[Djshakes]

[quote=flu][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]Here’s how to find the problem with California’s budget: Wait until the state goes completely broke, beyond the level where the Gummint can bail Cali out. When the riots begin, the people doing the rioting will be the ones that caused the problem (plus their political pals — who can easily be voted out).

Now that I’ve identified the problem, it’s up to you natives to do something about it such as: jail every rioter with US citizenship and deport everyone without US citizenship. Problem solved!!!!

And by the way, California WILL eventually go broke and I will do my best to encourage Pols NOT to bail California out. Or New York. Or any other state including my own.

When California was a Conservative state it didn’t have these problems much, but now it’s a state full of Bleeding-heart, left-wing lunatics, leftovers from the hippy days who have taken over and are driving the state into the poor house.

Here’s an idea: TAX wealthy Hollywood filmmakers, producers, and actors at 90%!!!! Start with Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Spielberg, Lucas, et al.[/quote]

Allright, Brutus, I’ll give you the same challenge I gave faterikcartman.

What would you do, exactly, Brutus, to fix the budget?

Here’s a little something to get you started:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/budget/

I have a prediction, Brutus. You’ll either ignore this, like faterikcartman did. Or you’ll rant and rave about lefty this and lefty that. But you won’t have any real, constructive ideas.

Prove me wrong, Brutus, if you can.[/quote]

Hey… I balanced the budget!… Here’s my take..

1. Welfare: Cut in half ($1.05 billion savings)

2. In home services: Cut in half ($600 million savings)

3. Cut funding for Cal state school in half ($1.25billion savings).. especially funding to programs that don’t lead to meaningful jobs/careers.

4. Close 1/2 of community colleges ($2.0billion savings). Especially funding to programs that don’t lead to meaningful jobs/careers/advance degrees of such

5. Cut COPS program by 1/2 ($50 million savings)

6. Cut prison rehab program completely ($250 million savings)

7. Cut state payroll ($1 billion savings)

8. Cut legislature budget ($130 million savings)

9. Add $2 sales tax to cigarettes ($2billion income)

10. Add a 18 cent booze tax ($2.5 billion income)

I ended up with a $234 million surplus.[/quote]

I’m all for the cutting. Not a fan of the taxing. That is how they divide and conquer. Let’s say you have three groups, smokers, drinkers and vegans. Government comes in and says they want votes to tax the smokers because it is unhealthy. Drinkers and vegans, say “Yes, screw the smokers” and vote for the tax. Next the government comes in and wants to tax drinkers because that is also unhealthy. Vegans and smokers say “yes”. Next the government comes in and wants to tax the vegans because they have far too much money from health care cost savings and it needs to be spread around to help the drinkers and smokers. Drinkers and smokers vote “yes” because someone else is now flipping the bill. Now everyone is taxed and it will never go away. Beware of the slippery slop.

[Djshakes]

[quote=flu][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]Here’s how to find the problem with California’s budget: Wait until the state goes completely broke, beyond the level where the Gummint can bail Cali out. When the riots begin, the people doing the rioting will be the ones that caused the problem (plus their political pals — who can easily be voted out).

Now that I’ve identified the problem, it’s up to you natives to do something about it such as: jail every rioter with US citizenship and deport everyone without US citizenship. Problem solved!!!!

And by the way, California WILL eventually go broke and I will do my best to encourage Pols NOT to bail California out. Or New York. Or any other state including my own.

When California was a Conservative state it didn’t have these problems much, but now it’s a state full of Bleeding-heart, left-wing lunatics, leftovers from the hippy days who have taken over and are driving the state into the poor house.

Here’s an idea: TAX wealthy Hollywood filmmakers, producers, and actors at 90%!!!! Start with Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Spielberg, Lucas, et al.[/quote]

Allright, Brutus, I’ll give you the same challenge I gave faterikcartman.

What would you do, exactly, Brutus, to fix the budget?

Here’s a little something to get you started:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/budget/

I have a prediction, Brutus. You’ll either ignore this, like faterikcartman did. Or you’ll rant and rave about lefty this and lefty that. But you won’t have any real, constructive ideas.

Prove me wrong, Brutus, if you can.[/quote]

Hey… I balanced the budget!… Here’s my take..

1. Welfare: Cut in half ($1.05 billion savings)

2. In home services: Cut in half ($600 million savings)

3. Cut funding for Cal state school in half ($1.25billion savings).. especially funding to programs that don’t lead to meaningful jobs/careers.

4. Close 1/2 of community colleges ($2.0billion savings). Especially funding to programs that don’t lead to meaningful jobs/careers/advance degrees of such

5. Cut COPS program by 1/2 ($50 million savings)

6. Cut prison rehab program completely ($250 million savings)

7. Cut state payroll ($1 billion savings)

8. Cut legislature budget ($130 million savings)

9. Add $2 sales tax to cigarettes ($2billion income)

10. Add a 18 cent booze tax ($2.5 billion income)

I ended up with a $234 million surplus.[/quote]

I’m all for the cutting. Not a fan of the taxing. That is how they divide and conquer. Let’s say you have three groups, smokers, drinkers and vegans. Government comes in and says they want votes to tax the smokers because it is unhealthy. Drinkers and vegans, say “Yes, screw the smokers” and vote for the tax. Next the government comes in and wants to tax drinkers because that is also unhealthy. Vegans and smokers say “yes”. Next the government comes in and wants to tax the vegans because they have far too much money from health care cost savings and it needs to be spread around to help the drinkers and smokers. Drinkers and smokers vote “yes” because someone else is now flipping the bill. Now everyone is taxed and it will never go away. Beware of the slippery slop.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Djshakes]And what is the difference between republicans and democrats now days other than the title?
[/quote]

If they are the same, then why oppose one in favor of the other?[/quote]

Most of the time I oppose them both. When I have to pick I pick the lesser of two evils.

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
I see far to many, on this board as well, who purport to support one set of principles yet vote for another. And I suspect they don’t have any clue that they’re being contradictory.[/quote]

Like poor, destitute, rural Whites people (e.g. handy men and contractrators who have no health insurance) who live in Red States and vote for Republicans.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat…..

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
I see far to many, on this board as well, who purport to support one set of principles yet vote for another. And I suspect they don’t have any clue that they’re being contradictory.[/quote]

Like poor, destitute, rural Whites people (e.g. handy men and contractrators who have no health insurance) who live in Red States and vote for Republicans.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat…..

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
I see far to many, on this board as well, who purport to support one set of principles yet vote for another. And I suspect they don’t have any clue that they’re being contradictory.[/quote]

Like poor, destitute, rural Whites people (e.g. handy men and contractrators who have no health insurance) who live in Red States and vote for Republicans.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat…..

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
I see far to many, on this board as well, who purport to support one set of principles yet vote for another. And I suspect they don’t have any clue that they’re being contradictory.[/quote]

Like poor, destitute, rural Whites people (e.g. handy men and contractrators who have no health insurance) who live in Red States and vote for Republicans.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat…..

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman]
I see far to many, on this board as well, who purport to support one set of principles yet vote for another. And I suspect they don’t have any clue that they’re being contradictory.[/quote]

Like poor, destitute, rural Whites people (e.g. handy men and contractrators who have no health insurance) who live in Red States and vote for Republicans.[/quote]
Troll troll troll your boat…..

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I am unable to see youtube at work…but let me guess..this is about the founding forebearers (the liberals love quoting her as saying founding forefathers instead) and their quest to end slavery?[/quote]

Yeah, “forebearers” is not the same as “forefathers.” – and that’s really important!

The video is the the “extended” version. I actually found it painful to watch.

The part about the “eye” on the dollar bill was particularly bizarre.

So Michelle is your new gal, eh? I thought Sarah was prettier, but it’s not all about looks. Brains matter too. Christina was cute – whatever happened to her?[/quote]

I heard bits and pieces of it. Basically where Chris Matthews played snipets of her and made himself look extremely ignornant trying to flame her and proving he knows nothing about the 3/5 clause in the constitution. I didn’t care enough to watch the whole interview. I’m not a fan of politicians on either side of the isle.

Half of you are forgetting that the United States didn’t become the United States until 1776. Prior to that we were under Britain’s rule. The first English colony to import a slave was Virginia in 1619. The constitution eradicated slavery in 1865. So if you look at it from the fact that slaves were on this continent for 246 years or under United states rule for 89 years is a drop in the pot seeing as how slaves existed since the beginning of time! So if you want to ignore these facts and blatant works of our early politicians to end slavery with an amendment to the constitution which influenced other countries around the world to do the same because of semantics and a political slant because someone on the other side of the isle acknowledge it, you are an idiot. Why don’t you just spit on the flag if you want to ignore what this great country did to end slavery here and around the world. It wasn’t a coincidence slavery greatly decreased worldwide after the United States set a precedence. That is the point she was making. Yet we bog down progress with slapping matches about semantics and slight slip ups. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to see anyone of you extremely articulate individuals be in the lime light day in day out and not slip up…especially when people are looking for it.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I am unable to see youtube at work…but let me guess..this is about the founding forebearers (the liberals love quoting her as saying founding forefathers instead) and their quest to end slavery?[/quote]

Yeah, “forebearers” is not the same as “forefathers.” – and that’s really important!

The video is the the “extended” version. I actually found it painful to watch.

The part about the “eye” on the dollar bill was particularly bizarre.

So Michelle is your new gal, eh? I thought Sarah was prettier, but it’s not all about looks. Brains matter too. Christina was cute – whatever happened to her?[/quote]

I heard bits and pieces of it. Basically where Chris Matthews played snipets of her and made himself look extremely ignornant trying to flame her and proving he knows nothing about the 3/5 clause in the constitution. I didn’t care enough to watch the whole interview. I’m not a fan of politicians on either side of the isle.

Half of you are forgetting that the United States didn’t become the United States until 1776. Prior to that we were under Britain’s rule. The first English colony to import a slave was Virginia in 1619. The constitution eradicated slavery in 1865. So if you look at it from the fact that slaves were on this continent for 246 years or under United states rule for 89 years is a drop in the pot seeing as how slaves existed since the beginning of time! So if you want to ignore these facts and blatant works of our early politicians to end slavery with an amendment to the constitution which influenced other countries around the world to do the same because of semantics and a political slant because someone on the other side of the isle acknowledge it, you are an idiot. Why don’t you just spit on the flag if you want to ignore what this great country did to end slavery here and around the world. It wasn’t a coincidence slavery greatly decreased worldwide after the United States set a precedence. That is the point she was making. Yet we bog down progress with slapping matches about semantics and slight slip ups. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to see anyone of you extremely articulate individuals be in the lime light day in day out and not slip up…especially when people are looking for it.

[Djshakes]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=Djshakes]I am unable to see youtube at work…but let me guess..this is about the founding forebearers (the liberals love quoting her as saying founding forefathers instead) and their quest to end slavery?[/quote]

Yeah, “forebearers” is not the same as “forefathers.” – and that’s really important!

The video is the the “extended” version. I actually found it painful to watch.

The part about the “eye” on the dollar bill was particularly bizarre.

So Michelle is your new gal, eh? I thought Sarah was prettier, but it’s not all about looks. Brains matter too. Christina was cute – whatever happened to her?[/quote]

I heard bits and pieces of it. Basically where Chris Matthews played snipets of her and made himself look extremely ignornant trying to flame her and proving he knows nothing about the 3/5 clause in the constitution. I didn’t care enough to watch the whole interview. I’m not a fan of politicians on either side of the isle.

Half of you are forgetting that the United States didn’t become the United States until 1776. Prior to that we were under Britain’s rule. The first English colony to import a slave was Virginia in 1619. The constitution eradicated slavery in 1865. So if you look at it from the fact that slaves were on this continent for 246 years or under United states rule for 89 years is a drop in the pot seeing as how slaves existed since the beginning of time! So if you want to ignore these facts and blatant works of our early politicians to end slavery with an amendment to the constitution which influenced other countries around the world to do the same because of semantics and a political slant because someone on the other side of the isle acknowledge it, you are an idiot. Why don’t you just spit on the flag if you want to ignore what this great country did to end slavery here and around the world. It wasn’t a coincidence slavery greatly decreased worldwide after the United States set a precedence. That is the point she was making. Yet we bog down progress with slapping matches about semantics and slight slip ups. This goes for both sides of the political spectrum. I would like to see anyone of you extremely articulate individuals be in the lime light day in day out and not slip up…especially when people are looking for it.

[Author]

Posts