Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   What would America be like without Republicans? Just take a look at California, and you'll get a pretty clear picture of it   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 332
    More: Obvious, GOP  
•       •       •

3490 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jul 2012 at 10:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-17 09:29:26 AM  
www.instablogsimages.com
 
2012-07-17 09:30:53 AM  
5th largest economy in the world? The horror.

Let's compare the coasts (dominantly Blue) to the rest, or just an overall red vs blue state comparison. See what you fund, subby, on education level, income, health, etc.
 
2012-07-17 09:35:03 AM  
What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?
 
2012-07-17 09:38:04 AM  
That guy has no idea how California works.
 
2012-07-17 09:40:35 AM  
Psst! Don't tell him about all the California Republican governors!
 
2012-07-17 09:40:43 AM  
See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?
 
2012-07-17 09:42:37 AM  

themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?


Bingo.
 
2012-07-17 09:43:54 AM  
And if you don't have Democrats you have Arizona. And if you only have RON PAUL left you have Somalia.

What's your point?
 
2012-07-17 09:48:33 AM  
I think it's direct democracy you have a problem with.
 
2012-07-17 09:52:40 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com

The horror! The horror!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-17 10:09:02 AM  
Darell Issa's state?

Is Subby retarded? Not an insult, I think it's a reasonable question at this point.

If you want somewhere with no Republicans look at Germany or Sweden. This country would be much better off if we could trade in our Republicans for a good Social Democratic party, and let the Democrats be the conservative party.

We don't really need a clown party.
 
2012-07-17 10:12:26 AM  

vpb: Darell Issa's state?

Is Subby retarded? Not an insult, I think it's a reasonable question at this point.

If you want somewhere with no Republicans look at Germany or Sweden. This country would be much better off if we could trade in our Republicans for a good Social Democratic party, and let the Democrats be the conservative party.

We don't really need a clown party.


But... but... We'd have no Michele Bachmann or Steve King or Jan Brewer or a busload of many other people to laugh at.

Seriously. We need the clowns. There has to be clowns. SEND IN THE GODDAMN CLOWNS!
 
2012-07-17 10:13:25 AM  

Tigger: And if you don't have Democrats you have Arizona.


Colorado Springs
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-17 10:17:15 AM  

I Said: 5th largest economy in the world? The horror.

Let's compare the coasts (dominantly Blue) to the rest, or just an overall red vs blue state comparison. See what you fund, subby, on education level, income, health, etc.


What would a state with only Republicans look like?


www.google.com
 
2012-07-17 10:27:08 AM  

themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?


Thread over.
 
2012-07-17 10:27:59 AM  

vpb: What would a state with only Republicans look like?

www.google.com


Or

upload.wikimedia.org

But I repeat you.
 
2012-07-17 10:34:17 AM  
Living in the reddest of the red counties as I do, I beg to differ
 
2012-07-17 10:35:18 AM  
What would America be like without Republicans?

The Confederacy would have won.
 
2012-07-17 10:35:47 AM  
Aside from the god damn Arnold Schwarzenegger governator?
 
2012-07-17 10:38:37 AM  
I have determined that once I finish my Ph.D., I am West Coast, Northeast, or Canada bound.

/which special consideration for Iceland and Scandanavia
//they need administrators, too, right? right?
 
2012-07-17 10:38:41 AM  

vygramul: Psst! Don't tell him about all the California Republican governors!


All the Republicans in California are RINOs.
 
2012-07-17 10:38:55 AM  

Masso: Aside from the god damn Arnold Schwarzenegger governator?


There were also a couple other governors you may have heard of:

Richard Milhous Nixon
Ronald Wilson Reagan

Those two aren't REAL Republicans, though.
 
2012-07-17 10:39:44 AM  

Vodka Zombie: vpb: Darell Issa's state?

Is Subby retarded? Not an insult, I think it's a reasonable question at this point.

If you want somewhere with no Republicans look at Germany or Sweden. This country would be much better off if we could trade in our Republicans for a good Social Democratic party, and let the Democrats be the conservative party.

We don't really need a clown party.

But... but... We'd have no Michele Bachmann or Steve King or Jan Brewer or a busload of many other people to laugh at.

Seriously. We need the clowns. There has to be clowns. SEND IN THE GODDAMN CLOWNS!


Laugh at the clowns, DO NOT PUT THEM IN POWER!
 
2012-07-17 10:40:17 AM  
What would America be like without Republicans?

A little less this-

www.traileraddict.com

And a little more this-

www.adrants.com
 
2012-07-17 10:41:25 AM  

Gonz: Masso: Aside from the god damn Arnold Schwarzenegger governator?

There were also a couple other governors you may have heard of:

Richard Milhous Nixon
Ronald Wilson Reagan

Those two aren't REAL Republicans, though.


Nixon was never Governor. He lost, prompting the famous "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference" melt down.
 
2012-07-17 10:41:28 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-17 10:42:04 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 500x382]

The horror! The horror!


Ha! This was my first thought:

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-17 10:42:33 AM  

vpb: Darell Issa's state?

Is Subby retarded? Not an insult, I think it's a reasonable question at this point.

If you want somewhere with no Republicans look at Germany or Sweden. This country would be much better off if we could trade in our Republicans for a good Social Democratic party, and let the Democrats be the conservative party.

We don't really need a clown party.


No, the country would be better off if we could trade in our Republicans for Conservatives. You know small government, hands off conservatives. Those folks who say abortion, marriage, and health care are states concerns and not any buisness of the Federal government. Conservatives who want the government budget ,the whole budget including the military, to shrink.

Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.
 
2012-07-17 10:43:04 AM  
Without Republicans?

The collective IQ of the country would go up, ushering a utopia of open mindedness and progressive thinking.

Oh noes.
 
2012-07-17 10:43:15 AM  
they know arnold was republican right?
 
2012-07-17 10:43:34 AM  
We don't really need aanother clown party.

FTFY
 
2012-07-17 10:43:36 AM  
Traditionally we needed to have Republicans for their brains and Democrats for their hearts, but it seems to have turned all zombie brain eaters vs Temple of Doom heart rippers lately.

hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com

What a GOP vetting session looks like
 
2012-07-17 10:44:08 AM  
Without Republicans, it would look like Switzerland here.

Without Democrats, America would look like Somalia. Or Mississippi. You know, two third-world places.
 
2012-07-17 10:44:29 AM  

rumpelstiltskin: That guy has no idea how California works.


People who believe California only consists of Los Angeles and San Francisco.
 
2012-07-17 10:44:31 AM  
So this is why the Washington Examiner has to literally give away their newspaper for free at Metro stops.
 
2012-07-17 10:44:42 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Nixon was never Governor. He lost, prompting the famous "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference" melt down.


Crap, you're right. My bad. Representative and Senator from California, Vice-President and President of the US, but never Governor.
 
2012-07-17 10:45:32 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Those folks who say abortion, marriage, and health care are states concerns and not any buisness of the Federal government.


Because states always handle things just fine themselves. Seriously, if we left everything to the states, segregation would still be allowed, and the South might not have even gotten past slavery.
 
2012-07-17 10:46:43 AM  
America w/o Republicans?

*wipes away a tear*

That's a beautiful sentiment, man.

/Article writer's name is Conn? Lawls.
 
2012-07-17 10:47:40 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.


Feudalists? They do adhere to the Southern culture of a handful rich, adored, landowners ruling over a mass of poorly educated people who think "Hey, at least I'm not a slave. That means I can be rich too someday!" That was essentially Americans trying to emulate European feudal culture.
 
2012-07-17 10:48:50 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.


Well, if they want to liberally spend more government money on their projects and interests, and liberally expand the government to spy into the private sex lives of citizens and medical records of women, and liberally abuse limited natural resources like oil, and liberally cherry pick which scientists to listen to on issues of evolution, sex education, and global warming... maybe we should call them liberals.
 
2012-07-17 10:49:36 AM  
Because obviously the best source of information on the inner-workings of California comes from the finest conservative, free newspaper Washington DC has to offer.

The Examiner: For when the Washington Times is just too liberal for you!
 
2012-07-17 10:49:57 AM  
www.statesymbolsusa.org

/except for that one, but he was a mistake and we're fixing that.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:05 AM  
Where was Reagan from, you dumb motherf*cker?
 
2012-07-17 10:50:14 AM  
Hey folks, since the article refers to "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994," I'm pretty sure the author is aware of both Schwarzenegger and Reagan, so y'all can stop posting about that.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:18 AM  

gittlebass: they know arnold was republican right?


No, he used to hang around with that Kennedy / Shriver woman, so they got confused.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:20 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So this is why the Washington Examiner has to literally give away their newspaper for free at Metro stops.


Didn't the Right Honorable Reverend Emperor Doctor Galactic President Superstar McAwesomeville Sun Myung Kevin Phillips BONG! M-O-O-N Spells "Narcissistic Whackjob" have to sell the paper a few years back for $1? (Or did he buy it back for $1?)

Either way, go be crazy somewhere else.

// and someone poison Cal Thomas already
// or send him to a goddamn speech coach
 
2012-07-17 10:50:24 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.


Serious answer: reactionary, regressive, feudalist, or some mix of those three.

Joking answer: retards, ass mongoloids, deluded morons.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:30 AM  
California isn't as liberal as people think. The voted down gay marriage.
They've put several Republicans in the gov's mansion.
Aside from a few liberal enclaves the majority is red.
 
2012-07-17 10:50:49 AM  
Oh yes - California is terrible. All the sunshine and year-around crops and culture and technology is such a burden. DON'T move to California. It's just the worst. If I could only muster the $50 or so it would cost to buy a double wide in the mid west, I would definitely do it ... I just can't afford the $30 heater that I'd have to put under it to keep the pipes from freezing 6 months out of the year.

All these views from mountain tops and beaches and valleys are just terrible. I'd much rather be living in flyover country where everything looks flat and uniform in every direction.

And the government IS the worst. They don't even try to force pregnant women to be penetrated by ultra-sounds when they don't accept the Lord Jesus. Can you believe it? And I remember when I went to public school they made us take all these books home to learn "math" and "science" with ... all I need is my Bible to know how the earth was made.

And the public museums and parks and universities ... they're everywhere. What a WASTE. Do you know how many dollar trees that could have built?
 
2012-07-17 10:51:24 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: vpb: Darell Issa's state?

Is Subby retarded? Not an insult, I think it's a reasonable question at this point.

If you want somewhere with no Republicans look at Germany or Sweden. This country would be much better off if we could trade in our Republicans for a good Social Democratic party, and let the Democrats be the conservative party.

We don't really need a clown party.

No, the country would be better off if we could trade in our Republicans for Conservatives. You know small government, hands off conservatives. Those folks who say abortion, marriage, and health care are states concerns and not any buisness of the Federal governmentno one's damn business. Conservatives who want the government budget ,the whole budget including the military, to shrink.

Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.


FTFY
 
2012-07-17 10:51:29 AM  
If Republicans didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent them.
 
2012-07-17 10:52:06 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?


Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!
 
2012-07-17 10:52:58 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Mrtraveler01: So this is why the Washington Examiner has to literally give away their newspaper for free at Metro stops.

Didn't the Right Honorable Reverend Emperor Doctor Galactic President Superstar McAwesomeville Sun Myung Kevin Phillips BONG! M-O-O-N Spells "Narcissistic Whackjob" have to sell the paper a few years back for $1? (Or did he buy it back for $1?)

Either way, go be crazy somewhere else.

// and someone poison Cal Thomas already
// or send him to a goddamn speech coach


Dang. I always get the Times and the Examiner confused. And now I've wasted an awesome jokery of Emperor Moon's name and credentials. So I guess that means I have to marry the rotund broad from HR on my lunch hour. Crap.

// had my eye on the redhead in Business Development
 
2012-07-17 10:53:09 AM  

odinsposse: Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.

Feudalists? They do adhere to the Southern culture of a handful rich, adored, landowners ruling over a mass of poorly educated people who think "Hey, at least I'm not a slave. That means I can be rich too someday!" That was essentially Americans trying to emulate European feudal culture.


All it takes is a dollar and a dream
 
2012-07-17 10:54:37 AM  
Going out Californy way. Here they got some derp out there.
 
2012-07-17 10:54:40 AM  

Super Chronic: Hey folks, since the article refers to "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994," I'm pretty sure the author is aware of both Schwarzenegger and Reagan, so y'all can stop posting about that.


That actually makes it worse. That means his argument is "California is totally liberal since there was a whole four years between Republican governors."
 
2012-07-17 10:56:10 AM  
Didn't they have a Republican governor just a few years ago?
 
2012-07-17 10:57:00 AM  
If Republicans didn't exist, quickmeme.com would take a hit as well as gun sales. I'm pretty sure there would be fetus landfills if I heard Limbaugh correctly, and our population would be on a much better trajectory towards sustainability.

Other things a GOP-less existence would afford us:

-Less bib sales for frothing stupidity
-Less Facebook infographics spewing lies about Obamacare
-Less gay people living in fear
-Less muslims living in fear
-Less hate crimes
-More Starbucks
-Less McDonald's
-More NPR
-Less AM Talk Radio
-Less air pollutants
-More MPG
-Less Bud Light
-More Yuengling
 
2012-07-17 10:57:07 AM  
What a bunch of hogwash. The state has been run most of the time by a Republican over the past century. Why do people let the republicans disavow their own leadership and results?

California's Governors
 
2012-07-17 10:57:35 AM  

odinsposse: Super Chronic: Hey folks, since the article refers to "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994," I'm pretty sure the author is aware of both Schwarzenegger and Reagan, so y'all can stop posting about that.

That actually makes it worse. That means his argument is "California is totally liberal since there was a whole four years between Republican governors."


Not commenting on the merits of the article, just pointing out that people can dispense with the "you forgot about Arnold and Ronnie!?!" posts. (But Arnie was pretty damn ineffectual against the legislature and the voters, so there's that.)
 
2012-07-17 10:57:46 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!


Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.
 
2012-07-17 10:58:33 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-17 10:58:40 AM  

Hobodeluxe: California isn't as liberal as people think. The voted down gay marriage.
They've put several Republicans in the gov's mansion.
Aside from a few liberal enclaves the majority is red.


The Hobo is correct. It's a red state with two blue population centers that skew the elections.

/Cali resident for nearly 40 years now, lived North, South, and Central
 
2012-07-17 10:59:55 AM  
The redder the state the poorer the state, the fatter the state, the more AIDs ridden the state, the less educated the state, the more diabetic the state...
 
2012-07-17 11:01:23 AM  
Take a look at the CA budget process for the last ten years, and tell me Republicans were not involved. Also, Prop 13.
 
2012-07-17 11:02:37 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!


This falsifies the statement that the state's pensions were invested in in the private market in what way?
 
2012-07-17 11:02:39 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.


I'm pretty sure he's a professional shill.
 
2012-07-17 11:04:57 AM  

Super Chronic: odinsposse: Super Chronic: Hey folks, since the article refers to "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994," I'm pretty sure the author is aware of both Schwarzenegger and Reagan, so y'all can stop posting about that.

That actually makes it worse. That means his argument is "California is totally liberal since there was a whole four years between Republican governors."

Not commenting on the merits of the article, just pointing out that people can dispense with the "you forgot about Arnold and Ronnie!?!" posts. (But Arnie was pretty damn ineffectual against the legislature and the voters, so there's that.)


The biggest problem Arnie had was with his own party. Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.
 
2012-07-17 11:05:40 AM  
One example of why California is broke:
Link
 
2012-07-17 11:06:34 AM  
Canada
 
2012-07-17 11:07:31 AM  

make me some tea: themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?

Thread over.


Yep. This state's problems have nothing to do with red vs. blue and everything to do with idiot voters and terrible pension investments.
 
2012-07-17 11:07:48 AM  

spiderpaz: Oh yes - California is terrible. All the sunshine and year-around crops and culture and technology is such a burden. DON'T move to California. It's just the worst. If I could only muster the $50 or so it would cost to buy a double wide in the mid west, I would definitely do it ... I just can't afford the $30 heater that I'd have to put under it to keep the pipes from freezing 6 months out of the year.

All these views from mountain tops and beaches and valleys are just terrible. I'd much rather be living in flyover country where everything looks flat and uniform in every direction.

And the government IS the worst. They don't even try to force pregnant women to be penetrated by ultra-sounds when they don't accept the Lord Jesus. Can you believe it? And I remember when I went to public school they made us take all these books home to learn "math" and "science" with ... all I need is my Bible to know how the earth was made.

And the public museums and parks and universities ... they're everywhere. What a WASTE. Do you know how many dollar trees that could have built?


So all that means California has no economic problems?

The scenery in Cali being nice has nothing to do with the political party in control of the government, whereas the tax rates and massively in debt state budget probably do have something to do with who's running the state. But yeah the scenery is really nice there so let's ignore the economic failure and laugh at the flyover states!

/article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess
 
2012-07-17 11:08:30 AM  
DNRTFA, but CA doesn't even seem to make the top 10 list of most Democratic states these days.

/for example
//or this
 
2012-07-17 11:08:43 AM  
If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
russthorne.kohlarn.com

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?
 
2012-07-17 11:09:22 AM  

Fart_Machine: Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.

I'm pretty sure he's a professional shill.


Nah, just someone who thoroughly buys into the theory that the wealthy are all noble, honorable people who are intrinsically better than everyone else as proven by the fact that they have large amounts of money.
 
2012-07-17 11:09:25 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.


I don't think he mentioned teachers once. We kind of do have that problem though, in Illinois too. We do spend too much on public employee pensions. If you have a private sector pension (and nobody does any more, by the way) and your company goes tits up or experiences hardship they reduce your payout. In California (and Illinois) it's written into the state Constitution that your pension cannot be reduced. Math be damned, use the taxpayers like a piggy-bank. The people who clean road-kill off the side of the road shouldn't be making $70k+ a year and be eligible for pensions after a measly 20 years of work.
 
2012-07-17 11:10:25 AM  

js34603: The scenery in Cali being nice has nothing to do with the political party in control of the government, whereas the tax rates and massively in debt state budget probably do have something to do with who's running the state.


You realize that a budget can't get passed without a 2/3 majority right?
 
2012-07-17 11:11:37 AM  
Wasn't it the Republicans who brought in Proposition 13, which is currently crippling our tax revenue stream? And made laws that made it hard to raise taxes but easy to increase spending? Yes? Case closed.
 
2012-07-17 11:12:17 AM  

Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.


I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?
 
2012-07-17 11:13:25 AM  

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.

I don't think he mentioned teachers once. We kind of do have that problem though, in Illinois too. We do spend too much on public employee pensions. If you have a private sector pension (and nobody does any more, by the way) and your company goes tits up or experiences hardship they reduce your payout. In California (and Illinois) it's written into the state Constitution that your pension cannot be reduced. Math be damned, use the taxpayers like a piggy-bank. The people who clean road-kill off the side of the road shouldn't be making $70k+ a year and be eligible for pensions after a measly 20 years of work.


Yes, it's your neighbor who works for the government that must be dragged down to your level. Rather than work to improve your situation, destroy theirs out of envy. Focus your anger on the real enemy, the guy who keeps your street from being covered with road kill. His greed is what is holding you back. His elite status is the problem.
 
2012-07-17 11:13:42 AM  
Author looks like a total douche. Fix your own state. Our is just fine tyvm.
 
2012-07-17 11:14:28 AM  

wildcardjack: Traditionally we needed to have Republicans for their brains and Democrats for their hearts, but it seems to have turned all zombie brain eaters vs Temple of Doom heart rippers lately.

[hollywoodhatesme.files.wordpress.com image 267x260]

What a GOP vetting session looks like


I laugh every time I see that.
 
2012-07-17 11:16:19 AM  
You talk like both parties aren't owned by the same companies.
 
2012-07-17 11:16:54 AM  

The Banana Thug: Wasn't it the Republicans who brought in Proposition 13, which is currently crippling our tax revenue stream? And made laws that made it hard to raise taxes but easy to increase spending? Yes? Case closed.


Proposition 13 was a ballot initiative approved by the majority of voters in California, garnering almost 65% of the popular vote. It's a terrible law.

You can't really blame it on Republicans (or the politicians), you have to blame it on the voters in California, who are the ones mostly responsible for the state's budget situation.
 
2012-07-17 11:18:13 AM  
A better speculation would be, I wonder what California would look like without Proposition 13 on the books.
 
2012-07-17 11:19:06 AM  

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.

I don't think he mentioned teachers once. We kind of do have that problem though, in Illinois too. We do spend too much on public employee pensions. If you have a private sector pension (and nobody does any more, by the way) and your company goes tits up or experiences hardship they reduce your payout. In California (and Illinois) it's written into the state Constitution that your pension cannot be reduced. Math be damned, use the taxpayers like a piggy-bank. The people who clean road-kill off the side of the road shouldn't be making $70k+ a year and be eligible for pensions after a measly 20 years of work.


Why not? Back-breaking labor, in all kinds of heat (that I hear you have in CA), earthquake risks (but they have those in every state), risks of crazy-ass CA drivers (with no insurance - hooray!), politicians salivating over what pet projects they can reduce your pension to buy... Besides which, they provide a public service. It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Also, "if a company goes tits up" doesn't really apply. If the state of California "goes tits up", the (50?) millions of people who live there have bigger problems than how healthy a 35-year old ditch-digger's pension is.

// and are we using the same funny math that puts the USPS in "insolvency" every year?
// IIRC, USPS now has to fund 75 years' worth of pensions up front, which seems a bit excessive
 
2012-07-17 11:19:54 AM  

Fart_Machine: rumpelstiltskin: That guy has no idea how California works.

People who believe California only consists of Los Angeles and San Francisco.


i586.photobucket.com

And Luthorville, Lextown, and Otisburg.
 
2012-07-17 11:21:59 AM  

what_now: [www.statesymbolsusa.org image 330x326]

/except for that one, but he was a mistake and we're fixing that.


How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.
 
2012-07-17 11:22:36 AM  

Dr Dreidel: // IIRC, USPS now has to fund 75 years' worth of pensions up front, which seems a bit excessive


That's something congress saddled them with in order to make an argument that the USPS should be disbanded in favor of it costing $12.95 to send grandma a letter.
 
MFL
2012-07-17 11:24:00 AM  
California, Illinois, Michigan.........All bankrupt.......All democrat cestpools.

You see children, when your economic religion is based on biting and shaming the hand that feeds you.......eventually that hand waves buh bye and leaves you with the bill.

Progressivism....what a fiscally childish and naive ideology.....lol
 
2012-07-17 11:24:08 AM  
If Republicans didn't exist we could have real discussions in government instead of making fart noises.
 
2012-07-17 11:24:32 AM  
California is in such a mess because its peoples want all the amenities of a civilized taxed society...without the necessary taxes.

You don't get to put stuff on a 'referendum' and then put taxes on a second one.

And shame on the California politicians that have allowed this to go on for as long as they have. They know better.
 
2012-07-17 11:25:17 AM  

Jackson Herring: How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.


First to declare independence, b*tches, so we got first dibs on the name. We got ours.
 
2012-07-17 11:25:39 AM  
Also, if you want to see an ideal 'Democrat' state, go look at Vermont.
 
2012-07-17 11:25:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, it's your neighbor who works for the government that must be dragged down to your level.


Yes, because I personally hate everyone who works for the government, and wanting to have more money set aside for healthcare for poor people and capital improvements makes me a terrible person.

Rather than work to improve your situation, destroy theirs out of envy.

Strawman.

Focus your anger on the real enemy, the guy who keeps your street from being covered with road kill. His greed is what is holding you back. His elite status is the problem.

It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.
 
2012-07-17 11:28:30 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Remember folks, it's the teacher's that are greedy, getting those "unreasonable" pensions, not the folks on Wall sXSreet making hundreds of times more. Please direct your anger accordingly.

I don't think he mentioned teachers once. We kind of do have that problem though, in Illinois too. We do spend too much on public employee pensions. If you have a private sector pension (and nobody does any more, by the way) and your company goes tits up or experiences hardship they reduce your payout. In California (and Illinois) it's written into the state Constitution that your pension cannot be reduced. Math be damned, use the taxpayers like a piggy-bank. The people who clean road-kill off the side of the road shouldn't be making $70k+ a year and be eligible for pensions after a measly 20 years of work.

Yes, it's your neighbor who works for the government that must be dragged down to your level. Rather than work to improve your situation, destroy theirs out of envy. Focus your anger on the real enemy, the guy who keeps your street from being covered with road kill. His greed is what is holding you back. His elite status is the problem.


Not to mention that the best way for a government to balance its books and serve its citizens is to abandon its contractual obligations whenever they become inconvenient or burdensome down the road. The best governments are run like ruthless, amoral, cutthroat businesses.

/Piling on
 
2012-07-17 11:28:45 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.

First to declare independence, b*tches, so we got first dibs on the name. We got ours.


I mean RI is definitely cute
 
2012-07-17 11:30:25 AM  

qorkfiend: Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!

This falsifies the statement that the state's pensions were invested in in the private market in what way?


It doesn't falsify it at all. It points to the absurdity of blaming the fact that pensions funds were invested in the market for california's fiscal problems.

Every pension plan, insurance company, college or charitable
foundation endowment, etc., puts their assets into investments. Why shouldnt calpers or calsters? Over the long term, these funds earn a return that help meet the pension or other obligations. The alternative is
to just stuff the pension fund assets in a mattress. Is that what you'd have them do?

Meanwhile, there are other actual problems with the way California is run that are actually causing the issues. You dopes will ignore those while chasing a red herring about investments.
 
2012-07-17 11:30:54 AM  
oh snap, subby! LOL
 
2012-07-17 11:31:23 AM  

Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.


Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.
 
2012-07-17 11:31:27 AM  

fringedmyotis: The Hobo is correct. It's a red state with two blue population centers that skew the elections.


Umm, they don't "skew the election". It's still one person one vote isn't it?
 
2012-07-17 11:32:50 AM  

coeyagi: If Republicans didn't exist, quickmeme.com would take a hit as well as gun sales. I'm pretty sure there would be fetus landfills if I heard Limbaugh correctly, and our population would be on a much better trajectory towards sustainability.

Other things a GOP-less existence would afford us:

-Less bib sales for frothing stupidity
-Less Facebook infographics spewing lies about Obamacare
-Less gay people living in fear
-Less muslims living in fear
-Less hate crimes
-More Starbucks
-Less McDonald's
-More NPR
-Less AM Talk Radio
-Less air pollutants
-More MPG
-Less Bud Light
-More Yuengling


This. THIS.

And all AM Talk radio should be Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM
 
2012-07-17 11:33:08 AM  

wildcardjack: Dr Dreidel: // IIRC, USPS now has to fund 75 years' worth of pensions up front, which seems a bit excessive

That's something congress saddled them with in order to make an argument that the USPS should be disbanded in favor of it costing $12.95 to send grandma a letter.


And if CA's done the same thing with CalPERS/CalSTRS...?
 
2012-07-17 11:34:02 AM  

ferretman: /Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


I dunno, ask Reagan, he pioneered the concept.
 
2012-07-17 11:34:53 AM  
This bullshiat again?

upload.wikimedia.org
Gov. 2003-2011 - REPUBLICAN

upload.wikimedia.org
Gov. Pete Wilson 1991-1999- REPUBLICAN

upload.wikimedia.org
Gov George Deukmejian 1983-1991 - REPUBLICAN

upload.wikimedia.org
Gov Ronald Reagan 1967-75 - REPUBLICAN


In the last 45 years California have had 2 different Democrat Governors and Republicans are all "OMG Land of the libs!!"

Only now things are actually being fixed that we have a Democrat Governor again.

Also taxes can't be raised unless there is a 2/3rd vote and the Republicans always vote against it no matter what.

This line is Bullshiat.
 
2012-07-17 11:35:01 AM  
Yes, ignore Schwarzennegger completely, you ass. California has many problems, some you can pin on democrats, some on republicans, and a ton on the voters.

And Jeezus, at least coastal Californians, mostly democrats, are smart enough to escape shiatholes like the valley.
 
2012-07-17 11:35:19 AM  

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, it's your neighbor who works for the government that must be dragged down to your level.

Yes, because I personally hate everyone who works for the government, and wanting to have more money set aside for healthcare for poor people and capital improvements makes me a terrible person.

Rather than work to improve your situation, destroy theirs out of envy.

Strawman.

Focus your anger on the real enemy, the guy who keeps your street from being covered with road kill. His greed is what is holding you back. His elite status is the problem.

It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.


Umm, no, it's a problem when your god damn bosses care more about their end-of-year bonus than taking care of their employees. I'm partial owner in a company that has 0% profit, every year. Why, you might ask? Because we do 100% profit sharing among all our employees. And, at the end of the day, who cares about payroll taxes when each employee gets a $30k check after payroll tax.

Yell at your own god damn boss or realize that some people have better employers than yourself. Public employees solved greed, maybe you should bring that up at the next board meeting that decides shipping 1000 jobs to Bumblefark, India is better than raising your product's price $1.00 ...
 
2012-07-17 11:35:40 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.


WHAT?! Actually demand that the Job Creators do something than the bare minimum? Next you'd be asking that wages keep pace with productivity gains or something. Enormous profits don't just generate themselves, pardner.
 
2012-07-17 11:35:43 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.

First to declare independence, b*tches, so we got first dibs on the name. We got ours.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_carolina#The_American_Revolution

Or maybe New Hampshire?
 
2012-07-17 11:35:51 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.

Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.


Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.
 
2012-07-17 11:36:38 AM  

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: Yes, it's your neighbor who works for the government that must be dragged down to your level.

Yes, because I personally hate everyone who works for the government, and wanting to have more money set aside for healthcare for poor people and capital improvements makes me a terrible person.

Rather than work to improve your situation, destroy theirs out of envy.

Strawman.

Focus your anger on the real enemy, the guy who keeps your street from being covered with road kill. His greed is what is holding you back. His elite status is the problem.

It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.


I dont know what his story is. He seems to actually believe that if you think public sector workers are getting too good a deal at your, the taxpayer's, expense, instead of trying to improve that deal you should just focus on getting more from others.

It's like a plumber overcharging you and when you say you are going to use a more reasonably priced plumber, him telling you to stop complaining and just ask for a raise from your boss.
 
2012-07-17 11:37:43 AM  

Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).


Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?
 
2012-07-17 11:38:53 AM  
www.ojaipost.com
 
2012-07-17 11:39:41 AM  

Mrtraveler01: So this is why the Washington Examiner has to literally give away their newspaper for free at Metro stops.


The Washington Examiner is a fine publication... TO POOP ON!
 
2012-07-17 11:40:20 AM  
The Republican's fiscal record over the last decade is embarrassingly bad. They should STFU.
 
2012-07-17 11:40:35 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: vygramul: Psst! Don't tell him about all the California Republican governors!

All the Republicans in California are RINOs.


Then subby should have said "conservatives" rather than Republicans.
 
2012-07-17 11:41:16 AM  
texas is some sort of gold standard?


"Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today"

i96.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-17 11:42:04 AM  

Jackson Herring: I mean RI is definitely cute


MA keeps it in its place with its muscular arm.
 
2012-07-17 11:42:53 AM  
I just want to go on record as saying that I love this thread.
 
2012-07-17 11:43:15 AM  
I blame the Referendum system we have in California.

Voters: We want free stuff and we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it!
 
2012-07-17 11:43:33 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.

Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.

Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.


The company I'm part owner in is able to do so ... maybe because we've figured out how to convince people to buy a premium product ... and we're in HOME CONSTRUCTION ... but yeah, you put in 25 year in our business and you can retire with full bennies and pension.

Dearly sorry that the company you work for is too stupid to figure it out by themselves ...
 
2012-07-17 11:43:40 AM  

Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?


Why is it that a private employee needs fewer safeguards than public employees?

Why drag down them down? Why not lift the others up?

Oh right, the rich might have to part with a few more dollars.
 
2012-07-17 11:44:45 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.

Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.

Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.


But paying the top executives hundreds of times worker pay, and then paying them millions more to go away when they fail is perfectly sustainable, right?
 
2012-07-17 11:45:07 AM  

Nickdude: I blame the Referendum system we have in California.

Voters: We want free stuff and we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it!


Which is the true irony of it all - that's Republican Fiscal Policy in a nutshell. If anything, California is Republican Paradise.
 
2012-07-17 11:45:52 AM  

Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?


Fark at my link, here's my citation for road-kill cleaners making over $70k a year:

Otto, who is paid $73,344 a year, declined to comment.

seadoo2006: Public employees solved greed,


The most laughably retarded thing anyone has said in this thread so far.

Debeo Summa Credo: from others.

It's like a plumber overcharging you and when you say you are going to use a more reasonably priced plumber, him telling you to stop complaining and just ask for a raise from your boss.


Occam's Nailfile: Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.


Thank you for getting the point, and getting it across better than I can, apparently.
 
2012-07-17 11:47:18 AM  
When one party has all the power bad things happen. I live in Luzerne County Pa. Google what has gone on here under one party rule and you too will be disgusted by the level of corruption that was commonplace. Every single politician with exactly one exception that was arrested and convicted was from the same party. If the other party had the same situation, I am certain it would have led to the same results.
 
2012-07-17 11:48:14 AM  
Wait?

i.imgur.com

We have a choice?
 
2012-07-17 11:48:41 AM  

Infernalist: Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?

Why is it that a private employee needs fewer safeguards than public employees?

Why drag down them down? Why not lift the others up?

Oh right, the rich might have to part with a few more dollars.


Yah Fark it talks about class war-fare when he is basically an insurgent in the fight. Basically the rich figure if the middle class are fighting among themselves and attacking the poor they won't focus on them looting the economy.
 
2012-07-17 11:49:26 AM  

seadoo2006: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.

Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.

Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.

The company I'm part owner in is able to do so ... maybe because we've figured out how to convince people to buy a premium product ... and we're in HOME CONSTRUCTION ... but yeah, you put in 25 year in our business and you can retire with full bennies and pension.

Dearly sorry that the company you work for is too stupid to figure it out by themselves ...


It will be interesting to see you and your co-workers try to collect on your pensions, and what your "benefits" will look like 25 years from now.

You are assuming your firm will still exist, that it has invested your pension money wisely, that those investments don't collapse, that it will be able to afford to continue paying your benefit premiums...that's a whole lotta faith you're putting in your employer, the economy, and the unknown people who will run the company 25 years from now when your current leadership team is dead or has moved on.

Good luck with that.
 
2012-07-17 11:49:44 AM  
I'd take my chances with that.
 
2012-07-17 11:50:52 AM  

bossuniversalAA: texas is some sort of gold standard?


"Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today"


Nobody ever mentions what those jobs pay, or if they offer benefits. Bringing in bad jobs to replace good ones does nothing to fix the problem.
 
2012-07-17 11:51:01 AM  

Tigger: And if you don't have Democrats you have Arizona. And if you only have RON PAUL left you have Somalia.

What's your point?


That we need both parties to keep the other one from running wild?
 
2012-07-17 11:51:19 AM  

Fark It: Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?

Fark at my link, here's my citation for road-kill cleaners making over $70k a year:

Otto, who is paid $73,344 a year, declined to comment.

seadoo2006: Public employees solved greed,

The most laughably retarded thing anyone has said in this thread so far.

Debeo Summa Credo: from others.

It's like a plumber overcharging you and when you say you are going to use a more reasonably priced plumber, him telling you to stop complaining and just ask for a raise from your boss.

Occam's Nailfile: Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.

Thank you for getting the point, and getting it across better than I can, apparently.


So, $73k is excessive? But the 1% (over $250k/year) aren't rich? You're duality in thinking doesn't stand up. Sorry your life sucks so much that you feel that someone earning $73k needs to be dragged down, but see, some of us actually believe well, their job is worth that much.

The only people that have problems with public pensions are the same retards that go to the same job for 20 years working under some slave-master middle manager and then complain that they have it rough. Hey man, if slinging dead animals is such a good job, why not quit yours and go work for the city?

It's the same argument you people always give about welfare abuse. If being on welfare is so great, and you can have a big house and drugs and big 24" spinner wheels on your car, why not quit your job, go move to the projects, and get on welfare. Your life would be better, right?

Oh yeah, you're all lying assholes that don't actually believe a word of the filth that spews from your mouths ...
 
2012-07-17 11:53:07 AM  

xalres: bossuniversalAA: texas is some sort of gold standard?


"Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today"

Nobody ever mentions what those jobs pay, or if they offer benefits. Bringing in bad jobs to replace good ones does nothing to fix the problem.


25% of the population of Texas does not have health insurance.
 
2012-07-17 11:53:08 AM  

Nickdude: I blame the Referendum system we have in California.

Voters: We want free stuff and we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it!


Yeah, thats essentially it. You want stuff you need to pay for it, and as dysfunctional as legislative process is, it's better than the direct democracy process in CA.

And as low as property tax rates are in CA, it's worth noting that they have very high income and sales tax rates.
 
2012-07-17 11:53:13 AM  
Yes. Without republicans, all of America would look like the most productive regional economy in the world. Take that, libtards!
 
2012-07-17 11:53:43 AM  

karnal: One example of why California is broke:
Link


So I take it you didn't read your whole article?
 
2012-07-17 11:53:56 AM  

The Homer Tax: Because obviously the best source of information on the inner-workings of California comes from the finest conservative, free newspaper Washington DC has to offer.

The Examiner: For when the Washington Times is just too liberal for you!


Or when you aren't picky about bird cage liners
 
2012-07-17 11:54:44 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: I mean RI is definitely cute

MA keeps it in its place with its muscular arm.


It Is A Metaphor. RI is you, tiny and adorable. MA is me, umm... huge and jacked. Yeah, that's the ticket.
 
2012-07-17 11:55:16 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Fark It: It's a problem when public employees have far, far more generous pension plans than anybody else in this country, and it's irritating when any discussion about this inevitably turns to class-warfare, ad hominem personal attacks, and wild jumping to conclusions. Believing that the costs of public employee pensions and the pie-in-the-sky benefits that some of them get needs to be addressed hardly makes me a tea party republican, or even conservative for that matter.

Yes it is a problem. But perhaps rather than asking yourself why the government employees have good pension systems, you should be asking yourself why private sector workers don't. Perhaps you should focus on improving benefits for those in the private sector rather than removing benefits for others.

Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.

The company I'm part owner in is able to do so ... maybe because we've figured out how to convince people to buy a premium product ... and we're in HOME CONSTRUCTION ... but yeah, you put in 25 year in our business and you can retire with full bennies and pension.

Dearly sorry that the company you work for is too stupid to figure it out by themselves ...

It will be interesting to see you and your co-workers try to collect on your pensions, and what your "benefits" will look like 25 years from now.

You are assuming your firm will still exist, that it has invested your pension money wisely, that those investments don't collapse, that it will be able to afford to continue paying your benefit premiums...that's a whole lotta faith you're putting in your employer, the economy, and the unknown people who will run the company 25 years from now when your current leader ...


We're a family owned and operated business with a moral ... and as long as the banks don't all fail, we're funded for the next 60 years with low-risk investments. Again, if you don't have lying, cheating, short-term idiots running your place of employment, you can have bennies and nice salaries and pensions in this economy. Hell, we build homes in farking CLEVELAND and we're doing better than we have ever done in 20 years of business ... funny, you'd think with the economy being as bad as it is and all that home construction in CLEVELAND would've died years ago, right?

Oh wait, the Fox News prime directive is false ... open your eyes and see the economic recovery around you. You want the 90s to come back, force businesses to pay out any cash at the end of the year in either payroll bonuses below the $100k salary threshold or pay HUGE income tax rates on any cash stored away.
 
2012-07-17 11:55:26 AM  

ferretman: If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
[russthorne.kohlarn.com image 700x525]

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


So we would look like Mississippi?
 
2012-07-17 11:55:45 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: But paying the top executives hundreds of times worker pay, and then paying them millions more to go away when they fail is perfectly sustainable, right?


If you have a problem with that system, either start your own company, or buy enough of another to effect the change you want. Until then, it's not your money, it's not your company, and you don't get a say in the matter.

The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.
 
2012-07-17 11:55:53 AM  
Only that the last Governor who left us with a huge debt and budget deficit was a Republican....


Other than that it is a great place to live with people flocking to live here.
 
2012-07-17 11:56:49 AM  

seadoo2006: We're a family owned and operated business with a moral


So was WalMart.
 
2012-07-17 11:57:19 AM  

Infernalist: Why is it that a private employee needs fewer safeguards than public employees?


Why do they deserve more than comparable private employees? Why are they so goddamn special?

Why drag down them down?

I love this use of language here. If you want to call it "dragging them down," you go ahead and do that. Sooner or later, we're going to reach the tipping point when we realize that the halcyon days of American manufacturing and industry are over, and the only reminders will not be the ruins of Detroit and Gary, Indiana, but the huge pensions and Cadillac-benefits that government workers get. How much do you think we should raise property and income taxes to support public employee pensions? How will that only affect the rich?

Why not lift the others up?

Money doesn't grow on trees, and not everybody can work for the government.

Oh right, the rich might have to part with a few more dollars.

Yeah, "a few more dollars," that "the rich" would have to part with. If it were that easy the states would have already gotten them to pony up. It's not, and the states have a $1.5 trillion dollar gap when it comes to pensions and healthcare benefits for retirees.

But you're right, I should work to bring myself up instead of "tearing others down." I can start by getting a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees my pension benefits will not be reduced, and forcing the public (that would be "the rich" to you) to pay when there's a shortfall. Gee, and here I thought we had to use real money to pay these things!
 
2012-07-17 11:57:23 AM  

red5ish: The Republican's fiscal record over the last decade is embarrassingly bad. They should STFU.


Fiscal irresponsibility, in fact, is one of the biggest reasons NOT to vote for any Republican. Democrats don't have a stellar record in this area either, but their record on fiscal responsibility is much better than the Republicans', primarily because they aren't totally and irrationally against all taxation. And that's just looking at the surface issue of long-term budget stability and not the deeper issue of creating a healthy and prosperous society (hint: Texas is not a good example of that). In order to have a stable government fiscal situation, you need a healthy economy. Republican undercutting of education, infrastructure, and other necessary services in favor of very short-term "balanced budgets" (see states raiding pension funds so that GOP governors can claim fiscal success) does not produce long-term growth. Instead, it produces stagnation, class stratification, and a collapse of government services.

But then, that's the goal of rich Republicans. I just can't understand why so many idiots fall for the lie that Republicans are "fiscal conservatives", when the last few decades of history screams the opposite.
 
2012-07-17 11:58:26 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Nickdude: I blame the Referendum system we have in California.

Voters: We want free stuff and we don't want to raise taxes to pay for it!

Yeah, thats essentially it. You want stuff you need to pay for it, and as dysfunctional as legislative process is, it's better than the direct democracy process in CA.

And as low as property tax rates are in CA, it's worth noting that they have very high income and sales tax rates.


On this we can agree. The 50.1% requirement for passing spending bills combined with the 66.67% requirement for raising taxes is more responsible for this state's woes than who's in charge.
 
2012-07-17 11:58:49 AM  

Jackson Herring: It Is A Metaphor. RI is you, tiny and adorable. MA is me, umm... huge and jacked. Yeah, that's the ticket.


Hmm.. Massachusetts does remind of of someone...

j.wigflip.com
 
2012-07-17 11:58:57 AM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?


Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?
 
2012-07-17 12:00:27 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-07-17 12:00:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: We're a family owned and operated business with a moral

So was WalMart.


Well ... as much as being the $100 Billion Waltons would be nice ... and paying off victims of DUI manslaughter is nice ... I don't see home construction expanding to quite that level. Speaking of Wal-Mart, the owners have $15-20 Billion each and their employees all pretty much make less than $10/hour and need to use government welfare to pick up the slack ...

And you wonder why we can't afford pensions??? We can, and the fallacy that has been illustrated is that we cannot while those who have the most around us, TAKE the most from us. Change the system back to 40 hour work weeks, 40 year careers, and pensions with SS/Medicare picking up after those who cannot. It is sustainable, we just all have to agree that making a ten million times what your lowest employee does is not a good thing.
 
2012-07-17 12:01:18 PM  

Fark It: Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?

Fark at my link, here's my citation for road-kill cleaners making over $70k a year:

Otto, who is paid $73,344 a year, declined to comment.


Well, OK. So there is a road worker making $70k+/year. Do we know he's not a supervisor or other managerial type (perhaps he oversees an entire division of road-cleaners, though admittedly not well)? Do we know how many years of service he has? Oh, and do we know that that figure is only cash compensation, as opposed to an estimate or other accounting of cash+benefits?

Just as a frame of reference, in the San Jose area, a GS-9 (step 10) makes about that (as well as other GSs and steps). It implies years of service, and without knowing what tenure Otto has, I'll fall back on my claim that those who dedicate time to public service deserve some measure of return on that investment. Even a gal who worked as a street sweeper from ages 20-40. Those are the prime earning years, and she spent them in service of the public. Fair's fair.

Especially assuming Otto could have made more in the private sector (which I'm not assuming, but there's a group that presumes that regularly).

Public pensions become unreasonable when we say they do. It may be unreasonable for a worker with 1 year of tenure at a part-time $10k/year job to have a guaranteed pension worth $5,000,000, but if that's what the citizenry wanted and the legislature voted on, why not? We the People have made our beds, and the hour for sleep rapidly approacheth.

If there really is that big a problem, the pensioners will feel it soon enough.
 
2012-07-17 12:01:19 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: But paying the top executives hundreds of times worker pay, and then paying them millions more to go away when they fail is perfectly sustainable, right?

If you have a problem with that system, either start your own company, or buy enough of another to effect the change you want. Until then, it's not your money, it's not your company, and you don't get a say in the matter.

The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.


I have already suggested that people focus on improving the lot of private sector employees rather than shaking their tiny fists of rage at those in the public sector as you do.
 
2012-07-17 12:02:45 PM  
"At some point we Californians should ask ourselves, how we inherited a state with near perfect weather, the world's richest agriculture, plentiful timber, minerals, and oil, two great ports at Los Angeles and Oakland, a natural tourist industry from Carmel to Yosemite, industries such as Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and aerospace-and serially managed to turn all of that into the nation's largest penal system, periodic near bankruptcy, and sky-high taxes." - Victor Hanson Davis
 
2012-07-17 12:03:12 PM  
Voter Initiatives and referendums are going to be the end of state governments. Voters are happy to enact caps on taxes while mandating spending.

It's like asking a five year old what he wants to eat for dinner - it's gonna be ICE CREAM!!!


Michigan's going down that same path... there are 6 ballot proposals up this fall promoted by various special interest, for voters to blindly vote on without considering any ramifications, because "it sounds like a good idea."
 
2012-07-17 12:03:25 PM  
California is the best argument against Republican Populism that has ever been made.
That state is straight up retarded because the People get to approve everything that happens.

/and the People, collectively, are always retarded.
 
2012-07-17 12:03:45 PM  

Corvus: This bullshiat again?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x313]
Gov. 2003-2011 - REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x321]
Gov. Pete Wilson 1991-1999- REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x277]
Gov George Deukmejian 1983-1991 - REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]
Gov Ronald Reagan 1967-75 - REPUBLICAN


In the last 45 years California have had 2 different Democrat Governors and Republicans are all "OMG Land of the libs!!"

Only now things are actually being fixed that we have a Democrat Governor again.

Also taxes can't be raised unless there is a 2/3rd vote and the Republicans always vote against it no matter what.

This line is Bullshiat.


This is some sort of fantasy-based republican talking point, because I have a friend, who lives in CA (same as me), who probably voted for Arnold say we haven't had a Republican governor ("Arnold was no Republican!").

I love how when conservative policies ultimately fail, conservatives immediately say they were not conservatives. Bush was the ultimate conservative, in lock step with all their economic polices, a failure, now they won't even call him a Republican, let alone a conservative.
 
2012-07-17 12:04:08 PM  
California: Apparently, 4 of our last 5 governors do not exist.
 
2012-07-17 12:05:09 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: You are assuming your firm will still exist, that it has invested your pension money wisely, that those investments don't collapse, that it will be able to afford to continue paying your benefit premiums...that's a whole lotta faith you're putting in your employer, the economy, and the unknown people who will run the company 25 years from now when your current leadership team is dead or has moved on.

Good luck with that.


Occam's Nailfile: The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.


You're funny. Everything you attempt is doomed to failure, but all the fault lies with you because you didn't bootstrap yourself to success. So which is it? Learn a skill and work your way up, or that the rich are rich and the poor are poor and any attempt at bucking the system will result in failure and sadness?
 
2012-07-17 12:05:13 PM  

Aldon: Corvus: This bullshiat again?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x313]
Gov. 2003-2011 - REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x321]
Gov. Pete Wilson 1991-1999- REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x277]
Gov George Deukmejian 1983-1991 - REPUBLICAN

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x275]
Gov Ronald Reagan 1967-75 - REPUBLICAN


In the last 45 years California have had 2 different Democrat Governors and Republicans are all "OMG Land of the libs!!"

Only now things are actually being fixed that we have a Democrat Governor again.

Also taxes can't be raised unless there is a 2/3rd vote and the Republicans always vote against it no matter what.

This line is Bullshiat.

This is some sort of fantasy-based republican talking point, because I have a friend, who lives in CA (same as me), who probably voted for Arnold say we haven't had a Republican governor ("Arnold was no Republican!").

I love how when conservative policies ultimately fail, conservatives immediately say they were not conservatives. Bush was the ultimate conservative, in lock step with all their economic polices, a failure, now they won't even call him a Republican, let alone a conservative.



The GOP's 2012 campaign strategy is to ignore the fact that G.W. Bush ever happened, and call Obama a whiner/making excuses for a bad economy whenever he brings it up.
 
2012-07-17 12:05:19 PM  
Well it obviously can never happen WITH republicans still voting in congress.
If we outlaw the republican party, as well as all other parties, this utopia becomes possible.

/we should rename it from the democratic party something more accurate.
/national socialists, bringing socialisms to the nation.
/hmm... Maybe that's too long. We need a shorter name.
 
2012-07-17 12:05:44 PM  

seadoo2006: So, $73k is excessive? But the 1% (over $250k/year) aren't rich? You're duality in thinking doesn't stand up. Sorry your life sucks so much that you feel that someone earning $73k needs to be dragged down, but see, some of us actually believe well, their job is worth that much.


What duality in thinking? Where did I say that people making over $250k a year aren't rich? And yes, $73k is excessive, especially considering that you can retire in 20 years and start collecting for the rest of your life. Where does it stop? Why not pay them $100k a year? What? What's that? You think that's too much? Well, clearly you're the problem. I mean, why don't you just get your boss to be bound by a Constitutional amendment that is backed up by the taxpayers? Why do you want to drag people down?

The only people that have problems with public pensions are the same retards that go to the same job for 20 years working under some slave-master middle manager and then complain that they have it rough. Hey man, if slinging dead animals is such a good job, why not quit yours and go work for the city?

It's the same argument you people always give about welfare abuse. If being on welfare is so great, and you can have a big house and drugs and big 24" spinner wheels on your car, why not quit your job, go move to the projects, and get on welfare. Your life would be better, right?

Oh yeah, you're all lying assholes that don't actually believe a word of the filth that spews from your mouths ...


You have offered nothing but personal attacks and ad hominems in this thread. Again, not everybody can work for the government, and we need the money we're wasting on bloated pensions and retirement plans to pay for things like healthcare for poor people, education. You know, so people other than the anointed ones in government have a shot at the middle class. And when did this thread become about welfare?
 
2012-07-17 12:08:19 PM  
A state run by Democrats: California
- 8th largest economy in the world. Biggest US state economy by far.
- The world's largest and most efficient incubator of startups and cutting edge businesses.
- Home of the most valuable public corporation in the world, which is also easily the most important corporation of the last decade.
- The heart of the entertainment industry, which effectively exports American culture around the world and wins more hearts and minds than trillions of dollars of war spending ever could.
- The highest quality state run higher education system in the world, with 6 CA Universities in the US News list of top 50 US Universities.

A state run by Republicans: Mississippi.
- Known for racism and...well that's about it


So yeah, I'll take the Democrats. Thanks for making the choice so clear.
 
2012-07-17 12:08:24 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: So was WalMart.


Hey seadoo2006, you'd better just disband the company because everything you're doing is doomed to failure. Best just go earn $10 an hour at WalMart because you're only gonna end up that way and it would be best if you just resign yourself to that fact.
 
2012-07-17 12:08:31 PM  

Serious Black: Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.

Serious answer: reactionary, regressive, feudalist, or some mix of those three.


You forgot theocrat. There's a lot of those in there too.
 
2012-07-17 12:08:59 PM  

seadoo2006: Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: We're a family owned and operated business with a moral

So was WalMart.

Well ... as much as being the $100 Billion Waltons would be nice ... and paying off victims of DUI manslaughter is nice ... I don't see home construction expanding to quite that level. Speaking of Wal-Mart, the owners have $15-20 Billion each and their employees all pretty much make less than $10/hour and need to use government welfare to pick up the slack ...

And you wonder why we can't afford pensions??? We can, and the fallacy that has been illustrated is that we cannot while those who have the most around us, TAKE the most from us. Change the system back to 40 hour work weeks, 40 year careers, and pensions with SS/Medicare picking up after those who cannot. It is sustainable, we just all have to agree that making a ten million times what your lowest employee does is not a good thing.


If the system you tout works so well, why did the US automakers fail? Because of the salaries of a few executives? Please. If that were the case, the stockholders would have been able to easily fix that problem.

GM has a pension liability of over 100 billion dollars. You think executive salaries are to blame for their inability to cover that cost? Who feeds you people this bullshiat? Your union masters?
 
2012-07-17 12:11:25 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?


LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.
 
2012-07-17 12:14:15 PM  
Actually the problem is not that we have no republicans, it is that we have just enough to make sure nothing ever happens in Sacramento. The elected republicans in the assembly etc, have been the like the senate republicans for a couple decades. They have just enough to block any measure that would attempt to bridge the gap in the budget. So every attempt goes to the voters, and imagine that they will vote for more candy but not the means to pay for it.
 
2012-07-17 12:14:18 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: We're a family owned and operated business with a moral

So was WalMart.

Well ... as much as being the $100 Billion Waltons would be nice ... and paying off victims of DUI manslaughter is nice ... I don't see home construction expanding to quite that level. Speaking of Wal-Mart, the owners have $15-20 Billion each and their employees all pretty much make less than $10/hour and need to use government welfare to pick up the slack ...

And you wonder why we can't afford pensions??? We can, and the fallacy that has been illustrated is that we cannot while those who have the most around us, TAKE the most from us. Change the system back to 40 hour work weeks, 40 year careers, and pensions with SS/Medicare picking up after those who cannot. It is sustainable, we just all have to agree that making a ten million times what your lowest employee does is not a good thing.

If the system you tout works so well, why did the US automakers fail? Because of the salaries of a few executives? Please. If that were the case, the stockholders would have been able to easily fix that problem.

GM has a pension liability of over 100 billion dollars. You think executive salaries are to blame for their inability to cover that cost? Who feeds you people this bullshiat? Your union masters?


They failed because of decades of bad decision making on the part of management. They chose to make inferior cars, ignore all market trends, and have incredibly bad management systems in place.
 
2012-07-17 12:16:03 PM  

Fark It: seadoo2006: So, $73k is excessive? But the 1% (over $250k/year) aren't rich? You're duality in thinking doesn't stand up. Sorry your life sucks so much that you feel that someone earning $73k needs to be dragged down, but see, some of us actually believe well, their job is worth that much.

What duality in thinking? Where did I say that people making over $250k a year aren't rich? And yes, $73k is excessive, especially considering that you can retire in 20 years and start collecting for the rest of your life. Where does it stop? Why not pay them $100k a year? What? What's that? You think that's too much? Well, clearly you're the problem. I mean, why don't you just get your boss to be bound by a Constitutional amendment that is backed up by the taxpayers? Why do you want to drag people down?


Well, I am my own boss, as I said, and I'm part owner in a company that has added 15 employees since Obama took office.

The only people that have problems with public pensions are the same retards that go to the same job for 20 years working under some slave-master middle manager and then complain that they have it rough. Hey man, if slinging dead animals is such a good job, why not quit yours and go work for the city?

It's the same argument you people always give about welfare abuse. If being on welfare is so great, and you can have a big house and drugs and big 24" spinner wheels on your car, why not quit your job, go move to the projects, and get on welfare. Your life would be better, right?

Oh yeah, you're all lying assholes that don't actually believe a word of the filth that spews from your mouths ...

You have offered nothing but personal attacks and ad hominems in this thread. Again, not everybody can work for the government, and we need the money we're wasting on bloated pensions and retirement plans to pay for things like healthcare for poor people, education. You know, so people other than the anointed ones in government have a shot at the middle class. And when did this thread become about welfare?


At the same point where a soldier's pension should be abolished too, right? Government employees are government employees ... WRONG

Some of us actually believe in providing for those in our society. I don't mind paying a few upper management trash collectors $70k, or $100k because guess what? They're spending nearly every dollar they ever make and putting it right back into our economy.

I don't mind pension plans because you know what? People deserve them and with the private sector gutting the middle class, I think someone needs to stand up for what is RIGHT. We have very low taxes here ... I make in the high five figures and I live like a farking king. I max out my 401k, my max out my IRA, I save a significant portion every month, but you know what? I don't own a house, I rent a small apartment with my SO, and both my cars are bought and paid for cash.

I'm truly sorry that everyone in the upper middle class thought that private education for their 4 kids, two car payments, a $600k McMansion, and five vacations a year was sustainable. But the truth is, if you gross over $90k a year and can't afford a 10% hike in taxes, YOU are doing something wrong, not the government.

You want fiscal responsibility? Halve the DoD operating budget ... we could fund Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare for every living soul with that amount. You want fiscal responsibility? Let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes 10% on anyone making over $75k a year, I'd be all for that. But, you don't hear that chorus. You don't here anyone railing on the excesses of military benefits and pensions or healthcare, but as soon as your local trash collector gets one, all hell breaks loose ... Either everyone in the public arena gets the same bennies, or nobody does ... for me, I'd rather EVERYONE get a pension and bennies, but then again, I'm a decent human being that understands money ...
 
2012-07-17 12:16:07 PM  
Without the type of people who currently call themselves Republicans, the US would be more like the UK or Australia or Germany.

Those countries have rather more grown-up politics, and are generally rather lovely to live in. And if you get cancer you don't have to move under a bridge.
 
2012-07-17 12:16:45 PM  

seadoo2006: Speaking of Wal-Mart, the owners have $15-20 Billion each and their employees all pretty much make less than $10/hour and need to use government welfare to pick up the slack ...


Have you had to deal with a Walmart employee lately?? Minimum wage would be overpaying.
 
2012-07-17 12:16:55 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: They failed because of decades of bad decision making on the part of management. They chose to make inferior cars, ignore all market trends, and have incredibly bad management systems in place.


And the workers on the assembly line had obviously no control over the quality of the finished product. And it's not like a huge portion of money went to their pension benefits and not into R&D and innovation....

Clearly it was only the fault of those rich management guys and their greed, not the noble worker who is always beyond reproach and never at fault.
 
2012-07-17 12:17:06 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: You are assuming your firm will still exist, that it has invested your pension money wisely, that those investments don't collapse, that it will be able to afford to continue paying your benefit premiums...that's a whole lotta faith you're putting in your employer, the economy, and the unknown people who will run the company 25 years from now when your current leadership team is dead or has moved on.

Good luck with that.

Occam's Nailfile: The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.

You're funny. Everything you attempt is doomed to failure, but all the fault lies with you because you didn't bootstrap yourself to success. So which is it? Learn a skill and work your way up, or that the rich are rich and the poor are poor and any attempt at bucking the system will result in failure and sadness?


When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded. That system was tried, and it collapsed in on itself, just like the public sector threatens to next. Whining about how unfair it is won't change anything. If we don't get public sector costs in line, we're farked. Period. We have 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities as a nation. That doesn't even include state shortfalls - that's just the federal portion. That's $528,000 per household.

How you you suggest we fix that, by reducing corporate salaries?
 
2012-07-17 12:17:39 PM  
grindingdown.files.wordpress.com

Subby, Crom will cast your sorry ass out of Valhala and laugh.
 
2012-07-17 12:18:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: We're a family owned and operated business with a moral

So was WalMart.

Well ... as much as being the $100 Billion Waltons would be nice ... and paying off victims of DUI manslaughter is nice ... I don't see home construction expanding to quite that level. Speaking of Wal-Mart, the owners have $15-20 Billion each and their employees all pretty much make less than $10/hour and need to use government welfare to pick up the slack ...

And you wonder why we can't afford pensions??? We can, and the fallacy that has been illustrated is that we cannot while those who have the most around us, TAKE the most from us. Change the system back to 40 hour work weeks, 40 year careers, and pensions with SS/Medicare picking up after those who cannot. It is sustainable, we just all have to agree that making a ten million times what your lowest employee does is not a good thing.

If the system you tout works so well, why did the US automakers fail? Because of the salaries of a few executives? Please. If that were the case, the stockholders would have been able to easily fix that problem.

GM has a pension liability of over 100 billion dollars. You think executive salaries are to blame for their inability to cover that cost? Who feeds you people this bullshiat? Your union masters?

They failed because of decades of bad decision making on the part of management. They chose to make inferior cars, ignore all market trends, and have incredibly bad management systems in place.


They also shorted contributing to the pension fund for a while.

For funsies, go look up "shorted pension funds" for a good look at how badly the states' pension obligations are being funded. I don't know how this works, but apparently, if you only contribute 20-50% of what you've obligated yourself to, you get to complain about how badly the pensions are funded and call for their abolition.
 
2012-07-17 12:18:23 PM  

Fark It: Fark at my link, here's my citation for road-kill cleaners making over $70k a year:

Otto, who is paid $73,344 a year, declined to comment.


California road maintenance workers earn an average of 34-41K a year. But Cool Story Bro about some guy in Illinois.
 
2012-07-17 12:18:44 PM  

MFL: California, Illinois, Michigan.........All bankrupt.......All democrat cestpools.

You see children, when your economic religion is based on biting and shaming the hand that feeds you.......eventually that hand waves buh bye and leaves you with the bill.

Progressivism....what a fiscally childish and naive ideology.....lol


Best part.... forever....

Yup, much better to follow the rightwing's plans. We'll be living in caves and picking ticks off each other within a couple years!! Follow Limbaugh and Colter for the REAL economic truth!1!

/derp, go back under your bridge.
 
2012-07-17 12:20:20 PM  
Second farking paragraph. The second farking paragraph before the derp kicks in.

Apparently Obama believes that if he wins this November, Republicans on Capitol Hill will all begin to act like Chief Justice John Roberts by betraying their conservative beliefs

Hey, dumbshiat. Obamacare is mostly Republican ideas. So unless you're saying that Republican ideas directly conflict with conservative beliefs...

I assume when he's talking about "conservative beliefs" he's referring to the "oppose anything that Obama is in favor of" belief.
 
2012-07-17 12:21:56 PM  

Fark It: Philip Francis Queeg: They failed because of decades of bad decision making on the part of management. They chose to make inferior cars, ignore all market trends, and have incredibly bad management systems in place.

And the workers on the assembly line had obviously no control over the quality of the finished product. And it's not like a huge portion of money went to their pension benefits and not into R&D and innovation....

Clearly it was only the fault of those rich management guys and their greed, not the noble worker who is always beyond reproach and never at fault.


The workers did have a role in quality. A relatively minor one, but a role none the less. That role pales in impact next to the other factors listed.
 
2012-07-17 12:22:22 PM  

tinderboxer: Actually the problem is not that we have no republicans, it is that we have just enough to make sure nothing ever happens in Sacramento. The elected republicans in the assembly etc, have been the like the senate republicans for a couple decades. They have just enough to block any measure that would attempt to bridge the gap in the budget. So every attempt goes to the voters, and imagine that they will vote for more candy but not the means to pay for it.


That's far more correct than TFA. Anti-tax crusading Republicans in the 1970s managed to pass a bill that made it so ANY tax hike takes 2/3 of the legislature to pass. Republicans consistently hold just over 1/3 of the legislature and thus they have just enough pull to block any legislation that pays for gov't spending. THAT is California's main problem.
 
2012-07-17 12:22:24 PM  

Aarontology: themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?

Bingo.


ding ding ding!

Also : The republicans run most of the local governments.

I talked to a friend who is pretty liberal who suggested that taxes could be cut because there was 'waste' in the government.

Government is smaller now (in staffers) than it has been in a long time. With Computerization, one employee now does the job of 30. With Automation, one machine does the job of 300 full time employees.

yes, every once in a while, a new secretary pays 12$ a muffin or something for a lunch meeting.

but considering that government employees notoriously get paid less than private-sector peers, I'll suggest that the 'government waste' line is all tapped out.
 
2012-07-17 12:23:04 PM  

Scerpes: Tigger: And if you don't have Democrats you have Arizona. And if you only have RON PAUL left you have Somalia.

What's your point?

That we need both parties to keep the other one from running wild?


You are right. Now that CA has all Democrats in office they are RUNNING WILD:

images.politico.com

We have the biggest budget cuts EVER!!! They are doing what the many Republican Governors always promised to do but never did.
 
2012-07-17 12:23:44 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.


All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-07-17 12:25:13 PM  

seadoo2006: At the same point where a soldier's pension should be abolished too, right? Government employees are government employees ... WRONG


Yeah, because comparing people who go to war for us and are paid by the federal government to people who clean up road kill for the states is really intellectually honest.

Any military farkers want to chime in on how their benefits compare to state workers?

Some of us actually believe in providing for those in our society. I don't mind paying a few upper management trash collectors $70k, or $100k because guess what? They're spending nearly every dollar they ever make and putting it right back into our economy.

So does everybody who makes that amount of money. What makes public sector employees so goddamn special?

I'm truly sorry that everyone in the upper middle class thought that private education for their 4 kids, two car payments, a $600k McMansion, and five vacations a year was sustainable. But the truth is, if you gross over $90k a year and can't afford a 10% hike in taxes, YOU are doing something wrong, not the government.

But it's completely out of the question to reduce the pay and benefits of public sector employees. Got it. The rest of us aren't worthy and should bow down at the feet of our masters, along with the people on Wall Street who own them.

You want fiscal responsibility? Halve the DoD operating budget ... we could fund Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare for every living soul with that amount. You want fiscal responsibility? Let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes 10% on anyone making over $75k a year, I'd be all for that.

Absolutely agree with you.

But, you don't hear that chorus. You don't here anyone railing on the excesses of military benefits and pensions or healthcare, but as soon as your local trash collector gets one, all hell breaks loose

The local trash collector does not deserve the same pension or benefits as someone who spent their career in the military.

... Either everyone in the public arena gets the same bennies, or nobody does ... for me, I'd rather EVERYONE get a pension and bennies, but then again, I'm a decent human being that understands money ...

Says the guy who wonders why everybody can't just have it as good as the public sector and thinks his company will be around in 25 years to fund his employees pensions....
 
2012-07-17 12:25:47 PM  

Scerpes: Tigger: And if you don't have Democrats you have Arizona. And if you only have RON PAUL left you have Somalia.

What's your point?

That we need both parties to keep the other one from running wild?


Here is more "Democrats gone wild!!" state spending per capita the lowest levels since the early 70's (before we had all those "fiscal conservative" Republicans in office).

ww3.hdnux.com
 
2012-07-17 12:26:13 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.


Blame Reagan.

He's the one who got the party in bed with the evangelicals ....
 
2012-07-17 12:26:37 PM  

karnal: One example of why California is broke:
Link


I really liked the "Update" section of that post. $205K to save $millions or $billions in firefighting costs and economic damage later? Damn those moonbats!

encrypted-tbn3.google.com
I want my ice cream NOW!
 
2012-07-17 12:26:48 PM  

Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?


A 20 year employee cannot retire in their 40's. The formula is usually a minimum age factor, normally starting at 50, times years of service. The age factor for non public safety personnel 1.0 at 50 all the way to 2.3 or so at age 62. Taking your hypothetical employee retiring upon reaching eligibility at 50 with 20 years of service gives them a multiplier of 20 x 1.0 or 20% of $70k so $14k a year to live on. Granted, some people may do it, but the usual scenario is people waiting until 60 or. This same employee would then have 30 years of service time times an age factor of 2.0 for 60% or 70k or $42k a year. If you want to go on about the unfairness of public pensions, at least don't talk out your ass.
 
2012-07-17 12:26:52 PM  

Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]


Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.
 
2012-07-17 12:28:12 PM  
More accurate analysis would be looking at MA. Where no R's hold statewide office there are 33 state reps out of 160 and 4 sens out of 40. Now let us look at the stats:
#1 Education
# 6 Per Capita Income
98% health coverage
6% unemployment

Oh the HORROR!!!!!
 
2012-07-17 12:28:38 PM  
What would America be like without Republicans?

I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone, and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
 
2012-07-17 12:28:47 PM  

Fark It: seadoo2006: At the same point where a soldier's pension should be abolished too, right? Government employees are government employees ... WRONG

Yeah, because comparing people who go to war for us and are paid by the federal government to people who clean up road kill for the states is really intellectually honest.

Any military farkers want to chime in on how their benefits compare to state workers?

Some of us actually believe in providing for those in our society. I don't mind paying a few upper management trash collectors $70k, or $100k because guess what? They're spending nearly every dollar they ever make and putting it right back into our economy.

So does everybody who makes that amount of money. What makes public sector employees so goddamn special?

I'm truly sorry that everyone in the upper middle class thought that private education for their 4 kids, two car payments, a $600k McMansion, and five vacations a year was sustainable. But the truth is, if you gross over $90k a year and can't afford a 10% hike in taxes, YOU are doing something wrong, not the government.

But it's completely out of the question to reduce the pay and benefits of public sector employees. Got it. The rest of us aren't worthy and should bow down at the feet of our masters, along with the people on Wall Street who own them.

You want fiscal responsibility? Halve the DoD operating budget ... we could fund Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare for every living soul with that amount. You want fiscal responsibility? Let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes 10% on anyone making over $75k a year, I'd be all for that.

Absolutely agree with you.

But, you don't hear that chorus. You don't here anyone railing on the excesses of military benefits and pensions or healthcare, but as soon as your local trash collector gets one, all hell breaks loose

The local trash collector does not deserve the same pension or benefits as someone who spent their career in the military.

... Either everyone i ...


Are you overpaid? Are your benefits excessive?
 
2012-07-17 12:28:50 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: You are assuming your firm will still exist, that it has invested your pension money wisely, that those investments don't collapse, that it will be able to afford to continue paying your benefit premiums...that's a whole lotta faith you're putting in your employer, the economy, and the unknown people who will run the company 25 years from now when your current leadership team is dead or has moved on.

Good luck with that.

Occam's Nailfile: The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.

You're funny. Everything you attempt is doomed to failure, but all the fault lies with you because you didn't bootstrap yourself to success. So which is it? Learn a skill and work your way up, or that the rich are rich and the poor are poor and any attempt at bucking the system will result in failure and sadness?

When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded. That system was tried, and it collapsed in on itself, just like the public sector threatens to next. Whining about how unfair it is won't change anything. If we don't get public sector costs in line, we're farked. Period. We have 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities as a nation. That doesn't even include state shortfalls - that's just the federal portion. That's $528,000 per household.

How you you suggest we fix that, by reducing corporate salaries?


I forgot, that usually ends the debate, should have led with it.
 
2012-07-17 12:29:42 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]

Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


Man who laughs at ad hominem attacks uses ad hominem attacks ... EL OH EL ... you're too much ...
 
2012-07-17 12:30:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]

Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


Quoting you is an ad hominem attack?
 
2012-07-17 12:31:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]

Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.

Quoting you is an ad hominem attack?


Nope, but that is ...
 
2012-07-17 12:31:59 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks.


ITT: quoting someone word for word is an 'ad hominem' attack.
 
2012-07-17 12:32:10 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded.


You've been running seadoo2006's situation down all through this thread. He seems to be trying something different than the top-heavy compensation situation that seems to be the norm these days, and it seems to be working. That's not good enough for you. It's gonna collapse, it's gonna fail, doom and gloom. Wanna make more money? Sorry, the only way is to join the 1%. Oh, except that you've got a 1 in 100 chance of actually joining the 1%, so sucks to be you.

Winning the game is not raping the land of all it can bear. Winning the game is providing for your present and posterity, and making opportunities for those around you. WInning is not carte blanch to hoard everything for yourself. That's psychopathy.
 
2012-07-17 12:33:21 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


Hah, LOL. You got me. Nice. 10/10.
 
2012-07-17 12:33:21 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?


Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."
 
2012-07-17 12:33:57 PM  
Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:13 PM  
I don't know if this has been shown yet but I think it applies to the thread i290.photobucket.com

You can make arguments that some of the states aren't the right color but the main message is still the same.
 
2012-07-17 12:34:57 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.


Tell us how we can solve it bey reducing worker pay.
 
2012-07-17 12:35:15 PM  

Fark It: What makes public sector employees so goddamn special?


If a skilled private employee makes $100,000 per year, why can't a public employee for equivalent work?
 
2012-07-17 12:35:15 PM  

vpb:
Is Subby is retarded



FTFY
 
2012-07-17 12:35:54 PM  

ferretman: If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
[russthorne.kohlarn.com image 700x525]

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


Why are all the republican states on the dole then?
 
2012-07-17 12:37:41 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


So you're a misogynist too, I see. You're just a spectacular person, aren't you?
 
2012-07-17 12:38:12 PM  

ferretman: If there were no Republicans the country would look like:
[russthorne.kohlarn.com image 700x525]

/Spending much more than you bring in.....just how does that work?


*Citation Needed*
Please point to a time the GOP was in charge of the country and spent less then they brought in.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:15 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Fart_Machine: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Your union masters?

LOL. Hey, seadoo2006, since you're part of a successful company that shares the wealth, you must be part of the evil union cabal conspiring to take down America. I bet that comes as a shock.

All you need to know about Occam's Nailfile.

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 500x273]

Ah, another tool for my ignore list. Thanks. It's really sad that you people can't debate an issue without ad hominem attacks. It's why your philosophy fails - it's not based on logic, it's based on anger and irrational emotion. Arguing with liberals is a lot like arguing with women.


Oh no, not the ignore list! Posting a quote from you isn't an ad hominem attack and it's not my fault that women find you repulsive and don't want to sleep with you.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:45 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.


That's a problem of company management, which sounds to me like some people haven't been earning their inflated salaries as C-level managers.

It also sounds like you're insinuating a bailout of some sort is necessary, which would mean those supposedly high-level CEOs won't actually have to manage anything at all.

C-level management sounds like quite the cushy deal. You're right, I should look into it. I'll be making millions in no time, just by not managing my company's pensions properly.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:46 PM  

herrDrFarkenstein: [grindingdown.files.wordpress.com image 499x318]

Subby, Crom will cast your sorry ass out of Valhala and laugh.


Ergh...I'd like to forget that ever happened. Here's Dylan Moran elaborating on the whole Aah-nold situation.
 
2012-07-17 12:38:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: what_now: [www.statesymbolsusa.org image 330x326]

/except for that one, but he was a mistake and we're fixing that.

How is it that we got the bay state, but rhode island got the entire farkin ocean? Especially since RI is pretty much just one huge bay.


Because wee little Rhody reminded someone of the "Isle of Rhodes".
 
2012-07-17 12:40:17 PM  

LargeCanine: "At some point we Californians should ask ourselves, how we inherited a state with near perfect weather, the world's richest agriculture, plentiful timber, minerals, and oil, two great ports at Los Angeles and Oakland, a natural tourist industry from Carmel to Yosemite, industries such as Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and aerospace-and serially managed to turn all of that into the nation's largest penal system, periodic near bankruptcy, and sky-high taxes." - Victor Hanson Davis


Somebody should ask Victor Hanson Davis how his hero, George W. Bush, managed to take a budgetary surplus and turn it into a half trillion dollar deficit. If Davis can be convinced to take his lips off of Donald Rumsfeld for a minute maybe he could explain that to us, that is, if he can stop calling for a war against Iran long enough to give an explanation.
This turd is a neo-con who supported both the unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and is a classic chicken hawk who has vocally supported policies that have done tremendous harm to this country. He is an expert in ancient warfare and he should stick to what he knows because his ideas about the modern world have been proven to be catastrophic failures. Screw Victor farking Hanson Farking Davis.
 
MFL
2012-07-17 12:40:44 PM  
Corvus We have the biggest budget cuts EVER!!! They are doing what the many Republican Governors always promised to do but never did.

A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.

B. The only reason cuts are being made now is because the bond market has a gun to your head.

C. If the shortsighted democrats would have put their politics aside and allowed some of those cuts proposed earlier this decade, most of these massive cuts (that haven't even happend yet) would be avoided.


Aarontology: themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the state from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?


So.....when public unions (aka all democrats) negotiate with state legislators (aka almost all democrats) to give themselves raises, a sweet benefit package only one could dream of in the private sector, and a pensions that pays more and pays earlier than anything else known to man..........you blame the already overtaxed voters who had nothing to do with this for not wanting to keep the gravy train alive?

wow.
 
2012-07-17 12:41:06 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.


Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.
 
2012-07-17 12:41:36 PM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."


Wow, that's cherry picking. "No Republican governors were elected after this Republican governor's election. Except for that one Republican governor, who was elected twice. Out of a sample size of four elections."
 
2012-07-17 12:41:53 PM  

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."


Pete Wilson was elected in 1994. Are you really going to parse that because he wasn't elected in 1995 and was instead serving as acting governor at the time?
 
2012-07-17 12:42:18 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded.

You've been running seadoo2006's situation down all through this thread. He seems to be trying something different than the top-heavy compensation situation that seems to be the norm these days, and it seems to be working. That's not good enough for you. It's gonna collapse, it's gonna fail, doom and gloom. Wanna make more money? Sorry, the only way is to join the 1%. Oh, except that you've got a 1 in 100 chance of actually joining the 1%, so sucks to be you.

Winning the game is not raping the land of all it can bear. Winning the game is providing for your present and posterity, and making opportunities for those around you. WInning is not carte blanch to hoard everything for yourself. That's psychopathy.


I didn't read about seadoo2006's situation, except the brief comment he made directly to me about it. I am not saying he's going to fail. I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

It's really, really simple math. There is not enough money, and there is no plan for there to eventually be enough money, to sustain the level of public sector spending we currently have. We will default. Period. It is only a matter of time. Call me an alarmist or whatever you like, but if someone can offer even a half-assed idea on how to solve the problem, I will listen. All I hear on fark however is that rich people are too rich. Never mind that you could confiscate every dollar of wealth the rich posses and not even put a pockmark in the problem we face.
 
2012-07-17 12:43:14 PM  
What America would look like without any Democrats:

www.iandrinstitute.org
 
2012-07-17 12:43:52 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

That's a problem of company management, which sounds to me like some people haven't been earning their inflated salaries as C-level managers.

It also sounds like you're insinuating a bailout of some sort is necessary, which would mean those supposedly high-level CEOs won't actually have to manage anything at all.

C-level management sounds like quite the cushy deal. You're right, I should look into it. I'll be making millions in no time, just by not managing my company's pensions properly.


You have a dumb.

The 61 trillion dollars is US government debt, not private sector debt.
 
2012-07-17 12:44:41 PM  

MFL: A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


LOL no. He was actually blocked by his Republican colleagues who wouldn't break the impasse necessary for a 2/3 majority vote.
 
2012-07-17 12:45:11 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: When did I ever say that? I said that the people in charge will earn more than the rest. Want to earn more? Become one of them. Expecting some company to set you up for life in this economy is retarded.

You've been running seadoo2006's situation down all through this thread. He seems to be trying something different than the top-heavy compensation situation that seems to be the norm these days, and it seems to be working. That's not good enough for you. It's gonna collapse, it's gonna fail, doom and gloom. Wanna make more money? Sorry, the only way is to join the 1%. Oh, except that you've got a 1 in 100 chance of actually joining the 1%, so sucks to be you.

Winning the game is not raping the land of all it can bear. Winning the game is providing for your present and posterity, and making opportunities for those around you. WInning is not carte blanch to hoard everything for yourself. That's psychopathy.

I didn't read about seadoo2006's situation, except the brief comment he made directly to me about it. I am not saying he's going to fail. I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

It's really, really simple math. There is not enough money, and there is no plan for there to eventually be enough money, to sustain the level of public sector spending we currently have. We will default. Period. It is only a matter of time. Call me an alarmist or whatever you like, but if someone can offer even a half-assed idea on how to solve the problem, I will listen. All I hear on fark however is that rich people are too rich. Never mind that you could confiscate every dollar of wealth the rich posses and not even put a po ...


So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?
 
2012-07-17 12:46:59 PM  
In order for California to be "America without Republicans", wouldn't California have to be a Republican-free zone?

Since 1967, California has had twenty-eight years of Republican Governors, more than half the total period. There's Ronald Reagan (1967-1975), Arnie, Proposition 13, and Orange County Conservatives. There's also Richard M. Nixon.

Most of what is wrong with California's budget is just as much the fault of Republicans as Democrats, so how does California represent America without Republicans? Big Deficit Finance is bi-partisan. Stupidity is bi-partisan. And right-wing government without fiscal responsability or restraint is bi-partisan.

Throwing all the facts down the memory hole, however, seems to be a peculiar trait of conservatives, libertarians, and fascists, except for communists.
 
2012-07-17 12:47:33 PM  

MFL: Corvus We have the biggest budget cuts EVER!!! They are doing what the many Republican Governors always promised to do but never did.

A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


Well Brown is doing it. Yes the Republican Governors were too incompetent to make cuts. I am glad you agree!! Maybe if their plan was the teachers/employees paying for all the cuts they could of got somewhere.



B. The only reason cuts are being made now is because the bond market has a gun to your head.

Because of REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS and Republicans blocking any tax increase.

C. If the shortsighted democrats would have put their politics aside and allowed some of those cuts proposed earlier this decade, most of these massive cuts (that haven't even happend yet) would be avoided.

Schwarzenegger got in and said he would work with the Democrats and then when he got in he began to call them names!!

Is that "working together" when you are making personal attacks against people like Schwarzenegger did?

Oh so as long as Democrats did EVERYTHING THE REPUBLICANS WANTED things would of worked out? I see that's your definition of "compromise"?

Under the Republican leadership spending went UP! Only now when it is all Democrats are cuts actually being made. You can't argue that.

Sorry if like an abused wife you get mad at the person telling your husband is no good instead of the person abusing you. The Republicans have lied, the have always lied. Only now are things actually being fixed.
 
2012-07-17 12:48:00 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.


Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?
 
2012-07-17 12:49:20 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.


Okay, I hear you. Well, part of the solution, of course, would be to raise the retirement age to 70, or even 75. Life expectancy is much higher now, I think that would be workable and reduce the liability for many pension systems.

The way the thread proceeded, it sounded like you were arguing against seadoo2006's setup of equal distribution of profits and decent benefits for all, regardless of position in the hierarchy.
 
2012-07-17 12:50:41 PM  
Conservatives have a perpetual lack of clue regarding California.
 
2012-07-17 12:52:03 PM  

theorellior: Occam's Nailfile: I am saying that the idea of paying 20-50 years after they stop working is unsustainable, and as evidence, I put forth not only the auto industry, but our public sector. There is not enough money moving around to sustain the system, period. Our $61 trillion in unfunded liabilities is damn near the GDP of the entire planet, which is about $69 trillion right now.

Okay, I hear you. Well, part of the solution, of course, would be to raise the retirement age to 70, or even 75. Life expectancy is much higher now, I think that would be workable and reduce the liability for many pension systems.

The way the thread proceeded, it sounded like you were arguing against seadoo2006's setup of equal distribution of profits and decent benefits for all, regardless of position in the hierarchy.


Life expectancy may be longer, but that doesn't mean that we can expect people to stay in every job until 70 or 75. A 70 or 75 year old firefighter, cop, construction worker or any other job that requires physical labor is still going to have great difficulties at best performing those functions at that age.
 
2012-07-17 12:53:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?


The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.
 
2012-07-17 12:53:31 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: "The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."


Well, nobody's gonna cash in all the T-bills in the world at one time, so this is something of a non-problem. Federal debt is rolling debt, which is actually good for the world economy. I mean, there was a thread a couple months back with a link on how there are still debts outstanding from the Revolutionary War that the Treasury keeps rolling over because no one has claimed them.
 
2012-07-17 12:54:15 PM  

I_C_Weener: Fart_Machine: rumpelstiltskin: That guy has no idea how California works.

People who believe California only consists of Los Angeles and San Francisco.

[i586.photobucket.com image 500x350]

And Luthorville, Lextown, and Otisburg.


Otisburg? OTISBURG?!?!?
 
2012-07-17 12:55:09 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.

Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


NO! Read your own article:

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.


Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?
 
2012-07-17 12:56:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Life expectancy may be longer, but that doesn't mean that we can expect people to stay in every job until 70 or 75. A 70 or 75 year old firefighter, cop, construction worker or any other job that requires physical labor is still going to have great difficulties at best performing those functions at that age.


True, so maybe instead of a pension we offer a job-placement system for those people after a certain age? Or maybe a tax credit on income form other jobs after a certain age?
 
2012-07-17 12:58:40 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Still haven't heard an explanation for how we solve the problem of 61 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities by reducing executive pay.

I'll wait.

Those are future liabilities you idiot. Are you going to count the rent you pay for a building for the next 10 years as "unfunded liabilities" too? Should we count the military we will pay in the future "unfunded liabilities" too? Why are you cherry picking?

That math is bullshiat accounting. People will pay into the system in future years. Just like everything else.

Also they are not true liabilities because congress can change them, just like everything else. It is not a contract. You fail.

Those are liabilities we cannot escape from. Pensions, social security payments, contracted obligations.

From the article:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."

We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


Yes, but the cash necessary to pay them hasn't been made yet. You're talking about counting the total obligation we have to count:
-a 67.4 year old worker due to retire
-the 45-year-old working down the hall
-the 22-year-old fresh out of college

and all those in between as "retiring and drawing 20+ years worth of benefits TODAY".

If you can't tell why/how that's retarded, you're too dumb to internet.

// oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40
 
2012-07-17 01:01:27 PM  

I Said: Let's compare the coasts (dominantly Blue) to the rest, or just an overall red vs blue state comparison. See what you fund, subby, on education level, income, health, etc.


Also, a list of which states are being supported by the Federal government vs. their degree of Republican-ness might be illuminating.

(Yes, farm subsidies, veterans benefits, and military spending all count as federal money.)
 
2012-07-17 01:03:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Yes, but the cash necessary to pay them hasn't been made yet. You're talking about counting the total obligation we have to count:
-a 67.4 year old worker due to retire
-the 45-year-old working down the hall
-the 22-year-old fresh out of college

and all those in between as "retiring and drawing 20+ years worth of benefits TODAY".

If you can't tell why/how that's retarded, you're too dumb to internet.


Yes if business had to count pensions like that they would all be considered bankrupt. It's idiotic.

It's like saying "OMG my business needs to pay rent for the next 10 years! Therefore I have $600,000 in unfunded liability!!!! DERP! DERP!!!"

I am not saying the system doesn't need to be fixed. But it's not as horrible as they make it sound.
 
2012-07-17 01:05:43 PM  

coeyagi: If Republicans didn't exist, quickmeme.com would take a hit as well as gun sales. I'm pretty sure there would be fetus landfills if I heard Limbaugh correctly, and our population would be on a much better trajectory towards sustainability.

Other things a GOP-less existence would afford us:


-More Yuengling



Based on this alone i approve your message
 
2012-07-17 01:05:56 PM  

Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?


I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.
 
2012-07-17 01:08:34 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.


Those obligations are FUTURE OBLIGATIONS - Other people will be paying into the system.

Yes we can modify those future obligation of Social Security and Medicare. Yes I am suggesting to modify them.

Do you think we have future military obligations to? Or are you planning the US to get rid of the US military in 10 years. So why are you not counting those costs too?
 
2012-07-17 01:11:01 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.


I know what you are saying. YOU ARE WRONG. You seem to be the one not educated. You don't understand the difference between obligations and FUTURE obligations. You are getting them confused. You are counting future obligations like they are current obligations. THEY ARE NOT.

You never answered my question:

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?


Do you not know, the answer?
 
2012-07-17 01:12:30 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40


I'll repeat what I just said to Corvus:

The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses.

The annual contributions you refer to don't even cover the interest on the debt of what is owed. That's why the Social Security system is due to fail well before you or I can collect our benefits.

It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.
 
2012-07-17 01:12:43 PM  

Dr Dreidel: We're not talking about next year's rent. We are talking about next year's contracted pensions. Tell me, how do we go about not paying those?


So then your numbers are counting ONLY THE MONEY WE PAY OUT FOR NEXT YEAR?

Or are they FUTURE OBLIGATIONS? And if they are future obligations why are you not counting the future revenue against them?
 
2012-07-17 01:14:39 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.


You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.
 
2012-07-17 01:16:19 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme


We can add Ponzi schemes to the list of things you don't understand.
 
2012-07-17 01:16:45 PM  
Every one of you assholes deserve what is going to happen in the near future. When you're suffering, know that you deserve it.
 
2012-07-17 01:21:06 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

Those are not contracts does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

I will repeat:

"The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs."
You are referring only to the $5.3 trillion in increased Medicare and Social Security costs. Which also are payments our nation is fully obligated to make...unless you are suggesting we stop? That the people who contributed to i>those plans their whole lives, as part of their retirement, should go pound sand?

It sounds like you are not familiar with the problem. That's OK, most people are not - they only think of this year's deficit, or the current national debt. The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses. That's what's happening in Europe.

Educate yourself on the issue, don't just rail against it because you don't like what it means.

I know what you are saying. YOU ARE WRONG. You seem to be the one not educated. You don't understand the difference between obligations and FUTURE obligations. You are getting them confused. You are counting future obligations like they are current obligations. THEY ARE NOT.

You never answered my question:

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

Do you not know, the answer?


You're really not very smart Corvus.

There are different issues being discussed in the article. Contracted public sector pensions and Social Security obligations, both of which are government funded retirement plans for citizens. Neither of which has enough money, or are projected to ever take in enough money, to meet their obligations.

If I am only going to earn, say, $10 million dollars in a lifetime, but I am projected to owe $20 million dollars in my lifetime, at some point, $10 million dollars of debt never gets paid. We owe more than we can ever collect in revenues, and while we are bringing in enough to not default today, we are falling behind, fast, and default at this rate is inevitable.

You are thinking that because of the word "future", that there is some chance that those debts might go away, or that the money will show up to pay for them. There is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue. No one has any ideas beyond draconian cuts that the people won't agree to. It doesn't matter if those obligations come due tomorrow, or next week, or next year - eventually, the supply of revenue doesn't meet the level of expenditures, and the system fails. Make sense yet?
 
2012-07-17 01:23:43 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.


I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.
 
2012-07-17 01:25:05 PM  

MFL: A. The Republican governor could not make the cuts because the democrat legislature blocked everything and threw a political tantrum every step of the way for their own gain. Arnold eventually just threw his hands up and said fark it and rejoined the hollywood crowd.


Yeah, like when those damn Democrats blocked his pension reform to protect their union donors!!!!

Oh wait.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in his weekly radio address yesterday that Republican legislators, who tried to block his pension reform bill this month, may have "sold out" to the prison guard union for campaign contributions.
...
The governor said the special session allowed the pension bill to be passed on a majority vote, rather than a two-thirds vote, with Democrats providing all the votes expected from them.

After the pension bill passed, several Republicans, including Assemblymen Jeff Miller of Mission Viejo and Dan Logue of Linda, changed their votes so the official record would not reflect their opposition.

"Not only did they try to block reform, but then they did not even have the courage to publicly stand behind their action," said the governor. "They were worried that when they went back to their districts people would find out they sided with labor rather than with the taxpayers."
 
2012-07-17 01:27:00 PM  
My Grandfather retired at 55 yrs old for Bell Atlantic....he's currently 97 and still collecting his pension. He only worked for Bell for ~30 yrs; he's been collecting a pension for longer than he actually worked. Pension plans had their appropriate time & place but now it is time for them to become more reasonable.
 
2012-07-17 01:27:15 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: You're really not very smart Corvus.

There are different issues being discussed in the article. Contracted public sector pensions and Social Security obligations, both of which are government funded retirement plans for citizens. Neither of which has enough money, or are projected to ever take in enough money, to meet their obligations.


Then why are you pretending they are all the same thing? Can you answer or not?

Does Medicare and Social Security count as your "contracted pensions"? Yes or NO?

Why is it I can answer your question and you can't answer mine and seem to be clueless at these simple concepts?

If I am only going to earn, say, $10 million dollars in a lifetime, but I am projected to owe $20 million dollars in my lifetime, at some point, $10 million dollars of debt never gets paid. We owe more than we can ever collect in revenues, and while we are bringing in enough to not default today, we are falling behind, fast, and default at this rate is inevitable.

You are thinking that because of the word "future", that there is some chance that those debts might go away, or that the money will show up to pay for them. There is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue. No one has any ideas beyond draconian cuts that the people won't agree to. It doesn't matter if those obligations come due tomorrow, or next week, or next year - eventually, the supply of revenue doesn't meet the level of expenditures, and the system fails. Make sense yet?


No I understand there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND THOSE OBLIGATIONS CAN CHANGE.


You seem to not understand that?

Answer me this:

Will there be a military in 10 years protecting you too? Then why isn't obligation also counted?

You are unable to answer any of my questions but you are calling me uneducated. If you are so educated about this why can't you answer my questions?
 
2012-07-17 01:27:49 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Dr Dreidel: // oh, and how much of their contributions have been counted against that ZOMGZZZ$61 TRILLION?
// you know - money the pensioners haven't contributed yet, since they haven't gotten the paycheck yet, since the contract hasn't been signed yet, since the need hasn't been defined yet, since the deficiency hasn't yet manifested itself
// times thousands of government workers under age 40

I'll repeat what I just said to Corvus:

The $61 trillion problem cannot be resolved by our current system, as our national GDP is only about $15 trillion per year, and the $61 trillion number increases much faster each year than the GDP. Eventually, you reach a point where there is not enough money to cover annual costs, and then you default, and the system collapses.

The annual contributions you refer to don't even cover the interest on the debt of what is owed. That's why the Social Security system is due to fail well before you or I can collect our benefits.

It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.


Calling SS a Ponzi scheme is too stupid a claim to respond to. Just google the phrase and watch as hit after hit (that don't lead to FoxNews, Daily Fail/Caller, NRO, PJM and the like) takes you to the words of respected economists who really don't see it that way. Or you could ask Reagan's budget guy. Plus, if we return the employee portion of the SS tax to 6.2% and remove (or raise) the income cap, or any number of smaller measures, we can make SS solvent for the next 300 years (instead of "only" the next 75 - a number, by the way, that is also gamed quite a bit).

That said, do you have any cites on "pension obligations are rising faster than GDP"? I know you're good for it, as you provided another one upthread.

I wonder if they use the "obligated" numbers that alarmists seem so fond of - counting future obligations, but not future revenues - or made some wild assumptions (like the one the Bush folks made about 7 years ago, where they assumed retirement age stayed at 67, but life expectancy jumped to 150). Surely, no one would attempt to deceive using math to make a cheap political point, right?

Also, how much of these estimates takes into account the economic cycle? I can make any number of dire predictions based on the last 24 months of economic data, but Disco Stu Math is dishonest and outdated. Real political players just use baldfaced lies these days.
 
2012-07-17 01:30:00 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.


IF NOTHING CHANGES.
I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.
 
2012-07-17 01:32:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: here is no solution even being discussed, by anyone, from either party, in any branch of government, to address the issue.


That's a complete lie. Obama made a bi-partisan committee that came up with solutions but since part of the solution was tax increases republicans refused to even entertain it.
 
2012-07-17 01:35:58 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.


You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.

We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income, we still wouldn't make a dent. So what's your plan?
 
2012-07-17 01:44:33 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: You're beyond help.


lh4.googleusercontent.com

Remember your rant. You are hilarious!
 
2012-07-17 01:44:57 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.


So then why did you dishonestly lump them together? So you admit we are not contractually beholden to those payments you have been saying we are beholden too. You were lying.



We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

No there is a middle road. Once again people like you love to live in a world of black and white false dichotomies. We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.


You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income ...


We don't have to pay for ALL THE FUTURE LIABILITY IN ONE YEAR. We keep explaining this to you and you never get it.

Like you refuse to answer:
We will need a military for the next 20 years, if we taxed everyone now for it we don't have the money. How do we pay for it? - That's the same asinine argument you are making.

Once again you idiot you are counting future obligations and current obligations.

Serious you suck at math!!!

We don't need to pay 20 -30 years of pensions, social security and medicare EVERY YEAR!!!


Just like we don't need to pay for 20 - 30 years of the military ever year.

You seem not to be able to grasp that! Serious you are an idiot.
 
2012-07-17 01:45:44 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!




Yeah, it's not like there was recently a crash that destroyed 40+% of the world's wealth or anything.
 
2012-07-17 01:47:02 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.


Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.
 
2012-07-17 01:49:58 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Where was Reagan from, you dumb motherf*cker?


Really?
 
2012-07-17 01:50:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


Right, I bet he believes the way to "save" medicare and social security is to ignore all those IOUS the general fund gave them so they could pay for the Bush Tax cuts. What a hero.
 
2012-07-17 01:52:08 PM  

I alone am best: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Where was Reagan from, you dumb motherf*cker?

Really?


CA has had only 2 Democrat governors in the last 45 years. Also any tax increase needs Republican votes to pass in the legislature.
 
2012-07-17 01:55:45 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.


So then why did you dishonestly lump them together? So you admit we are not contractually beholden to those payments you have been saying we are beholden too. You were lying.



We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

No t ...


Dude, are you seriously that stupid?

We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.
 
2012-07-17 01:56:42 PM  
I love how Republicans are now attacking Social Security for not being the system that they made fun of Al Gore for suggesting.
 
2012-07-17 01:57:28 PM  
Has this guy ever BEEN to California? Someone should tell him there are a LOT of Republicans there.
 
2012-07-17 01:58:13 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: It's a big Ponzi scheme, the biggest in the world, and unless we dramatically change things, like, right damned now, its end is just as inevitable as if Madoff were running it.

You don't know the definition of a Ponzi scheme, your once again embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.

All pensions systems are not funded for all liability in the future. NONE ARE.

I know that Corvus. But if the total expected payout is greater than the total expected inbound revenue, the system is doomed to failure. That's where we are today. There is no way to ever take in the $61 trillion we are expected to eventually pay out, and it is certain that the $61 trillion number will increase even further.

IF NOTHING CHANGES. I have already said the system needs to be modified. I have said this multiple times and you have ignored it. I also show you are being an idiot and your math is wrong you are trying to selectively count FUTURE obligations as current obligations which is BS.

But that is true for US MILITARY SPENDING TOO!! If we spend too much in US military spending it's not magically different! You are pretending it is.

Instead of calling people stupid because they are pointing out things you don't understand maybe you should try to understand.

You're beyond help.

I answered your question. I explained that contracted public sector pension obligations and social security obligations are different obligations, both contributing to the total level of unfunded liabilities.

We either pay our obligations and go broke, or we don't honor the obligations, and either default or go headfirst into draconian austerity, breaking the promise we made to generations before because we couldn't stop spending their retirement money.

You are saying "there will be more FUTURE REVENUE TO COUNTER THOSE OBLIGATIONS". Oh yeah? Tell me, Corvus, where we're going to come up with the money? If we taxed every citizen 100% of their income ...


OH RLY? $61 Trillion in unfunded liabilities ... what's the total GDP of that same time period ... $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off. Now, that of course is the extreme, but yeah, I think taxes need to be something like 10% higher for the lower brackets and 20-25% higher for the higher brackets. We should add back on a few brackets at the top that were lobbed off in the 60s ... 90% taxation over $10 million or something like that.

Combine that with the necessary SS age increase, larger personal SS/OASDI contributions, halving or quartering the DoD and you have a way to fund everything you just talked about ...

There are solutions, but if any solution that deals with a tax increase makes you put your fingers in your ear and scream "la la la la", you're right, we're all going to go bust. So, instead of being pissed at Obamacare (which only adds about $20 billion in total taxes to the general public) and pissed at every other Obama intitative, why don't you realize that we just put two and a half wars on the national credit card and it's time to pay up ... richest first on down the line.

I make a high five-figure salary, I live comfortably, if my effective tax rate went from 24% to 34%, I could easily make that happen with just a couple of rearrangements.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

You're a fool, a troll, or both.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:14 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.


I did! I did like 20 times already! Here you go because you don't seem to get it.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.

We can modify the system. Reduce benefits and increase the amount people pay into the system.
 
2012-07-17 01:59:54 PM  

seadoo2006: $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off.


GDP ISN'T INCOME YOU NITWIT
 
2012-07-17 02:01:04 PM  

karnal: One example of why California is broke:
Link


The question I have is, how the hell did moving that cost $200K? It should've run about $10K at the most in my mind.
 
2012-07-17 02:01:13 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: seadoo2006: $15 trillion * (Y * 1.03) > $61 trillion ... you are a moron ... in 4 years of 100% taxation, it'd be paid off.

GDP ISN'T INCOME YOU NITWIT


100% taxation = GDP you dumb fark.
 
2012-07-17 02:01:45 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.


I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?


You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.
 
2012-07-17 02:02:28 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.


Yes wanting to steal people's social security and medicare money that they paid into to pay less taxes is greedy.
 
2012-07-17 02:04:05 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: So tell us, how much more are YOU personally willing to sacrifice to resolve the issue?

The $61 trillion dollar issue? Not a farking nickel more than what the government already takes from me. I don't generally like to throw good money after bad, especially when even if everyone in the US gave everything they earn, the problem would still be there.

Still don't hear an explanation about how reducing corporate salaries solves the problem though, or even makes the tiniest bit of difference. Still waiting.

Color me shocked that you believe that others must sacrifice but not you. It's s good thing that you haven't benefited from from any of the service provided by the Government or you might look like a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

So because I am not donating extra tax money to the government, you think I am a greedy, entitled, hypocrite.

You're a fool, a troll, or both.


No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.
 
2012-07-17 02:08:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."

Pete Wilson was elected in 1994. Are you really going to parse that because he wasn't elected in 1995 and was instead serving as acting governor at the time?


It's not parsing, it's plain farking English. No president has been elected in the United States since 2008. Barack Obama is the sitting president and has served in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. However, to say that a president has been elected at any time since 2008 would be incorrect. That's not parsing. Words have meanings. Pete Wilson was not elected in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999.
 
2012-07-17 02:12:15 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Debeo Summa Credo: CPT Ethanolic: What would CA look like if pensions weren't invested into the scam that is wall street? See what happens when you put pensions into the private sector and the private sector goes tits up?

Swing and a miss.

Is there some "6 degrees to Kevin bacon" game you guys like to play to see how quickly you can blame wall street?

Let's see, how can we blame wall street for the mess? Let's review the facts - we overspend and give unreasonable pensions to public sector workers, we tie our feet together by passing ridiculous popular vote amendments that eliminate our ability to raise property taxes, we irresponsibly raise spending during a housing boom and then forget to reduce it when the bubble pops. We take losses on the assets in our already underfunded pension plans that calpers invested in stocks and bon......THAT'S IT!!! We lost money on investments and even though our pension plan manager (calpers and calsters) are public agencies, investments sounds pretty wall streety to me, therefore it's all their fault! Greedy bankers!



Yeah, it's not like there was recently a crash that destroyed 40+% of the world's wealth or anything.


Really? The S & p 500 is now down 13% from its all time peak in the summer of '07. Pension fund investments in bonds are up over the same time period then. Markets fluctuate but over the long term, they make money, which is why pension funds (private and public) invest rather than stuff the cash in the mattress.

What is your solution? Do you think california's pension plans would be better served by taking all their assets now and putting them in treasuries? Because California pensions, in assessing their levels of over/underfunding, assume long term investment
returns of 7.5%. You're not going to get 7.5% in a treasury and mattress investment program.

Markets/investments aren't the problem. Pension guarantees combined with an unwillingness to pay for such pensions is what is causing the problem.
 
2012-07-17 02:14:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.


I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.


Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:02 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


As long as we reinstate Eisenhower tax laws and brackets, I'm good with that.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:04 PM  

Fark It: Proposition 13 was a ballot initiative approved by the majority of voters in California, garnering almost 65% of the popular vote. It's a terrible law.


I'll go one further. California's biggest problem is our initiative system. It's way too easy for any damned interest to get something on the ballot and to use that as a tool for completely tying the hands of the legislature. For every good thing that comes out of that process, it seems like there's ten bad things that add to our legal cruft.
 
2012-07-17 02:16:14 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Also you're forgetting Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian.

I didn't write the article. But in any event, which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was elected after 1994?

Pete Wilson was in office till 1999. You wanna try that again?

Sure, I'll try that again. Which of Wilson or Deukmejian do you think was ELECTED after 1994? And I'll refer you back to the quote with which this whole conversation started: "California, where no non-cyborg Republican has been elected governor since 1994."

Wow, that's cherry picking. "No Republican governors were elected after this Republican governor's election. Except for that one Republican governor, who was elected twice. Out of a sample size of four elections."


Indeed it is. And all I ever did in this thread was address all the people saying "LOL he forgot about Reagan and Schwarzenegger!!1!" by pointing out this quote indicating that he did not forget about pre-1994 governors and "cyborgs." That's it. The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?
 
2012-07-17 02:18:52 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.


Oh yes, I forgot what an important , impressive person you are. You need to remind everyone of that more often.
 
2012-07-17 02:20:38 PM  

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Fark It: Proposition 13 was a ballot initiative approved by the majority of voters in California, garnering almost 65% of the popular vote. It's a terrible law.

I'll go one further. California's biggest problem is our initiative system. It's way too easy for any damned interest to get something on the ballot and to use that as a tool for completely tying the hands of the legislature. For every good thing that comes out of that process, it seems like there's ten bad things that add to our legal cruft.


2 things:

1) Get rid of the initiative system

2) allow actual representative democracy and get rid of the 2/3 vote budget/tax rule which the Republicans now just vote no on unless the get political favors in return.
 
2012-07-17 02:21:18 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: vygramul: Psst! Don't tell him about all the California Republican governors!

All the Republicans in California are RINOs.


Like Issa, Hunter and the other loonies?
 
2012-07-17 02:21:53 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.


You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?
 
2012-07-17 02:23:59 PM  

odinsposse: Slaves2Darkness: Sadly Republicans are no longer conservatives, not sure what we should call them, but not conservatives.

Feudalists? They do adhere to the Southern culture of a handful rich, adored, landowners ruling over a mass of poorly educated people who think "Hey, at least I'm not a slave. That means I can be rich too someday!" That was essentially Americans trying to emulate European feudal culture.


Feudalists are fascists before the concept of corporations existed.
 
2012-07-17 02:28:32 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


I believe not 1 PENNY of social security or Medicare should be paid out to prop up the general fund. (like most Republicans are now suggesting we don't pay back our IOUs)

Your idea that the general fund should be used to prop up social security or medicare is dumb. You are not fixing the problem you are just kicking it down the road. Social Security and Medicare need to be made self sufficient so it can last.
 
2012-07-17 02:29:02 PM  

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?


Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.
 
2012-07-17 02:30:42 PM  

js34603: spiderpaz: Oh yes - California is terrible. All the sunshine and year-around crops and culture and technology is such a burden. DON'T move to California. It's just the worst. If I could only muster the $50 or so it would cost to buy a double wide in the mid west, I would definitely do it ... I just can't afford the $30 heater that I'd have to put under it to keep the pipes from freezing 6 months out of the year.

All these views from mountain tops and beaches and valleys are just terrible. I'd much rather be living in flyover country where everything looks flat and uniform in every direction.

And the government IS the worst. They don't even try to force pregnant women to be penetrated by ultra-sounds when they don't accept the Lord Jesus. Can you believe it? And I remember when I went to public school they made us take all these books home to learn "math" and "science" with ... all I need is my Bible to know how the earth was made.

And the public museums and parks and universities ... they're everywhere. What a WASTE. Do you know how many dollar trees that could have built?

So all that means California has no economic problems?

The scenery in Cali being nice has nothing to do with the political party in control of the government, whereas the tax rates and massively in debt state budget probably do have something to do with who's running the state. But yeah the scenery is really nice there so let's ignore the economic failure and laugh at the flyover states!

/article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess


The primary economic problem that CA has is that for every $1 the federal government gets from californians and corporations in California, the federal government gives back about 75¢. The other 25% goes to poorer red-states like MS, WV, AL, SC...

If CA got back even just 85¢ to the dollar of taxes paid to the federal government, we'd be clear of all economic woes without having to add more taxes and fees from within the state.

As it is, CA is the fifth largest economy IN THE WORLD. There's a reason Apple, Intel, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Genentech, Hollywood... are in CA and it isn't the weather or the hot chicks. Even small start-ups prefer CA (primarily the SF Bay Area) to other places despite the daunting high fees and start-up costs, despite the high rental market, and other negative attributes. It's because of the education and the creativity and the drive and the culture and the secularism that if so prominent along the coast of California. You know, the blue part of the state as shown at the top of this thread.
 
2012-07-17 02:31:03 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?

Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.


Making war the way out of a fiscal crisis just might have some severe negative consequences.
 
2012-07-17 02:41:55 PM  
Sweetmelissa31:
Because states always handle things just fine themselves. Seriously, if we left everything to the states, segregation would still be allowed, and the South might not have even gotten past slavery.

I love fark for the simple reason that there is usually a trough of simple explanations that attempt to explain complicated issues. This is the main reason why Fox and MSNBC are so successful.
 
2012-07-17 02:43:02 PM  

ferretman: My Grandfather retired at 55 yrs old for Bell Atlantic....he's currently 97 and still collecting his pension. He only worked for Bell for ~30 yrs; he's been collecting a pension for longer than he actually worked. Pension plans had their appropriate time & place but now it is time for them to become more reasonable.


So everyone who worked for Bell Atlantic lives to 97? I'm guessing a lot of those employees died much earlier, offsetting the costs of the small minority that live to 97.
 
2012-07-17 02:44:01 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?

Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.

Making war the way out of a fiscal crisis just might have some severe negative consequences.


Yeah, I suppose it's a bad idea for that reason too.
 
2012-07-17 02:58:51 PM  

Super Chronic: The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?


U mad bro? I'm pointing out that it's a dumb argument.
 
2012-07-17 02:59:55 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: No I think that you are a greedy, entitled , hypocrite because you demand that others who provide services that you benefit from should make sacrifices that you are unwilling to make yourself.

I already pay more income taxes than more than 200 million other Americans. Half of them don't pay anything at all. I'm paying my fair share, and thanks to the rocket surgeons running the country, we are not only getting father in debt anyways, but anyone who does pay taxes is demonized because they don't pay enough.

Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We take in $2.1 trillion per year in taxes. Last year we spent $3.6 trillion. Even if we completely eliminated the military we would have spent $2.9 trillion.

Tell me how we are going to pay $61 trillion in future liabilities.

I have a question.

Do you think we should get rid of social security and Medicare?

If so would we also get rid of those taxes we pay for it or still have the middle class pay into those without getting anything?

How much does it save if we ALSO get rid of those tax revenues? Or are you only counting the expenditures?

You say you are the expert so this should be easy for you to answer.

Here. Read it yourself.

Link

And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.

We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

Gotta run, look forward to talking to you again soon.


Drastic cutting is a terrible way to solve the problem, but ok.

Cuts and revenue increases have to happen, but it's needs to be at a certain rate that doesn't retard the economy.

Also, balanced budget amendments are pretty unrealistic in terms of actually governing.

I don't think you've thought a lot about how much policies like this would retard growth.
 
2012-07-17 03:00:53 PM  
The FARK Politics Tab has become a cess pool of ignorant bullying liberals who have little to no understanding of Economics, State's Rights or even a fundemental grasp of Politcal Science.

Sad.
 
2012-07-17 03:23:16 PM  

2 grams: The FARK Politics Tab has become a cess pool of ignorant bullying liberals who have little to no understanding of Economics, State's Rights or even a fundemental grasp of Politcal Science.

Sad.


OhWaitYou'reSeriousLetMeLaughHarder.jpg
 
2012-07-17 03:32:31 PM  

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: The date mentioned was 1994, the last year Pete Wilson was elected, so obviously the author had Wilson in mind; and yet this Fart Machine character seems to be picking an argument on the basis that it's wrong about Wilson. What the fark, people?

U mad bro? I'm pointing out that it's a dumb argument.


Take it up with the author, which, I'm telling you for the second time, is not me. All I said is that he didn't forget Schawarzenegger or Reagan, and he didn't forget Wilson, either.

When was the last time the United States elected a Republican president? 2004. Bush was president all the way up until early 2009, and yet it is correct to say we have not elected a Republican president since 2004. Not in a "technically correct is the best kind of correct" sense, but in a sense that arguing against it is simply wrong. Similarly, California has not elected a non-Schwarzenegger Republican governor since 1994; I'm not saying it's an important point or a valid argument or a meaningful distinction or anything else you seem to be imputing to me; I'm saying it's a fact.
 
2012-07-17 03:35:28 PM  
I would agree with him for the most part; we liberals sometimes need conservatives to be the grown-ups. Every once in a while we need someone to stand up and say "And how are you going to pay for that?" The idea of a one-party government rightfully scares the hell out of me, but right now the Republican party scares me a lot more.

Republicans sound awesome when they're telling you about the heart and soul of their ideals - small, non-intrusive government, humble foreign policy, and a commitment to individual liberty. Anyone who tells you that they're a Republican will tell you that it's for one of their core ideals. None of them can give me an explanation for "Argle blargle we hate it if the President is for it, down with freedom, we hate smart people, crash the economy if we don't get our way." Whenever I see Marco Rubio wailing about how victimized and marginalized his party has been, I want to gag.

Conservatives, COME BACK. We need you. We miss sane, sensible, intelligent, intellectual conservatism. I don't even remember the last time my beliefs have been challenged by a trenchant conservative argument based on principle. And we all know how dangerous echo chambers can be. Put down the wedge issues and back away from the dog whistles, slowly.
 
2012-07-17 03:48:31 PM  

js34603: /article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess


However many GOPers there are in Cally, they're an endangered species in elective office, which is the only place that matters. They don't hold a single statewide elective position and their numbers in the legislature are just barely sufficient to keep the Democrats from having a two-thirds majority. Because it requires a two-thirds majority, he ONLY power they have is to block tax increases. After the November election they may not even have enough members to do even that. If that happens, you're going to see the full-blown consequences of an unchecked Democratic reign.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-17 03:51:43 PM  

peasandcarrots: I would agree with him for the most part; we liberals sometimes need conservatives to be the grown-ups.


I think you should go back to your desk and re-write this. Keep in mind that having tolerance and respect for other people's religions, different racial and cultural backgrounds, sexual orientation and lifestyles, believing in education, science, helping others who are less fortunate due to circumstances beyond their control, creating sustainable industries, preserving the environment and many other very grown up and reasonable ideals are "Liberal". When you begin by saying "we liberals" do not immediately consign liberals to the role of being childish; you could not be making a greater mistake.
 
2012-07-17 03:57:23 PM  

2 grams: The FARK Politics Tab has become a cess pool of ignorant bullying liberals who have little to no understanding of Economics, State's Rights or even a fundemental grasp of Politcal Science.

Sad.


Liberals are such big bullies. They are so mean. Stop picking on all those wimpy-ass Conservatives, OK?
 
2012-07-17 04:01:23 PM  

jjorsett: js34603: /article is dumb...plenty of Republicans in California...much better example would be the northeast like Mass or Vermont
//wonder how they're doing economically and tax wise...bet they even have those science and math books we hear so much about that only exist in California I guess

However many GOPers there are in Cally, they're an endangered species in elective office, which is the only place that matters. They don't hold a single statewide elective position and their numbers in the legislature are just barely sufficient to keep the Democrats from having a two-thirds majority. Because it requires a two-thirds majority, he ONLY power they have is to block tax increases. After the November election they may not even have enough members to do even that. If that happens, you're going to see the full-blown consequences of an unchecked Democratic reign.

[i48.tinypic.com image 301x283]


Umm CA has had only 2 Democratic governors in the last 45 years. Wow you are being dishonest again, imagine that. And wasn't it until recent that all budgets had to have 2/3 so that means Republicans also had to vote for them all.
 
2012-07-17 04:06:06 PM  

unlikely: [www.instablogsimages.com image 300x354]


Done in one. Outside of the major cities, Cali is INCREDIBLY conservative.

/gay marriage ban
//please, though, keep up the stereotyping
///South is full of hicks, New Yorkers all assholes, Boston full of racists
 
2012-07-17 04:22:24 PM  
crazifornia.com

crazifornia.com

crazifornia.com
 
2012-07-17 05:01:25 PM  

thornhill: What America would look like without any Democrats:

[www.iandrinstitute.org image 418x328]


Except the Democratic Party had been in control of the Mississippi legislature from Reconstruction until just last year, and until recently, Mississippi had mainly Democratic governors. It's been a Republican state nationally, but locally the Democrats have had most of the political power for well over a century.
 
2012-07-17 05:06:59 PM  

ferretman: My Grandfather retired at 55 yrs old for Bell Atlantic....he's currently 97 and still collecting his pension. He only worked for Bell for ~30 yrs; he's been collecting a pension for longer than he actually worked. Pension plans had their appropriate time & place but now it is time for them to become more reasonable.


So, if your granddad did not have this great pension, would you be taking care of him? Do you expect the state to it? Or would you have just taken him out to Yellowstone and left him in the woods for the wolves.
In other words, what is your solution?
 
2012-07-17 05:11:42 PM  
i.imgur.com

If only...
 
2012-07-17 05:13:38 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Corvus: Occam's Nailfile: We keep cutting until the budget is in surplus, so we can whittle away at our national debt. We take our punishment for spending like drunken sailors, and we pass a balanced budget amendment. Done.

You know we would of lost WWII with a balanced budget amendment? right?

That's ok with you?

Not that I'm in favor of a BBA, but I believe that those that have been proposed had some exceptions or loopholes for "national emergencies" or something like that, presumably for which a huge war would qualify.


How about a war of choice like Iraq?
 
2012-07-17 05:21:53 PM  

WombatControl: thornhill: What America would look like without any Democrats:

[www.iandrinstitute.org image 418x328]

Except the Democratic Party had been in control of the Mississippi legislature from Reconstruction until just last year, and until recently, Mississippi had mainly Democratic governors. It's been a Republican state nationally, but locally the Democrats have had most of the political power for well over a century.


Those Mississippi Democrats have a lot more in common with Republicans in Congress than Democrats.
 
2012-07-17 05:25:52 PM  

Aarontology: themindiswatching: See what happens when voters keep the stae from raising revenue while forcing it to spend money?

Bingo.


One and done.

/Any article claiming my beautiful state is economically doomed and DOES NOT address the effect of 30 plus years of Prop 13's stranglehold upon the state's ability to generate tax revenues is intellectually disingenuous at best, or is outright right wing propaganda BS at worst.

//And it's always the latter coming from right wing Herpderpistan.
 
2012-07-17 05:51:35 PM  
The West Coast should be it's own country.
California is the greatest, Washington and Oregon rock. They're the first world parts of this country, though they could stand to be more socialized like Scandinavia or Canada.
Still, it's the best three states/part of the US.
The East Coast, Southeast, Flyover, all worthless.
 
2012-07-17 06:07:29 PM  
As I'm sure people have pointed out here, CA has a large amount of conservatives and is HARDLY the most Democratic state. Maybe Vermont or something?
 
2012-07-17 07:03:44 PM  

red5ish: peasandcarrots: I would agree with him for the most part; we liberals sometimes need conservatives to be the grown-ups.

I think you should go back to your desk and re-write this. Keep in mind that having tolerance and respect for other people's religions, different racial and cultural backgrounds, sexual orientation and lifestyles, believing in education, science, helping others who are less fortunate due to circumstances beyond their control, creating sustainable industries, preserving the environment and many other very grown up and reasonable ideals are "Liberal". When you begin by saying "we liberals" do not immediately consign liberals to the role of being childish; you could not be making a greater mistake.


You're right; I should have been specific to policy rather than ideals. If I were to hit the edit button, I'd assert that while a bullet train is nice and useful and very important, the question of how to pay for it and subsidize it is nontrivial. This shouldn't destroy the idea of a bullet train, but it is a question that someone ought to answer before we start spending money.

I would also add that right now it's the conservatives who are being children, with their "I'll hold my breath and turn blue" behavior in Congress and their "Mom he's on my side of the seat" rage at President Obama. I don't think either side should be acting like that and I sure as hell don't buy into that "both sides are bad" crap so often used to minimize the bad behavior of the opposition. Liberals have their flaws, but that bar is so low right now that if the next Republican president manages to get through two State of the Union addresses without a Democrat shouting "You lie!" from the gallery, we will still have the moral high ground. THAT'S how bad it's gotten.

I don't think anyone should be "adults" or "children" in politics; I think people should listen to each other, and I think that's what Republicans have stopped doing, and they've stopped doing it because they think they're not being heard. Which is a hoot, when some Congressman gives a speech that plays on all major news networks wailing "We're not being heard!"

Here is a copy of last week's New York Times. I want you to hit me with it at least twice the next time I presume to speak for all liberals or imply that they're being "childish." It's a Sunday edition, so you should be able to get a good swing. Maybe put it in a pillowcase first.
 
2012-07-17 07:10:47 PM  

Gonz: Masso: Aside from the god damn Arnold Schwarzenegger governator?

There were also a couple other governors you may have heard of:

Richard Milhous Nixon
Ronald Wilson Reagan

Those two aren't REAL Republicans, though.


Pete Wilson was a Republican also.
 
2012-07-17 08:00:57 PM  
You people are stupid. Not everyone can be equal, not everyone can be rich. Government is a necessity...blah blah blah, nothing will change, my point was made in first four words
 
2012-07-17 08:01:01 PM  

Occam's Nailfile: And no, we absolutely cannot get rid of social security and medicare. People have paid into those systems, they deserve their returns, as promised.

We cut everything else. (Including much of the military, you're surprised I thought as much I am sure). We cut government salaries and benefits. We cut optional social programs. We can raise the retirement age a few years to account for advances in science and health, but not much.


The problem with this logic is that you assume the amount of tax revenue and the amount of government spending are independent. They most certainly are not. That money is keeping many people employed - both in the public sector and the private sector. Eliminating that money eliminates those jobs. This serves to both drive down tax revenues and drive up public aid expenses.

Further, government spending is the only brake on the positive feedback loop of unemployment:
Higher unemployment -> Lower consumer spending -> Less demand for a company's product -> Layoffs -> Higher unemployment

Government safety nets serve to try to break that feedback loop, and can only work because the government is the largest player in the economy, able to make a difference by working against the normal pressures of a business cycle. A smaller government couldn't make a meaningful dent in a business cycle, and we'd be back to the ages of depressions like we had before.

Government should cut spending and raise taxes in times of a strong economy, which they should use to pay down debt incurred during lean times.
 
2012-07-17 08:19:56 PM  
What would America be like without Democrats? Just take a look at Kentucky, and you'll get a pretty clear picture of it.
 
2012-07-17 08:35:17 PM  

theorellior: and any attempt at bucking the system will result in failure and sadness?


150 million murdered people in the 20th century it the name of what you want is yes, sadness to a degree.
 
2012-07-17 09:09:42 PM  

coeyagi: What would America be like without Republicans?

A little less this-

[www.traileraddict.com image 562x422]

And a little more this-

[www.adrants.com image 320x240]


I was in Ashely, Oregon for the Shakespeare festival.

Goddamn, talk about a lib paradise. Fresh, wholesome food; no major problems getting to or from places; everyone could pretty much do what they wanted; lots of street vendors and singers...heck, I even saw a lesbian couple with the world's happiest kid trying to feed some highly-stuffed ducks.

/Every kid fed those ducks. They were starting to ignore bread thrown at them.
 
2012-07-17 09:45:02 PM  
i48.tinypic.com

Why?! WHYYY?! How can these people be so farking stupid????
 
2012-07-17 10:14:46 PM  

Corvus: Here is more "Democrats gone wild!!" state spending per capita the lowest levels since the early 70's (before we had all those "fiscal conservative" Republicans in office).


Be fair, that is Jerry Brown and he has always been a fiscal conservative.
You cannot say that about most of the democrats in the state legislature.
 
2012-07-17 10:23:06 PM  

dericwater: All the Republicans in California are RINOs.

Like Issa, Hunter and the other loonies?


Dana Rohrabacher is a RINO?

What is a wingnut, if that is the case?
 
2012-07-17 10:55:01 PM  

Fark It: Any military farkers want to chime in on how their benefits compare to state workers?


You mean aside from the fact that we see actual pay raises(~1.6% per year) as an exemption from the federal payraise freeze as one of ours.

Medical Care is covered(Default non-specialist to military installation, emergency care anywhere, can get referal to any specialist based on availability/ability, includes dental)
Allowances for housing & food(Non-taxable income to offset/cover living off base and away from galley)
Discounts on specific flights(Space available travel)
Veterans Administration(Covers retierment medical disability) deep discounts on medical care and dental care after retirement(I belive it's about 108 a month)
Retirement at 20 years(50% high 3 years at 20, +2.5% per year up to a total of 100% at 40 years)
Tuition Assistance(Covers college level classes up to a specific value unless you drop the class after 6 weeks or fail it)
GI Bill(New one covers most expensive state run college + some housing + some for books)

I'm sure there's a few more, and I'll allow a non-military chime in on their benefits.
 
2012-07-17 11:07:32 PM  
Every state that elected a Republican governor in 2010 has seen it's unemployment numbers go down.

Link
 
2012-07-18 02:22:04 AM  

Gonz: Masso: Aside from the god damn Arnold Schwarzenegger governator?

There were also a couple other governors you may have heard of:

Richard Milhous Nixon
Ronald Wilson Reagan

Those two aren't REAL Republicans, though.


Ni*on was never governor. Pat Brown beat him. And then built UCs and CSUs in those counties that voted for Ni*on on the grounds they needed more and better education.
 
2012-07-18 08:45:59 AM  

bossuniversalAA: texas is some sort of gold standard?


"Contrast those numbers with Republican-controlled Texas, where private-sector jobs have grown from 7.8 million in 2000 to 9 million today"

[i96.photobucket.com image 279x319]


Texas has more people below the poverty line than any other state.
Texas has more uninsured children than any other state.
Texas has more uninsured working adults than any other state.
Texas has a higher percentage of people who suffer from food insecurity than any other state.
Texas executes more people than any other state.

They are certainly number one in many things... but none that I want to be a part of. Better to be unemployed in many states than employed in Texas... at least you might live through the experience.
 
2012-07-18 09:37:21 AM  
California unemployment rates have been declining sharply since the Republican governor left and the Democratic Governor has been in office.

Link
 
2012-07-18 10:41:52 AM  

seadoo2006: Fark It: Fark It: Dr Dreidel: It doesn't seem too tough a row to hoe to service them in their twilight years, especially if they spent 20 years in public service. I'd also like to see a citation that a roadkill-cleaner pulls in $70k/year (unless you pile benefits - like a pension - in there, too).

Twilight years? Your 40s are not your twilight years. Why is it that a public employee's pension deserves more safeguards than a private sector employees? At one point do public employee pensions and benefits become unreasonable? Can they?

Fark at my link, here's my citation for road-kill cleaners making over $70k a year:

Otto, who is paid $73,344 a year, declined to comment.

seadoo2006: Public employees solved greed,

The most laughably retarded thing anyone has said in this thread so far.

Debeo Summa Credo: from others.

It's like a plumber overcharging you and when you say you are going to use a more reasonably priced plumber, him telling you to stop complaining and just ask for a raise from your boss.

Occam's Nailfile: Because no one can afford to pay someone to work for 20 years, then to not work for another 20-50, and still offer a product or service at a competitive price. If you doubt that, look what happened to the auto industry. Either price or quality suffer, and in either even, companies fail.

Thank you for getting the point, and getting it across better than I can, apparently.

So, $73k is excessive? But the 1% (over $250k/year) aren't rich? You're duality in thinking doesn't stand up. Sorry your life sucks so much that you feel that someone earning $73k needs to be dragged down, but see, some of us actually believe well, their job is worth that much.

The only people that have problems with public pensions are the same retards that go to the same job for 20 years working under some slave-master middle manager and then complain that they have it rough. Hey man, if slinging dead animals is such a good job, why not quit yours and go work for the city?

It's the same argument you people always give about welfare abuse. If being on welfare is so great, and you can have a big house and drugs and big 24" spinner wheels on your car, why not quit your job, go move to the projects, and get on welfare. Your life would be better, right?

Oh yeah, you're all lying assholes that don't actually believe a word of the filth that spews from your mouths ...


You are right, every company should pay their trash collectors 70000 a year and let them retire at 45 with full benefits. that is in no way unsustainable. just ask california!
 
2012-07-18 10:53:12 AM  

Occam's Nailfile: Philip Francis Queeg: But paying the top executives hundreds of times worker pay, and then paying them millions more to go away when they fail is perfectly sustainable, right?

If you have a problem with that system, either start your own company, or buy enough of another to effect the change you want. Until then, it's not your money, it's not your company, and you don't get a say in the matter.

The people in charge will always get paid more than the people turning the wrenches. It has always been this way, it will always be this way, and complaining about it is childish. Grow up. If you want to make more than the wrench-turners, develop a skill and work your way up. Or create your own company. Shaking your tiny fist in impotent rage will gain you nothing.


Well said
 
2012-07-18 11:10:17 AM  

PsiChick: I was in Ashely, Oregon for the Shakespeare festival.


Ashland.
 
2012-07-18 07:27:52 PM  

Super Chronic: PsiChick: I was in Ashely, Oregon for the Shakespeare festival.

Ashland.


...Possibly. Everyone kept calling it 'Ashley'. We used to live in Roseburg, and Ashley is an actual town near there, so they were probably mixing it up.

/My family does stuff like that a lot
//It's a miracle any of us can read a map.
 
2012-07-19 01:14:46 AM  
Nixon you dolt!
 
Displayed 332 of 332 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report