Drugs?

Because the city of San Diego pays for most of the crap and they are broke?

This video made too much sense. Quick, delete it before someone gets any ideas.

Not mentioned: Didn't we get part of this surplus by de-funding a bunch of pension plans for county workers a while back?

(Or was this just a city issue? Educate me other San Diegans!)

Hey, look. An island of GOP management is flourishing in a Democrat sea of fail called California.

NittLion78: This video made too much sense. Quick, delete it before someone gets any ideas.

Well the angry state citizens had a chance to vote on two measures cutting spending for the state they voted AGAINST it.

holiday_inn_in_cambodia: Drugs?

"No, thanks, I'm straight."

There are a lot of useless people on the payrolls... many of them exist solely to collect taxes to pay for %20 of their salary. The remaining 80%?? Comes from the 10% state income tax and 10% sales tax

Herbie555: Not mentioned: Didn't we get part of this surplus by de-funding a bunch of pension plans for county workers a while back?

(Or was this just a city issue? Educate me other San Diegans!)

Yep, which I imagine is part of the "running government like a business" thing she talked about

Herbie555: Not mentioned: Didn't we get part of this surplus by de-funding a bunch of pension plans for county workers a while back?

(Or was this just a city issue? Educate me other San Diegans!)

Government pension plans are very very outdated. Many of them start paying out benefits as early as age 55. That's way too early for retirement in this day and age.

Herbie555: Not mentioned: Didn't we get part of this surplus by de-funding a bunch of pension plans for county workers a while back?

(Or was this just a city issue? Educate me other San Diegans!)

ding ding ding, we have a winner here.

SD County dealt with their totally sheisty and skeevy pension stuff a few years back because it was on the verge of bankruptcy. People double-dipping on the county pension plans, bribes and conflicts of interest on the pension board, the whole thing.

And when they sorted their shiat, it was at a time that the county cuold still get bonds and financing on the open market (this was 3 to 6 years ago, it dragged on a long long time). Local gov't with similar problems now are up shiat creek...no bond market for you.

I think they also sold off a bunch of assets to local developers too. Ha ha ha, who's holding the bag now, assholes?

Corvus: NittLion78: This video made too much sense. Quick, delete it before someone gets any ideas.

Well the angry state citizens had a chance to vote on two measures cutting spending for the state they voted AGAINST it.

What are you talking about?

Shryke Hey, look. An island of GOP management is flourishing in a Democrat sea of fail called California.

You realize the Governor of CA is a Republican right? But please, don't let that stop you from your vitriol towards Democrats.

scseth: You realize the Governor of CA is a Republican right? But please, don't let that stop you from your vitriol towards Democrats.

And he has about zero control of the spending. Let's be realistic -this is a Democrat controlled state.

Shryke: scseth: You realize the Governor of CA is a Republican right? But please, don't let that stop you from your vitriol towards Democrats.

And he has about zero control of the spending. Let's be realistic -this is a Democrat controlled state.

/facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

MyRandomName: Government pension plans are very very outdated. Many of them start paying out benefits as early as age 55. That's way too early for retirement in this day and age.

Whether or not that's true, I wasn't aware its OK to bail on a legal contract just because it got expensive...

scseth: Shryke Hey, look. An island of GOP management is flourishing in a Democrat sea of fail called California.

You realize the Governor of CA is a Republican right? But please, don't let that stop you from your vitriol towards Democrats.

The 'R' after Schwarzenegger's name is like the "honorable" appellation used with members of Congress: it doesn't mean a thing. Things have gotten so poisonous between him and genuine Republicans that he's thought of switching parties (new window).

Fart_Machine: /facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Please, dude. California is all the Dem's.

jjorsett: Corvus: NittLion78: This video made too much sense. Quick, delete it before someone gets any ideas.

Well the angry state citizens had a chance to vote on two measures cutting spending for the state they voted AGAINST it.

What are you talking about?

There were two measures on the ballot in California to cut spending to make up for the short fall and the "WE MUST MAKE CUTS" people voted AGAINST them.

They keep yelling to make cuts but when they could vote for them they voted against it.

Shryke: Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Yeah it's not like the governor is a Republican...

Oh wait.

Shryke: scseth: You realize the Governor of CA is a Republican right? But please, don't let that stop you from your vitriol towards Democrats.

And he has about zero control of the spending. Let's be realistic -this is a Democrat controlled state.

The governor of California has the line item veto, meaning he could cross out whatever spending he wanted to from the budget. The fact that he doesn't want to is indicative that he may as well be a Democrat when it comes to spending.

Corvus: jjorsett: Corvus: NittLion78: This video made too much sense. Quick, delete it before someone gets any ideas.

Well the angry state citizens had a chance to vote on two measures cutting spending for the state they voted AGAINST it.

What are you talking about?

There were two measures on the ballot in California to cut spending to make up for the short fall and the "WE MUST MAKE CUTS" people voted AGAINST them.

They keep yelling to make cuts but when they could vote for them they voted against it.

Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

jjorsett: The governor of California has the line item veto, meaning he could cross out whatever spending he wanted to from the budget. The fact that he doesn't want to is indicative that he may as well be a Democrat when it comes to spending.

So when Republican's do something wrong it's the democrats fault.

The made up fantasy world you live in is hilarious.

If he is not a Republican why does he not have someone run against him in the primaries?

Shryke: Fart_Machine: /facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Please, dude. California is all the Dem's.

Actually I blame both parties as well as the nutty initiative process and its unfunded mandates. But thanks your showing yourself to be a partisan hack who knows jack shait about California government.

Shryke: Fart_Machine: /facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Please, dude. California is all the Dem's.

You may as well admit you're just putting your fingers in your ears and shouting WHARRGARBL.

The failure isn't Democrats or Republicans. It's California politicians as a whole.

jjorsett: Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

Ummm 1-D and 1-E made cuts in social programs to pay for the shortfall.

But the "WE NEED TO MAKE CUTS" people voted against it.

Herbie555: MyRandomName: Government pension plans are very very outdated. Many of them start paying out benefits as early as age 55. That's way too early for retirement in this day and age.

Whether or not that's true, I wasn't aware its OK to bail on a legal contract just because it got expensive...

If it's a legal contract, it's enforceable. The fact that changes were made and nobody got sued and lost means whatever happened was within the law.

jjorsett: Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

1E-

State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.

What do you think that is?

Shryke: Fart_Machine: /facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Please, dude. California is all the Dem's.

Nope, it's a team effort. This shiat sandwich is everybody's, so open wide and take a tasty juicy bite.

We're going to have to cut spending *and* raise taxes to deal with all the stupid crap we've voted in over the years. Oh, and if you want to say no! it was teh Dems!...ummm that initiative process that brings you No Gay Marriage, and Prop187 also brings you:

Mandatory minimum sentences and three-strikes laws? Awesome, let's build more prisons!

Our childrens aint lernin? Reduced class sizes in elementary school to make sure little Brianna can read!

Pay for the new prisons, extra cops, guards, new teachers and classrooms? No way, paying for things is for commies.

It's farktarded.

jjorsett: Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

You guys are too f'n stupid to even vote for the things you complain you want.

California needs to do something about it's ballot initiatives. Cali also needs to raise property taxes.

jjorsett:

The governor of California has the line item veto, meaning he could cross out whatever spending he wanted to from the budget. The fact that he doesn't want to is indicative that he may as well be a Democrat when it comes to spending.


That old chestnut died a fiery death around about 1982.

Corvus: jjorsett: Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

1E-

State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.

What do you think that is?

Looks like a reallocation of funds from one place to another to me. Means that the funds that would normally have come from the general fund will instead come from the Prop 63 fund.

Rapmaster2000: California needs to do something about it's ballot initiatives. Cali also needs to raise property taxes.

Legally they can't raise property taxes. They have painted themselves in a corner where it is easy to raise spending but impossible to raise taxes.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Looks like a reallocation of funds from one place to another to me. Means that the funds that would normally have come from the general fund will instead come from the Prop 63 fund.

Yes. They are taking money from a social program to move it to cover the defecit!!!

That's how cuts work!!!!

When you make a cut you divert it to pay off debt. That's how cuts work! But the "We pay too much taxes" people in California are too stupid to understand that.

Rapmaster2000: California needs to do something about it's ballot initiatives. Cali also needs to raise property taxes.

Prop 13 is the third rail in Cali politics. We'll be getting a new state constitution before that gets repealed.

Really, it's so jacked up that people are talking about scrapping the whole State Constitution, and trying again from scratch.

I kind of like the ballot inititives myself, but I think the scope of them might need to get altered somehow.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Looks like a reallocation of funds from one place to another to me. Means that the funds that would normally have come from the general fund will instead come from the Prop 63 fund.

The general fund is the one with the defecit.

How would you make cuts to pay off the defecit if they were not made to the general fund exactly?

Bonzo_1116: I kind of like the ballot inititives myself, but I think the scope of them might need to get altered somehow.

It needs to be that none can be made if they are unfunded.

Shryke: Fart_Machine: /facepalm

Orange County has a $120 million deficit and it's run by Republicans.

Also in case you hadn't realized it takes 2/3 majority to pass a budget or raise taxes. That means even the minority party can short circuit the process so LOL about zero control of spending.

Ah, it IS a Republican problem! I get it! I get it! DAMN THAT GOP RUN CALIFORNIA.

Please, dude. California is all the Dem's.

Repeat it enough times. It'll come true someday.

/Or even better, put it on Wikipedia. Everything's true there!

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Looks like a reallocation of funds from one place to another to me. Means that the funds that would normally have come from the general fund will instead come from the Prop 63 fund.

Yes, when you take money from a program to pay off the debt that is "reallocation of funds" and people like you seem to dumb to understand that's the definition of a "cutting spending".

Corvus: Bonzo_1116: I kind of like the ballot inititives myself, but I think the scope of them might need to get altered somehow.

It needs to be that none can be made if they are unfunded.

hee hee heee, that means just about all propositions would have to win by 2/3...None of them would ever pass again.

The "Spending Cuts" were actually loans paid out of the funds mentioned, which would then be reinstated... and pay back the borrowed money with interest. Two years down the road.

We can't even keep up with our payments right now, and you want to be paying even MORE, with higher interest? And in the meantime, mental and children's health services and schooling go down the shiatter...

Nope, wasn't a realistic plan.

BTW: What would actually save the state money in education is cutting out fewer teachers and instead getting rid of the cancerous administration that sucks up most of the educaton funding here.

Corvus: jjorsett: The governor of California has the line item veto, meaning he could cross out whatever spending he wanted to from the budget. The fact that he doesn't want to is indicative that he may as well be a Democrat when it comes to spending.

So when Republican's do something wrong it's the democrats fault.

No, I'm saying when Republicans won't even try to cut government spending, they may as well be Democrats.

The made up fantasy world you live in is hilarious.

If he is not a Republican why does he not have someone run against him in the primaries?

He's only been in one primary and won't be in any others since he's termed out. His first election, the recall -- which didn't have a primary -- he did have Republican opponents. His star power, ability to articulate Republican-sounding policies that he later jettisoned, plus his ability to self-fund and raise money gave him the win. In his 2006 reelection, his primary opponents were nobodies because the party wouldn't support a serious challenger to a sitting governor who still showed some signs of having a few Republican characteristics. If that primary were held today, it would be a far different story.

thecactusman17: The "Spending Cuts" were actually loans paid out of the funds mentioned, which would then be reinstated... and pay back the borrowed money with interest. Two years down the road.

No they weren't:

Corresponding reduction in funding available for Proposition 63 community mental health programs.

They weren't loans.

Corvus: jjorsett: Are you talking about the election we just held? I sure didn't see any spending cuts in there.

1E-

State General Fund savings of about $230 million annually for two years (2009-10 and 2010-11) from redirecting a portion of Proposition 63 funds to an existing state program in place of state General Fund support.

What do you think that is?

That was to take tax money collected supposedly for funding mental health programs and dump it into the general fund. Shifting tax money from one account to another isn't in any regard a "cut".

Corvus: thecactusman17: The "Spending Cuts" were actually loans paid out of the funds mentioned, which would then be reinstated... and pay back the borrowed money with interest. Two years down the road.

No they weren't:

Corresponding reduction in funding available for Proposition 63 community mental health programs.

They weren't loans.

TEMPORARY reduction in funding to mental health programs to cover the budget shortfall.

Key word: temporary. So what do you call a sum of money given from one program to another with the promise that the money will be returned in a specified amount of time?

jjorsett: He's only been in one primary and won't be in any others since he's termed out. His first election, the recall -- which didn't have a primary -- he did have Republican opponents. His star power, ability to articulate Republican-sounding policies that he later jettisoned, plus his ability to self-fund and raise money gave him the win. In his 2006 reelection, his primary opponents were nobodies because the party wouldn't support a serious challenger to a sitting governor who still showed some signs of having a few Republican characteristics. If that primary were held today, it would be a far different story.

Sorry he won the primary he is a Republican. He never one a Democratic primary ever.

He ran on Republican issues, he called Obama a "socialist" and ran for McCain.

And he is often combative with the state Democrats.

You guys are so bad off you have to label Republicans as Democrats and then blame the Democrats for what a Republican actually did.

You guys are in a Bizarro universe!!

jjorsett: That was to take tax money collected supposedly for funding mental health programs and dump it into the general fund. Shifting tax money from one account to another isn't in any regard a "cut".

Yes, because the general fund has the defecit. Spending did not increase under the measure. It was to pay off the defecit.

So cutting a program to pay off a defecit is not considered a cut to you?

This is amazing how you don't understand this.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Key word: temporary. So what do you call a sum of money given from one program to another with the promise that the money will be returned in a specified amount of time?

NO TEMPORARY meant the cut was temporary not the money would be paid back. In future years the money for that tax would go back to that program. Not that the money lost would be paid back!!

So it was a reduction for a few years but that money cut for those years would NOT BE PAID BACK.


You guys are so dumb you don't even know what a cut is when you can vote on it!

Bonzo_1116: Herbie555: Not mentioned: Didn't we get part of this surplus by de-funding a bunch of pension plans for county workers a while back?

(Or was this just a city issue? Educate me other San Diegans!)

ding ding ding, we have a winner here.

SD County dealt with their totally sheisty and skeevy pension stuff a few years back because it was on the verge of bankruptcy. People double-dipping on the county pension plans, bribes and conflicts of interest on the pension board, the whole thing.

And when they sorted their shiat, it was at a time that the county cuold still get bonds and financing on the open market (this was 3 to 6 years ago, it dragged on a long long time). Local gov't with similar problems now are up shiat creek...no bond market for you.

I think they also sold off a bunch of assets to local developers too. Ha ha ha, who's holding the bag now, assholes?

Uh.. NO. SD County is NOT the same as SD City. The pension problem was a CITY issue - my sister was General Counsel for the SDC(ity)RS - which I assure you has NOTHING to do with SD county and their pension system. So all of that stuff you typed - it absolutely has nothing to do with the infamous SD pension scandal.

SD City is not in good financial shape. The books are pretty much the same as state books - farked. As always - since the 70s and 80s when my father was an assistant city manager.

SD county does not have the financial burdens the city does with respect to any of its budgets and programs. They have always had a lot of wiggle room on their books.

I happen to like Diane Jacob, but honestly, this is really much ado about nothing. The county has always had a surplus. And no pension scandal.