on? My personal knowedge of how many government emloyees I could eliminate from my department and still get the work done. In the case of California, a reasonable expectation of organizational loss for money saving purposes without overwhelming those left with change.

I could actually eliminate many more, but baby steps

His irrational hate of the government and everyone that works for it. Its broken, so fix it.

And yes I include the military in those cuts, primarily the officer corps actually.
Mboxmaja is offline


Old 02-18-2009, 11:45 PM   #19
GetsTan

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
691
Senior Member
Default
1) he had admitted his crime, so there is not that much doubt
So in some cases it's okay to punish someone before they've been convicted?

2) note that $1 million worth of stuff was actually almost disappeared And so presumably they took steps to make sure that doesn't almost happen again. None of which necessitates sending him to jail.
GetsTan is offline


Old 02-19-2009, 12:03 AM   #20
DoctorBeny

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
490
Senior Member
Default
And so presumably they took steps to make sure that doesn't almost happen again. None of which necessitates sending him to jail.
If you punish someone who does something bad [like trying to secret monies after being released from jail because of a promise not to], then the bad behavior tends to not be repeated.
DoctorBeny is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity