FTFA: It's a bear to negotiate with Republicans when they shrivel into a ball at the mere mention of taxes.

It's hard to give anyone a grade when one side insists you can only use a tiny nub of a pencil on your test and, when it runs out, you can't sharpen it or get a new pencil. You just have to turn it in as is.

Well sorry, assholes, but I can't fill a blue book with this.

At least he has O'Bummer to compare himself to - "It's Obama's fault! We can't get Federal money so we have to raise taxes!!! OMG!!"

Not making it worse is probably the best we can expect for now.

Cagey B: cdharding: At least he has O'Bummer to compare himself to - "It's Obama's fault! We can't get Federal money so we have to raise taxes!!! OMG!!"

Are you talking about his current tax proposal? Because that was necessitated by the Republicans blocking a budget that included an extension of current tax rates that were approved by Gov. Schwarzenegger. Who, of course, spent far more time complaining about lack of federal funding being the culprit behind deficits.

No I'm talking about his overall modus operandi... don't know if you were here when moonbeam was gov before but not a damned thing has changed in how he proposes to fix what is wrong with Kalifornia. Raise taxes. Don't cut spending on social programs. over and over again, the same "progressive" litany. And you cannot in all honesty blame Republicans for the mess we are in because they haven't been in control of the state for a long time.

cdharding: And you cannot in all honesty blame Republicans for the mess

Um, more like:

Voters: Here, we just voted for more spending for x.
Legislature: How are we going to pay for this, guys?
Governor: Let's raise taxes.
Voters: No. *passes ballot measure to keep the Legislature from raising taxes*
Sacramento: Well fark.

Car_Ramrod: Cut social programs? That's a great idea. Let's see what happens when you do that:

dur...herp...herp...durr

Nice strawman, but needs work.

6/10

We need an end to the initiative madness and honest redistricting.
We will get neither.

Alphax: Friskya: Car_Ramrod: Cut social programs? That's a great idea. Let's see what happens when you do that:

dur...herp...herp...durr

Nice strawman, but needs work.

6/10

Strawman?

Strawman. (new window)

Yes, low taxes and less regulation are the key to griwth. Not some expensiveveducational system. And the red tape plus the tax burden means no new businesses get started or griw.

Thats why Texas and Mississippi and Florida gave us Apple, eBay, Google, Intel, and has a thriving creative media industry that employs tens of thousands directly.

Alphax: Yes, I know what a Strawman is. Why do you think that applies here?

The premise presented is flawed. The assertion that "cuts to social programs" will result in disaster for those most in need is the strawman. Not all social programs are necessary. Many are, but many exist only to enable those "in need" (yes - I used quotation marks there) to continue refusing to try improving their lot in life. After all, why do for myself when my government will take it away from someone else and give it to me?

We've all been outraged by the story of the "welfare queen" - this is simply the other extreme of the same story.

/IMHO

MisterRonbo: Thats why Texas and Mississippi and Florida gave us Apple, eBay, Google, Intel, and has a thriving creative media porn industry

FTFY.

Alphax: There's a ton of need in our nation, and insufficient support, especially for children.

This is true. And, as I said, many social programs are very necessary, if for no other reason than, as a nation, we are very compassionate and want to help those who can't care for themselves and have no one willing/able to aid them.

Alphax: The 'lazy poor' is more or less a myth, encouraged by people with a pre-ghost Scrooge mentality.

Which is why I was very careful to make mention of the fact that it is an extreme. There are a few "lazy poor", which is where we get our welfare queen stories. Since myths have no basis in reality, I have to disagree with you on this point.

/thank you for presenting your view in a civilized fashion

kxs401: Friskya: The assertion that "cuts to social programs" will result in disaster for those most in need is the strawman.

That's not what a strawman fallacy is.

In the context of the original message, I think it just may be. It was presented for the specific purpose of knocking down the "cut spending on social spending" argument, despite the fact that this was not the original argument presented.

I would be interested in hearing your interpretation, though. I would ask that you do so as eloquently as Alphax was able to do, though. Discussions like this are far more educational when presented in a civilized manner and I'm willing to learn when it's not assumed (despite all evidence to the contrary) that I'm an idiot.

Recently read American Nations by Colin Woodard. California's issues make perfect sense to me now. You have the mindset on the coast arguing with the mindset inland arguing with the Hispanic mindset (which is southern inland, but still mixing in everywhere else). Three completely different mindsets trying to run one over-sized state that'd be at least three or four anywhere else in the world (well, other than Texas).

Friskya: Alphax: Yes, I know what a Strawman is. Why do you think that applies here?

The premise presented is flawed. The assertion that "cuts to social programs" will result in disaster for those most in need is the strawman. Not all social programs are necessary. Many are, but many exist only to enable those "in need" (yes - I used quotation marks there) to continue refusing to try improving their lot in life. After all, why do for myself when my government will take it away from someone else and give it to me?

We've all been outraged by the story of the "welfare queen" - this is simply the other extreme of the same story.

/IMHO

So your using a strawman to destroy his strawman? The elusive welfare queen does not exist. This is why we can't have nice things.

Car_Ramrod: No I'm talking about his overall modus operandi... don't know if you were here when moonbeam was gov before but not a damned thing has changed in how he proposes to fix what is wrong with Kalifornia. Raise taxes. Don't cut spending on social programs. over and over again, the same "progressive" litany. And you cannot in all honesty blame Republicans for the mess we are in because they haven't been in control of the state for a long time.

Cut social programs? That's a great idea. Let's see what happens when you do that:

When you create a straw man argument, you mischaracterize your opponent's argument in such a way as to make it easy to knock down. Saying "that 'cuts to social programs' will result in disaster for those most in need" was not a straw man in any sense of the word. It was an argument car_ramrod was making, not a mischaracterization of the original argument (which was, as far as I could tell, that progressives never want to cut social programs). The irony here is that the original argument was a straw man.

Understand?

Well, I can certainly understand that was one way to interpret the argument that car_ramrod was trying to make. It wasn't what I got out of it, but I can certainly understand how someone with a more "progressive" outlook than mine could interpret it that way.

Personally, I can't remember a social program, any social program, that progressives have indicated any willingness to cut. Once it's in, it's in forever, it seems. "You can't cut that! Think of (insert poor, downtrodden group here)."

Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age, but it seems to me that the extreme views presented (on both sides, not just one) are destroying political discourse in this country.

Thank you for a well thought out response. Now I've got something else to think about.

sammyk: The elusive welfare queen does not exist.

She does. She may be the exception, but she exists. Remember the stories about the woman complaining that she would only be able to heat the room she was in unless she got "her" heating assistance dollars? While in the background of the news pic there was a wide-screen t.v. showing her kids playing with a game console?

The thread that followed was full of comments about how she probably had cell phones for her and her kids, was using an EBT to fill her cart with goodies that the average american would consider an indulgence and all sorts of other (unsubstantiated) assumptions about her life. And that wasn't the only thread of that nature. Just the one that I could think of right now.

If the welfare queen didn't exist, we wouldn't have threads like that, ever.

As I said, it's an extreme example, just as I took the original argument to be. The only difference is, I admitted it. The original poster (In my opinion) presented his argument as established fact of what would happen if social spending was cut.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear -- car_ramrod was responding to the "Progressives never cut social programs" argument, not making it. The only point I was making is that you seem to have a poor understanding of what a straw man is.

Well, if I misinterpreted their argument, then you're right. In which case, mea culpa.

electronicmaji: He's probably the best Governor in the union. He's a really great man and he's making the tought choices no other politicians have been willing to make.

YOU GOT IT! He's the best governor the Unions can buy!! I never said specifically to which social programs I was referring, but it's interesting that the amount of money that the budget is short is pretty near what is spent on providing services to illegal aliensundocumented migrantspoor migrants just trying to do better for themselves aw fark it - calling a spade a spade - foreign invaders.

Friskya: She does. She may be the exception, but she exists.

I figure the percentage of welfare recipients that fall into the "welfare queen" category is no larger than the percentage of corrupt state legislators, which means that here in New York we're (counts up the state legislators convicted of felonies)....well and truly farked.

including nearly $1 billion in cuts the governor imposed two weeks ago when tax revenue fell short

In Massachusetts the governor also has some authority to cut spending when revenue drops. Democrats voted to expand this authority when Romney was governor because they would rather drop the blame on an (R).

Arnold Schwarzenegger-negotiated sale and lease-back of 24 state buildings

Since the people of California are so initiative-happy, they should look into changing the budget rules so such accounting tricks don't work.