• 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

Yeah but that's 3 billion over the next decade. Right now California is short by 3 billion for this year.

They couuuuuuuuld only be short by 1.5 billion though. :lol:
 
Might we actually be seeing the end of the Budget Deficit Era? Are organizations finding out that, as any competent third grader can tell you, you can't actually spend more money than you make ad infinitum

One of these days the feds just might learn this lesson too
 
Might we actually be seeing the end of the Budget Deficit Era? Are organizations finding out that, as any competent third grader can tell you, you can't actually spend more money than you make ad infinitum

One of these days the feds just might learn this lesson too

In truth, deficit spending is not the enemy; spending the money in a deficit in the belief that it will lead to economic recovery is.

In times of emergency, there will always be the risk of a deficit. But it should only be temporary. Governments base their spending projections on revenue projections. No one is perfect in that endeavor.

Where we get into deep trouble is when we use political rhetoric and scare tactics to advance an agenda and willingly spend ourselves into a deep hole.

I can't imagine how anyone can support the notion that by spending money the Government doesn't have, this will spur economic growth. It is equally stunning to me when the same people promoting this nonsense think that taxing Capital Gains and Corporations will increase employment and new product development.
 
Because liberals think that crippled pinhead FDR was the greatest man that ever lived, because he made the government huge, and gave half of Europe to the Russians.
 
Because liberals think that crippled pinhead FDR was the greatest man that ever lived, because he made the government huge, and gave half of Europe to the Russians.

There's a lot of truth in your statements.
 
It's probably a bit more than that, but certainly those programs were not of any help. The whole of our governments, State and Federal, have been running themselves improperly and inappropriately for some time. But there was only a vocal few speaking out about the real problems. The rest, on all sides, were sitting there bitching out of one side of their mouth with their hands stretched out for whatever they could get from the government. Suckling it, becoming dependent upon it. Republocrats sold out and their constituency happily followed. This is the America the lazy made, those whom didn't want to do anything for themselves. They authorized government growth, the allowed it to make program after program, spend more money, take more power. In the end...we sorta deserve this. This is what happens when we don't do our duty as freemen, when we don't act to keep this Republic.

You`ve spoken volumes here. The operative in everything you had to say is ,"speak out". The squeeky wheel does get oiled,sometimes not till its a very loud shriek ,but it is more likely to get fixed once it starts makeing a lot of noise. WE may have to take it to the streets ,as far gone as things are. How likely is that to happen at all, with our present day police state.
 
Time to repeal prop 13. Well its been time since that garbage was passed, but now its really time.

Yeah what a great idea, let's force retired people out of their homes by jacking up their taxes which they can't pay on a fixed income.

Isn't it like a Liberal to constantly think we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem?

Do you know that if you repealed all the tax advantages in the entire world as we know it today, politicians would spend it all and then some?

Then our economy would resemble Zimbabwe’s. But perhaps that is what Liberals want; then the evil empire would be brought humbly to it's knees and the UN will take over as the world's great power, or better yet, Venezuela!!! It certainly would reduce pollution. But there would be a lot of starvation. But that would reduce our carbon footprint!!! :roll:
 
Yeah what a great idea, let's force retired people out of their homes by jacking up their taxes which they can't pay on a fixed income.

Why can they not sell their houses?
 
It blew my mind when I saw those on a doc on MSNBC. To think they actually have those and fund them with taxpayers money is an outrage.

You know what would suck though, if a chick who shoots up contracts HIV (unknowingly) because she began sharing needles due to the abolishment of the local NEP. Then the next time she sells her ***** to a Jon without wrapping it up, he brings HIV home to his wife. The Jon eventually feels guilty, and tells her which causes the wife to go off and screw the milkman (without wrapping it up)...

I know i know, "if people did not do heroin and cheat on their spouses, this would never happen." If my aunt had balls she would be uncle Vickie.;)

NEP's are proven to reduce HIV spread in their area. Yes people still share needles from NEP's, but not all of 'em.
 
Last edited:
You know what would suck though, if a chick who shoots up contracts HIV (unknowingly) because she began sharing needles due to the abolishment of the local NEP. Then the next time she sells her ***** to a Jon without wrapping it up, he brings HIV home to his wife. The Jon eventually feels guilty, and tells her which causes the wife to go off and screw the milkman (without wrapping it up)...

I know i know, "if people did not do heroin and cheat on their spouses, this would never happen." If my aunt had balls she would be uncle Vickie.;)

NEP's are proven to reduce HIV spread in their area. Yes people still share needles from NEP's, but not all of 'em.

Whether or not something is generally a net positive is not the same as whether or not something is economically efficient.

Also, you're drastically overstating the transferability of HIV through intercourse. It's incredibly difficult to get HIV.
 
It is official. California is broke, and cannot meet its obligations. It's deficit is now 35% greater than the money it takes in.

California is also dumb. Why don't they just print up a bunch of counterfeit money to make ends meet? That's what the Federal government does.

Article is here.

We talked about this briefly in my Contemporary Political Theory class. Yep, it appears it's the Liberals fault on this one. At one point, my professor got his PHD at University of Cali, they actually paid Graduate students to attend school-- there were also FREE public universities.

They are great on social issues, in my opinion, for what it's worth, but they're acting like the Guinea Pig for Liberals and that's turned it into the first state to go down.
My state isn't looking too hot, either. My university, App State, is hosting the grandest 200th Anniversary Darwin lecture series in the world (University Forum however they say that due to cuts if the Anniversary would have been next year we would never been able to get half of these names.
 
They are great on social issues, in my opinion, for what it's worth, but they're acting like the Guinea Pig for Liberals and that's turned it into the first state to go down.

Good essay on what went wrong:
So what went wrong, and why are tens of thousands of Californians leaving the state with bachelor degrees and above, while tens of thousands enter without high-school diplomas?

Many answers have been offered—incompetent governance, judicial intrusions, the ballot propositions, trial lawyers, unions, dysfunctional and politically-correct schools, or illegal immigration. But look at it in some sense as the long hoped-for end of the nebulous “them / they.”

For years the open borders lobby accused “them” (whites? The establishment? Conservatives? etc.) of racism in wanting the border with Mexico closed, an end to state entitlements to illegal aliens (remember the Satanic Prop 187?), and deportations of thousands of aliens in state prisons (a cost nearing $1 billion per annum). But now the state legislature is largely controlled by those who in the past argued for de facto open borders and an expansion, not a curtailment, of entitlements for those without legal residence. So whom to blame? There is no “they” anymore. The outsiders are insiders and own the state—and its contradictions they once helped to ensure.

Ditto environmentalism. “They” (fill in the blanks: right-wing employers, CEOs, national companies, etc.) were the villains to be overcome in order to stop drilling off our shores, and to put ever more of our timber and recreational and scenic areas into no-use wilderness areas. We were not to build dams. No more canals. Put aside more farm land. No more nuclear plants. Forget coal. Tax gasoline and make it expensive to refine. It is fair to say now that the environmentalist agenda runs the state, and so there likewise is no more “them” to blame—and we must live with the results. I cannot begin to count in my own personal realm of knowledge the farmers who went broke, the high-tech engineers who moved to Nevada, the small business owners who shut down or moved out of state.

Ditto unions and big government. Ever more high pensions, ever more strict work rules, ever more administrators and high salaries, ever more rules against firing and accountability—and ever fewer to pay for it all. The evil “they” who used to try to moderate unions and state spending are gone—dead, moved away, retired, zilch. And so we the taxpayers work for the unionized government employee rather than vice versa.

So now those who want unchecked entitlements, open immigration, restrictions on resource development, unionized work forces and ever expanded government won—and won big. The problem is, again, the evil “they” who were to pay for all this in ever increased income and sales taxes, to take the blame of being racist, or sexist, or homophobic or greedy, are pretty much gone (cf. the last stand of the 1% of the state that pays the majority of state income taxes). There are no more “greedy” left to pay money or emotional penance, and the therapeutic mindset is now screaming to high heaven as it looks for its awful, but missing mean parent to make it all right.



My state isn't looking too hot, either. My university, App State, is hosting the grandest 200th Anniversary Darwin lecture series in the world (University Forum however they say that due to cuts if the Anniversary would have been next year we would never been able to get half of these names.[/QUOTE]
 
This is quite ironic, as California is probably the richest state in the US.

There's no irony here. This can be expected and predicted whenever Democrats are in charge of the purse strings. They can't help themselves; pandering is in their blood.

But expecting those same politicians to comprehend that they have a SPENDING problem will be like convincing an alcoholic that they have a drinking problem.

The way politics work is to blame to a certain degree because to remain electable, you have to make promises to your constituents unless you have the courage of your convictions and that is a trait few in politics have.
 
Whether or not something is generally a net positive is not the same as whether or not something is economically efficient.

Also, you're drastically overstating the transferability of HIV through intercourse. It's incredibly difficult to get HIV.

Are you in the position to quantify the cost of increased spread of HIV? If not, than i do not see the point of your first comment, other than subjectiveness...

And yes, it was my point to create a hyperbole.
 
Are you in the position to quantify the cost of increased spread of HIV? If not, than i do not see the point of your first comment, other than subjectiveness...

And yes, it was my point to create a hyperbole.

You might as well have written a Disney story if hyperbole is your argument.
 
You might as well have written a Disney story if hyperbole is your argument.

Then ill ask you the same: Are you in the position to quantify the cost of increased spread of HIV?
 
Back
Top Bottom