• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California goes broke, halts $3.5 billion in payments

Wow, way to underscore the topic!

You are either borderline delusional, or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Dr. Paul and libertarian philosophy.

Wow...way to show how illiterate one can become when foaming at the mouth. I said nothing about Dr. Paul and libertarian philosophy. I simply stated that his rabid followers were totally whacked.
 
Wow...way to show how illiterate one can become when foaming at the mouth. I said nothing about Dr. Paul and libertarian philosophy. I simply stated that his rabid followers were totally whacked.

Maybe altizhmers is kicking in early for you.
isolating ourselves, cutting the government down to minimal operations, and screech hyperboles describing the government as some monstrous entity that was sitting over the Constitution with a magic eraser to take out the Bill of Rights one by one.

You have referred to me as a Paulite, therefore what am i to assume?
 
You cannot claim that a level 200 course in statistics and an opinion is sufficient to prove the study false. You fail until you can prove it.

Then prove it is either net negative or inefficient. You have yet to do either, but instead attack me and my source.

Let me make sure I've got this down:

1. You claim that the program is a net positive, so it should be kept.
2. I point out that unless you know the actual costs and opportunity costs, the fact that it's a net positive doesn't mean anything.
3. You claim that the program works, but provide a study with flaws, and then claim that the program is cheap, but ask me to provide you with how much the program costs in CA.
4. I point out the obvious flaw in the first study, and then remind you that it's not my burden to do your research.
5. You claim that it's my job to prove that the program doesn't work and that it's not cost effective.
6. I futilely try to remind you that you're missing the point altogether.

That about right?

Quit cherry picking my posts. It was addressed to Jallman's "Darwin" comment, and nothing more.

As far as my statement is concerned, i am referring to a nationalized program, not a state program.

In case you have yet to receive the memo, i believe in states rights:doh


Bull****. You expressed clearly that "I want to live a long and prosperous life, but i dont want to spend even a % of that time working to pay for someone who has no desire to do the same." Whether the program taking your money is run by the state or by the federal government has no bearing on that statement.

You're making ridiculously contradictory statements and attacking others for expressing the same thoughts that you yourself have stated.

If anything, jallman's position is even more humane. He is opposed to a program that would take his money and give it to someone who was a drug addict and prostitute. You're opposed to a program that would take your money and give it to all poorer people, the vast majority of whom are not drug addicts or prostitutes.
 
Maybe altizhmers is kicking in early for you.

You have referred to me as a Paulite, therefore what am i to assume?

Again, I never referred to you as a Pauligan. I simply stated what I think of Pauligans. If you identify as one, then by all means, to each his own.

But please, to lay this to rest, point to where I referred to you or anyone specifically as a Pauligan...
 
Let me make sure I've got this down:

1. You claim that the program is a net positive, so it should be kept.
2. I point out that unless you know the actual costs and opportunity costs, the fact that it's a net positive doesn't mean anything.
3. You claim that the program works, but provide a study with flaws, and then claim that the program is cheap, but ask me to provide you with how much the program costs in CA.
5. You claim that it's my job to prove that the program doesn't work and that it's not cost effective.
6. I futilely try to remind you that you're missing the point altogether.

That about right?

Not once did i state that a lack of SEP's causes a 5%+ increase in the spread. If you can find where I did, then you have my apology. I only asked you politely if you would supply the other half of the data required to truly engage in this debate. Your failure to do so illustrates you are not inclined to have a debate on the topic at hand, and are more concerned with ganging up with your fellow republican boyfriend because someone showed that your opinions and facts do not line up accordingly.

I point out the obvious flaw in the first study, and then remind you that it's not my burden to do your research.

You are implying that NEP's do not reduce the spread of HIV, under a falsified assumption. Again, the fact that you took a 200 lvl math class and have a conservative opinion does not constitute the study insufficient. If you are going to put your foot in your mouth by claiming false, then do so in its entirety.

Bull****. You expressed clearly that "I want to live a long and prosperous life, but i dont want to spend even a % of that time working to pay for someone who has no desire to do the same." Whether the program taking your money is run by the state or by the federal government has no bearing on that statement.

Who the **** are you to tell me my views on government have "no bearing"? Enacting a NHS and preventing a spreadable disease are completely two different topics without even considering their respective reach. It is not of my own self interest to pay for someone else's health care, but it is of my self interest to want to see the spread of HIV decrease. Reason be, i like to get *****, and condom's are only 99% effective against the spread.

You're making ridiculously contradictory statements and attacking others for expressing the same thoughts that you yourself have stated.

No, that is what you are trying to make it out to be, but in reality that cannot be any farther from the truth. Your grasping at straws big time.

If anything, jallman's position is even more humane. He is opposed to a program that would take his money and give it to someone who was a drug addict and prostitute. You're opposed to a program that would take your money and give it to all poorer people, the vast majority of whom are not drug addicts or prostitutes.

When all is lost, resort to grasping at straws huh:roll: He stated:
Perhaps HIV is Darwin's way of telling us some people should be cut out of the gene pool and they will do so by their own stupidity.
He is implicitly suggesting that those people (of which he disagrees with their activities) deserves to die.

This discussed program "takes his money and gives it to drug addicts and prostitutes?" Wrong again. The program has been shown to reduce the spread of HIV. You claim the report is "doctored", although you have not read the study in its abstract or entirety. Talk about a bunch of bull****, i would have to guess the color of your eyes is brown...
 
Again, I never referred to you as a Pauligan. I simply stated what I think of Pauligans. If you identify as one, then by all means, to each his own.

But please, to lay this to rest, point to where I referred to you or anyone specifically as a Pauligan...

RNYC and you had a little conversation about me being a Paulite, of which i took it as you were in agreement with your reply. But if that is not the case, then sorry:2wave:
 
RNYC and you had a little conversation about me being a Paulite, of which i took it as you were in agreement with your reply. But if that is not the case, then sorry:2wave:

No, I didn't know whether you were or not. I was just making a dig at the Pauligans because it's so easy. LOL
 
That may need to be re-looked at but California, especially southern California, has terrible, terrible, public transportation system. I would be hesitant to take out any money focused on improving it.

It would free up gas money to spend on many other things if implemented correctly. Transportation is something Cali needs to keep high on priorities. I used to hate taking the freeways in L.A. so bad when I was in a rush. Murphy's Law is a bitch.
 
My sister runs a daycare in CA and there's a real chance that for the kids that are on state paid daycare instead of getting a check from the state for March she'll get an IOU.

Is that even possible? How's she supposed to pay her bills? I told her to pay 'em with IOUs.
 
My sister runs a daycare in CA and there's a real chance that for the kids that are on state paid daycare instead of getting a check from the state for March she'll get an IOU.

Is that even possible? How's she supposed to pay her bills? I told her to pay 'em with IOUs.

I wonder how that will go over.
 
My sister runs a daycare in CA and there's a real chance that for the kids that are on state paid daycare instead of getting a check from the state for March she'll get an IOU.

Is that even possible? How's she supposed to pay her bills? I told her to pay 'em with IOUs.

The government does let you pay them in IOU's if you are in financial distress. It's only accepting that they get the same option in return.

What you can't pay in IOUs are private companies, which is where the problem is with your sisters situation.
 
I'll have to research it. That simply can't be right. How can they not pay the daycare providers? She has 14 kids total. 11 are state paid.

It could happen:

California has not resorted to IOUs since the 1992 budget crisis when Pete Wilson was governor. Back then, some 100,000 state employees got IOUs instead of paychecks for two months until the state approved a budget. The 1992 crisis came during summer, well past the tax season, but at least 12,000 tax refunds were also issued as IOUs, according to a contemporaneous report in the Los Angeles Times.

Calif. Taxpayers Due Refunds May Get IOUs - NBCBAYAREA- msnbc.com
 
It could happen:

California has not resorted to IOUs since the 1992 budget crisis when Pete Wilson was governor. Back then, some 100,000 state employees got IOUs instead of paychecks for two months until the state approved a budget. The 1992 crisis came during summer, well past the tax season, but at least 12,000 tax refunds were also issued as IOUs, according to a contemporaneous report in the Los Angeles Times.

Calif. Taxpayers Due Refunds May Get IOUs - NBCBAYAREA- msnbc.com

I knew they were intending on IOU's for tax returns, some college grants, etc. But I hadn't heard on the news that daycare workers could go unpaid. The repercussions of that would be insane. Daycare workers aren't going to watch kids for free. They'll go broke. Unless banks honor the states IOU's and cash them.
 
My sister runs a daycare in CA and there's a real chance that for the kids that are on state paid daycare instead of getting a check from the state for March she'll get an IOU.

Is that even possible? How's she supposed to pay her bills? I told her to pay 'em with IOUs.

I think it happened in the 80's when I lived in CA. All state recipients (workers) got a letter from the state saying "Please do not kick this person out of their home as they will pay their bills later when the state pays them." Along with utilities and crap.
 
I think it happened in the 80's when I lived in CA. All state recipients (workers) got a letter from the state saying "Please do not kick this person out of their home as they will pay their bills later when the state pays them." Along with utilities and crap.

Good lord.
 
Not once did i state that a lack of SEP's causes a 5%+ increase in the spread. If you can find where I did, then you have my apology. I only asked you politely if you would supply the other half of the data required to truly engage in this debate.

Again, I'm not the one trying to prove anything.

Your failure to do so illustrates you are not inclined to have a debate on the topic at hand, and are more concerned with ganging up with your fellow republican boyfriend because someone showed that your opinions and facts do not line up accordingly.

Jallman is NOT my boyfriend, he is my BFF.

You are implying that NEP's do not reduce the spread of HIV, under a falsified assumption.

Where did I imply that? I stated that that study had an obvious glaring flaw.

Again, the fact that you took a 200 lvl math class and have a conservative opinion does not constitute the study insufficient. If you are going to put your foot in your mouth by claiming false, then do so in its entirety.

Ok.

Who the **** are you to tell me my views on government have "no bearing"? Enacting a NHS and preventing a spreadable disease are completely two different topics without even considering their respective reach. It is not of my own self interest to pay for someone else's health care, but it is of my self interest to want to see the spread of HIV decrease. Reason be, i like to get *****, and condom's are only 99% effective against the spread.

:rofl Forget a "200 level statistics" class, you should take a 6th grade health class. You're actually worried about getting aids from having sex with a condom?

HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The odds of getting HIV from UNPROTECTED penile-vaginal intercourse with someone who IS infected is 1/2000. Now, even assuming that you exclusively have sex with AIDS infested needle sharers, using your 99% statistic, that means that the odds of you getting HIV while using a condom are one in 200,000.

Talk about misplaced priorities.

No, that is what you are trying to make it out to be, but in reality that cannot be any farther from the truth. Your grasping at straws big time.

Right. You hate government spending when it goes towards things you don't want, but like it when it goes towards things that you do want, albeit completely irrationally.
 
Back
Top Bottom