🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:04:11 -0400, tripletask wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1510...
> 
> June 15 (Reuters) - California lawmakers will not meet their deadline on
> Tuesday for approving a state budget, which requires closing a shortfall
> of more than $19 billion, a spokeswoman for the state Senate's top
> officer said.
> 
> They will instead work toward having a spending plan together for the
> state's next fiscal year by the time it begins on July 1, said Alicia
> Trost, spokeswoman for Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a
> Democrat.
> 
> "The conversations continue. Obviously, we're very aware today is a
> deadline and we take that very seriously, but the most important thing
> is to get a budget right," Trost said.
> 
> Analysts have learned to expect California lawmakers to ignore their
> June 15 deadline for approving budgets. Lawmakers have also routinely
> engaged in often lengthy battles over spending
> 
> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
> multicultural disaster?
> 
> cole

What is interesting here is both the bigotry and the economic stupidity.  
The bigotry and fascist pig shit is quite obvious, but the economic 
ignorance and stupidity is less so.  A "bail out" of California or New 
Jersey poses a lot of questions regarding state sovereignty and common 
currency.  It is much the same in the European union but for the "states 
rights" aspect of the supposed "nations" in Europe.  A "nation" or a 
"state" that claims some sort of sovereignty while using a currency not 
its own and unable to enforce its borders and apply tariffs is a joke.

The "bail out" of Greece will not cause income tax increases or vat tax 
increases in the remaining nations unless these nations choose that 
path.  There is no reason to shy away from monetization in this 
particular situation so as to prevent a punishment of the non offending 
middle class in the union.  Bringing it back home to the USA, there is no 
reason for a tax increase on the people of the USA to fund the "bail out" 
of California.  But California must agree to _FIX_ their tax system as a 
prerequisite for any "bail out".  The repayment of a "bail out" must be 
managed as a defacto "nationalization" of the land in California. That is 
to say that an ad valorem tax on land should be used to pay back the 
"bail out". There is really no other way to do it.  You can't get blood 
from a turnip.  In rightarded terms we will foreclose on California, 
taking possession of the state and THEN granting them a long term 
mortgage until the Californians pay back the loan.  It will be 
interesting to see how the Californians deal with this situation. They 
may secede, in which case Mexico may bail them out or they may just 
become another Mexico where the land owners are the nobility and all the 
rest are serfs. 

-- 
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

If California could expel for deportation every single illegal alien
the State would become a paradise in a few years. Deport them all
to include asians and europeans. No quarter given, none asked.

cole 

tripletask@gmail..com wrote:

> 
> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
> multicultural disaster?
> 
> cole

Since the federal government failed to stop the flood of illegal aliens 
into California, why shouldn't the American taxpayers pay at least that 
(huge) part of California's debt?

Sam Spade wrote
> tripletask@gmail..com wrote

>> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting multicultural disaster?

> Since the federal government failed to stop the flood of illegal
> aliens into California, why shouldn't the American taxpayers pay at least that (huge) part of California's debt?

Because its impossible to work out what percentage it is. 

tripletask@gmail..com wrote:

> If California could expel for deportation every single illegal
> alien the State would become a paradise in a few years.

Pure fantasy. Far too many legals now for that.

> Deport them all to include asians and europeans.

Deport fools like you instead.

> No quarter given, none asked.

You should be hung, drawn and quartered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung,_drawn_and_quartered 

Rod Speed wrote:
> Sam Spade wrote
> 
>>tripletask@gmail..com wrote
> 
> 
>>>Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting multicultural disaster?
> 
> 
>>Since the federal government failed to stop the flood of illegal
>>aliens into California, why shouldn't the American taxpayers pay at least that (huge) part of California's debt?
> 
> 
> Because its impossible to work out what percentage it is. 
> 
> 
That's no excuse.  Accountants have hots of rules about reasonable 
allocations based on statistical analyses.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:04:11 -0400, tripletask@gmail..com , a member of 
that ignorant sub-class called "gmail.com" wrote:

>some nonsense I won't repeat

The anthropological fact here is that the wealthy of California could pay off 
the California deficit and debt *with no reduction in their life-style.*

Only an anthropologist might be able to explain the conservative's 
refusal to distribute taxes in a rational manner.  It must be a genetic 
flaw created in the course of evolution.

-- 
      MasonC

masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info wrote:

> 
> 
> The anthropological fact here is that the wealthy of California could pay off 
> the California deficit and debt *with no reduction in their life-style.*
> 

Could you provide some meaningful specifics to support that assertion?

Sam Spade wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Sam Spade wrote
>>> tripletask@gmail..com wrote

>>>> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting multicultural disaster?

>>> Since the federal government failed to stop the flood of illegal
>>> aliens into California, why shouldn't the American taxpayers pay at least that (huge) part of California's debt?

>> Because its impossible to work out what percentage it is.

> That's no excuse.

Its the reason what you propose isnt even possible.

> Accountants have hots of rules about reasonable allocations based on statistical analyses.

Not even possible in this case. 

On 06/16/2010 04:02 PM, masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:04:11 -0400, tripletask@gmail..com , a member of 
> that ignorant sub-class called "gmail.com" wrote:
> 
>> some nonsense I won't repeat
> 
> The anthropological fact here is that the wealthy of California could pay off 
> the California deficit and debt *with no reduction in their life-style.*
> 

So ask them.

> Only an anthropologist might be able to explain the conservative's 
> refusal to distribute taxes in a rational manner.  

First we should ask if California's government should be doing all that 
it is doing.

> It must be a genetic 
> flaw created in the course of evolution.
> 

The "flaw" being a functioning brain and a desire to use it. If some 
wealthy people want to bail out California, let them. If not, the state 
will have to create a balanced budget through some combination of tax 
increases and spending cuts.

However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any 
more than what they've already provided. Those "wealthy" who are 
creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than the 
average person.

<tripletask@gmail..com> wrote in message 
news:adth169dg6bftg98j2t2vof7lvvutp484f@4ax.com...
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1510...

40 years of GOP Reaganomics for everyone to see. 

In article <adth169dg6bftg98j2t2vof7lvvutp484f@4ax.com>,
 tripletask@gmail..com wrote:

> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1510...
> 
> June 15 (Reuters) - California lawmakers will not meet their deadline
> on Tuesday for approving a state budget, which requires closing a
> shortfall of more than $19 billion, a spokeswoman for the state
> Senate's top officer said.
> 
> They will instead work toward having a spending plan together for the
> state's next fiscal year by the time it begins on July 1, said Alicia
> Trost, spokeswoman for Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, a
> Democrat.
> 
> "The conversations continue. Obviously, we're very aware today is a
> deadline and we take that very seriously, but the most important thing
> is to get a budget right," Trost said.
> 
> Analysts have learned to expect California lawmakers to ignore their
> June 15 deadline for approving budgets. Lawmakers have also routinely
> engaged in often lengthy battles over spending 
> 
> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
> multicultural disaster?
> 
> cole



Yes.

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:25:47 -0500, Roy Carin wrote:

> On 06/16/2010 04:02 PM, masoncXXX@XXXfrontal-lobe.info wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:04:11 -0400, tripletask@gmail..com , a member of
>> that ignorant sub-class called "gmail.com" wrote:
>> 
>>> some nonsense I won't repeat
>> 
>> The anthropological fact here is that the wealthy of California could
>> pay off the California deficit and debt *with no reduction in their
>> life-style.*
>> 
>> 
> So ask them.

The rest of California may well do that.

>> Only an anthropologist might be able to explain the conservative's
>> refusal to distribute taxes in a rational manner.
> 
> First we should ask if California's government should be doing all that
> it is doing.

Not me.  I don't live in California.  The Californians need to be the 
ones who decide that.
 
>> It must be a genetic
>> flaw created in the course of evolution.
>> 
>> 
> The "flaw" being a functioning brain and a desire to use it.

Yes.  That is the part that seems to be missing on the rightarded fringe.

> If some
> wealthy people want to bail out California, let them. If not, the state
> will have to create a balanced budget through some combination of tax
> increases and spending cuts.
> 
> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any
> more than what they've already provided.

You can't know that.

> Those "wealthy" who are
> creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than the
> average person.

And you can't know that either.

If California increases taxes then some people will leave.  I look at it 
and ask myself which people are the PRODUCERS. Those would be the people 
I would try to keep if I were the California community.  That would mean 
that I would endeavor to tax land values.  The retort is that Granny will 
have to move (oh trauma).  But Granny is not a producer any more than 
some "investor" in land or any other "owner" of land.  This SHOULD have 
been the case _BEFORE_ the Republican bubble.  Too bad.

People love to live in California because of the land itself.  The 
natural weather, ocean, and mountains.  And there is the commerce of the 
port and of Silicon Valley.  Not everyone can afford to live in the best 
places.  The places are bid up by the people in a free market.  All of 
that money can go to fund government and production is not harmed as it 
would be by income and sales taxes.  Part of the reason that California 
is a disaster is because people try to escape the cost of the natural and 
the community created quality of life there.  They try to tax other 
people, and to create a "capital gain" from location rents.

-- 
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60

 <tripletask@gmail..com> wrote:
>http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1510...
>
>June 15 (Reuters) - California lawmakers will not meet their deadline
>on Tuesday for approving a state budget, which requires closing a
>shortfall of more than $19 billion, a spokeswoman for the state
>Senate's top officer said.

And in other breaking news:  The sun will rise in the east in the
morning.

...
>Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
>multicultural disaster?

And there's the racist bigotry.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

Roy Carin wrote:

> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any 
> more than what they've already provided. Those "wealthy" who are 
> creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than the 
> average person.

Most Democrats and public "service" employees are incapable of 
understanding that concept.

Ray Fischer wrote:

...
> 
>>Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
>>multicultural disaster?
> 
> 
> And there's the racist bigotry.
> 
The state government of California is racist as evidenced by its huge 
prison population that is mostly black and hispanic.

Sam Spade  <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Roy Carin wrote:
>
>> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any 
>> more than what they've already provided. Those "wealthy" who are 
>> creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than the 
>> average person.
>
>Most Democrats and public "service" employees are incapable of 
>understanding that concept.

Grovel before your masters, sucker.

Here's a clue, rightard: Without decent wages to spend workers won't
be supporting businesses with their dollars.

Corporations can manage quite nicely without overpaid executives, but
they CANNOT survive without customers.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

Sam Spade  <sam@coldmail.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>...
>> 
>>>Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting
>>>multicultural disaster?
>> 
>> 
>> And there's the racist bigotry.
>> 
>The state government of California is racist as evidenced by its huge 

Rightard rule #1:  Lie, lie again, lie more, lie about lying.

-- 
Ray Fischer         
rfischer@sonic.net  

Sam Spade wrote
> Ray Fischer wrote
>> Sam Spade wrote

>>> Will American taxpayers be forced to bail-out that disgusting multicultural disaster?

>> And there's the racist bigotry.

> The state government of California is racist as evidenced by its huge prison population that is mostly black and 
> hispanic.

Mindlessly silly. Those groups do a lot more crime, fool. 

Not to far in the future, if government has not sealed the border and
begun the removal
of illegal aliens consequences will be grim (if you are an illegal
alien). I predict that
American citizens of every type will vacation on the border and simply
start killing the
invaders.

Walter

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:46:26 -0700, Sam Spade wrote:

> Roy Carin wrote:
> 
>> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any
>> more than what they've already provided. Those "wealthy" who are
>> creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than
>> the average person.
> 
> Most Democrats and public "service" employees are incapable of
> understanding that concept.

This religious affliction concerning the contribution of the rich still 
drives the moronic rightards even though reality says otherwise.  This 
country has not been destroyed by Democrats.  It has been destroyed by 
lying pig Republicans and their fascist pig shit.  As to the wealthy 
owing government of California more or less the rational person attempts 
a FAIR system of taxation as opposed to arguing about who is to be 
billed. That fair system existed in California until Prop 13 destroyed 
it.  I would like to add that no one is FORCED to live in California and 
that people can leave any time. People want to live there because of the 
natural attributes of that area.  Only the rich can afford to live 
there.  But the rich must have government services, lawn care, 
restaurants, massage parlors or house calls, grocery stores, and let us 
not the forget the major need which is lots of people to kiss their 
illustrious butts.  No government, no private property enforcement.  The 
rich will ever try to have others pay for their needs.  The proper 
funding of government is via asset taxation.  The greater the value of 
your assets the more you NEED government.  Land is the asset that cannot 
be hidden. It is available to all in a government enforced market.  And 
all you have to do is outbid all the other people.  The land exists 
without anyone "providing it".  It is just "there".  The recipient of the 
payment for inhabiting a particular location should be the government 
that enforces the use claims (e.g. the right of exclusive use).  It is a 
fair and honest system.

-- 
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60