[no_such_reality]

It’s not the big programs:
[quote=marion]Well, yes, it’s a given he’s going to fund these type of programs, but I think he can do it effectively. Is there a reason why you don’t think he can? And yes, he has limited military experience. I say “so what” to that. [/quote]

In the California budget, it isn’t the inefficiency, it’s the idiocy. There’s no efficient funding of the programs, the program by design aren’t effective and shouldn’t be funded.

It isn’t a case of are we spending 10% too much on WIC, but instead, a death of a 1000 cuts. $7 million for migrant services, $4 million in block grants (slush funds), $17 million for the California Science center (cripes I’ve been there, create an entrace fee), Song Brown program 1/2 million (used to recruit students into health fields), Health Services $5 million work training to recruit students to health fields, Snaple program $9000 to recruit students to health fields etc for 962 pages.

962 pages of appropriations for ten thousand here, seven million there, six hundred thousand over there, etc, until we have a $14 billion dollar shortfall.

Think about it, on a $140,000,000,000 budget, there is literally a line entry for $9000. That’s like a person who makes $150,000 a year budgeting something for one penny.

[no_such_reality]

It’s not the big programs:
[quote=marion]Well, yes, it’s a given he’s going to fund these type of programs, but I think he can do it effectively. Is there a reason why you don’t think he can? And yes, he has limited military experience. I say “so what” to that. [/quote]

In the California budget, it isn’t the inefficiency, it’s the idiocy. There’s no efficient funding of the programs, the program by design aren’t effective and shouldn’t be funded.

It isn’t a case of are we spending 10% too much on WIC, but instead, a death of a 1000 cuts. $7 million for migrant services, $4 million in block grants (slush funds), $17 million for the California Science center (cripes I’ve been there, create an entrace fee), Song Brown program 1/2 million (used to recruit students into health fields), Health Services $5 million work training to recruit students to health fields, Snaple program $9000 to recruit students to health fields etc for 962 pages.

962 pages of appropriations for ten thousand here, seven million there, six hundred thousand over there, etc, until we have a $14 billion dollar shortfall.

Think about it, on a $140,000,000,000 budget, there is literally a line entry for $9000. That’s like a person who makes $150,000 a year budgeting something for one penny.

[no_such_reality]

It’s not the big programs:
[quote=marion]Well, yes, it’s a given he’s going to fund these type of programs, but I think he can do it effectively. Is there a reason why you don’t think he can? And yes, he has limited military experience. I say “so what” to that. [/quote]

In the California budget, it isn’t the inefficiency, it’s the idiocy. There’s no efficient funding of the programs, the program by design aren’t effective and shouldn’t be funded.

It isn’t a case of are we spending 10% too much on WIC, but instead, a death of a 1000 cuts. $7 million for migrant services, $4 million in block grants (slush funds), $17 million for the California Science center (cripes I’ve been there, create an entrace fee), Song Brown program 1/2 million (used to recruit students into health fields), Health Services $5 million work training to recruit students to health fields, Snaple program $9000 to recruit students to health fields etc for 962 pages.

962 pages of appropriations for ten thousand here, seven million there, six hundred thousand over there, etc, until we have a $14 billion dollar shortfall.

Think about it, on a $140,000,000,000 budget, there is literally a line entry for $9000. That’s like a person who makes $150,000 a year budgeting something for one penny.

[no_such_reality]

It’s not the big programs:
[quote=marion]Well, yes, it’s a given he’s going to fund these type of programs, but I think he can do it effectively. Is there a reason why you don’t think he can? And yes, he has limited military experience. I say “so what” to that. [/quote]

In the California budget, it isn’t the inefficiency, it’s the idiocy. There’s no efficient funding of the programs, the program by design aren’t effective and shouldn’t be funded.

It isn’t a case of are we spending 10% too much on WIC, but instead, a death of a 1000 cuts. $7 million for migrant services, $4 million in block grants (slush funds), $17 million for the California Science center (cripes I’ve been there, create an entrace fee), Song Brown program 1/2 million (used to recruit students into health fields), Health Services $5 million work training to recruit students to health fields, Snaple program $9000 to recruit students to health fields etc for 962 pages.

962 pages of appropriations for ten thousand here, seven million there, six hundred thousand over there, etc, until we have a $14 billion dollar shortfall.

Think about it, on a $140,000,000,000 budget, there is literally a line entry for $9000. That’s like a person who makes $150,000 a year budgeting something for one penny.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=TheBreeze]The faux-conservative motto: “We don’t give a rat’s about our own kid’s future, so don’t expect us to give a rat’s about anyone else’s”

[/quote]

And with a lack of relevant points to make, once again, the nanny’s resort to ad hominem attacks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=TheBreeze]The faux-conservative motto: “We don’t give a rat’s about our own kid’s future, so don’t expect us to give a rat’s about anyone else’s”

[/quote]

And with a lack of relevant points to make, once again, the nanny’s resort to ad hominem attacks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=TheBreeze]The faux-conservative motto: “We don’t give a rat’s about our own kid’s future, so don’t expect us to give a rat’s about anyone else’s”

[/quote]

And with a lack of relevant points to make, once again, the nanny’s resort to ad hominem attacks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=TheBreeze]The faux-conservative motto: “We don’t give a rat’s about our own kid’s future, so don’t expect us to give a rat’s about anyone else’s”

[/quote]

And with a lack of relevant points to make, once again, the nanny’s resort to ad hominem attacks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=TheBreeze]The faux-conservative motto: “We don’t give a rat’s about our own kid’s future, so don’t expect us to give a rat’s about anyone else’s”

[/quote]

And with a lack of relevant points to make, once again, the nanny’s resort to ad hominem attacks.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=DrChaos]WTF? Why is being a selfish asshole so much in vogue?

[/quote]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, they all did it for the greater good and benefit of the people.

Castro, Chavez, Che, they did too.

As did Mao…

So to answer your question, it became vogue about the same time the nanny state dictators showed up preaching the new environmentalist religion.

Change starts at home. Change yourself and if you find a better way, others will follow. When they don’t follow, you don’t have a better way.

and no, you aren’t saving the world by driving a hybrid.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=DrChaos]WTF? Why is being a selfish asshole so much in vogue?

[/quote]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, they all did it for the greater good and benefit of the people.

Castro, Chavez, Che, they did too.

As did Mao…

So to answer your question, it became vogue about the same time the nanny state dictators showed up preaching the new environmentalist religion.

Change starts at home. Change yourself and if you find a better way, others will follow. When they don’t follow, you don’t have a better way.

and no, you aren’t saving the world by driving a hybrid.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=DrChaos]WTF? Why is being a selfish asshole so much in vogue?

[/quote]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, they all did it for the greater good and benefit of the people.

Castro, Chavez, Che, they did too.

As did Mao…

So to answer your question, it became vogue about the same time the nanny state dictators showed up preaching the new environmentalist religion.

Change starts at home. Change yourself and if you find a better way, others will follow. When they don’t follow, you don’t have a better way.

and no, you aren’t saving the world by driving a hybrid.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=DrChaos]WTF? Why is being a selfish asshole so much in vogue?

[/quote]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, they all did it for the greater good and benefit of the people.

Castro, Chavez, Che, they did too.

As did Mao…

So to answer your question, it became vogue about the same time the nanny state dictators showed up preaching the new environmentalist religion.

Change starts at home. Change yourself and if you find a better way, others will follow. When they don’t follow, you don’t have a better way.

and no, you aren’t saving the world by driving a hybrid.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=DrChaos]WTF? Why is being a selfish asshole so much in vogue?

[/quote]

Caesar, Napoleon, Stalin, they all did it for the greater good and benefit of the people.

Castro, Chavez, Che, they did too.

As did Mao…

So to answer your question, it became vogue about the same time the nanny state dictators showed up preaching the new environmentalist religion.

Change starts at home. Change yourself and if you find a better way, others will follow. When they don’t follow, you don’t have a better way.

and no, you aren’t saving the world by driving a hybrid.

[no_such_reality]

“I’ve got a groundbreaking, earthshattering tip to save on fuel costs. Drive less. ”

FLU, it’s even easier than that. Don’t stomp the gas and slam the breaks. Actually, you already said that when you said ‘drive like a pansey’.

Simply paying attention to the traffic ahead and easing off the gas instead of braking and accelerating moderately will give you 20-30% improvement compared to typical CA drving. And BTW, we’re probably on the same side here.

With high fuel prices, there are no winners. High fuel drives costs for lots of things and even if one piddles around in a smug cloud producing Prius, at $7/gal, the fuel prices are going to bust them in the rest of the economy.

My complaint wasn’t directed at you but was instead directed at the specious claims of a need to change. High fuel costs because of global consumption will drive change, but I call baloney on the change being needed for some overall good whether it’s the poser’s concept of egalatarianism, global warming or other junk.

Now if you all will excuse me, I have a strip mining venture to attend to that is making bank from the spike in battery component metals. Okay, I don’t, but face it, elsewhere in the world, they are going balls out, screw the environment, to get the metals and other stuff, our new ‘green’ selves want.

[Author]

Posts