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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report