There's more to California than a $38 billion budget deficit, one in which tax-and-spend liberal Democrats (some moderate Rs too) have completely gone overboard in their spending habits.

More taxpayers are leaving. More businesses are relocating. And, as with all tax-and-spend states, taxes keep going up.

And up. And up. And up.

What's that old Communism adage about taxes? Ah, something to do with one way to end capitalism is "taxes, taxes, taxes."

Or a gradual income tax (which California has).

So I, as an outsider, look at California as a hotbed for anti-capitalism, pro-Communist policies, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to decipher what those morons are doing to the state.

I mean, for one, you have a Lt. Governor (Bustamante) who is still a member of a Chicano group that claims the Southwestern part of the United States is theirs! They honestly believe, from the websites, newsletters, etc. that I have read, that Los Angeles is their "capital."

To top it off, those taxpayers that haven't left yet are already paying out their butts so these illegal aliens can bankrupt all the social services and have even more naturalized citizen babies.

Not opposed to immigration, but I am opposed to the welfare state, which California is.

THEN, you have such hotbeds of pro-Communism in Berkely, Hollywood, San Francisco that have shaped the outward progress of the state into sheer Soviet Unionism.

California provides a perfect example of a Communist state. I mean, look at the place. It's going deeper and deeper into the Pacific Ocean (where it belongs).

And let's not forget Bohemian Grove. Only a state like California would be home to a huge pagan owl used in Biblical times for child sacrifices.

Eh, there's my rant for the day.

Yeah, enforce communist/hippie California stereotypes!

California has problems! Must be socialism! Daaaaaamn hippies!

ooh, empty rant.

finally! someone who has gotten it right!! thanx

1)Inferior education compared to real colleges.
2)Tertiary education is where I'd definitely have to agree with Joey that public schools (cough, UNT) suck compared to private ones. Joey, quit wasting the taxpayers' money.

Hey, what's wrong with UNT?

Well, your need to resort to ad hominem attacks and mindless rhetoric explains why I'm six years younger than you and in college while you've got your fingers crossed about getting into a ****hole of a "college".

Those students who can't grasp basic sentence structure have been given poor education because:
1)It's hard to learn when your parents don't make enough money to feed you 3 meals a day, and
2)They go to poor schools, funded by property taxes from neighborhoods that don't pay much in such taxes. The rich public schools do fine.

Gray Davis is far from a Marxist. A Marxist would've executed the officers of Enron, but he was in their back pocket. That's centrist behavior. I supported Shwarzenegger because I know he'll do just as badly and embarrass the GOP.

The illiteracy rate in the US is 97% That's lower than for most other industrialized countries, but most other industrialized countries have much greater support for public education. So unless Western Europeans, Japanese, and Aussies are biologically superior to Americans, the only possible cause of our lower literacy rate is less public education. And since we have a much higher literacy rate than third world countries w/o public schools, having them here is obviously working.

Socrates, you foolish child. There are more and more students coming out of our government-run holding pens of schools that can't even grasp basic sentence structure, let alone basic and above-grade level reading skills, so don't tell me that the absence of government control of education would make our reading levels rise.

This entire thread is about California enacting more laws, more regulations, imposing more taxes, and overall, implementing a Marxist ideology, which is the root cause of all of that state's problems.

More money is being pumped into schools in various ways, and there are STILL high illiteracy rates.

I agree, let's take gov't out of the business of running education. Then, we can go back to having a 30% literacy rate! Yay! Go ignorance! More illeteracy isn't good for the country, and is what always happens in countries like Afghanistan that don't fund education. So the only reason that makes sense for cutting education funds is to make the people stupid. If Joey's right, that would mean more Democrats, which would be bad for the country. If he's wrong, it means more Republicans, which would be bad for the country. Thus, either way, the only reason to cut education is for the partisan gain of the other party, which is just ****ing ridiculous.

quote:

---

The power company deal, that's totally the state government's fault. They allowed themselves to be bribed into allowing Enron to manipulate the markets, so yes, it is their fault.

---

It's hardly the state governments fault, I fully blame it on the power companies, who largely funded the support of the "deregulation" bills and then rallied support from the Conservatives. Then when Dr. Eugene Coyle saw disaster coming he put out a proposal that would overturn supposed "deregulation" of power bill on the ballot, then of course Conservatives all jumped on his case and said he was a Communist and for Strong government and all the typical Conservative hogwash. Of course the major funders of the conservative opponents of Dr. Coyle's proposal were guess who, the power companies, what a revelation!!! Face it, Lower-middle class conservatives are the pawns of the big companies and very simply the lower-middle class conservatives are too simple minded to pick up the idea that they are pawns.

Let's see, if you have over-powerful unions demanding an average salary of $53,000 for state employees, you might have a problem.

If you spend more money than you are making, cough, cough, $38 billion deficit, then you will have a problem.

If you keep hitting people with taxes, they won't have money left over to buy things, which in turn, would cause businesses to go out of business and lay off people because people aren't buying anything.

If you have suffocating regulations on businesses, you will not get or keep any businesses.

The power company deal, that's totally the state government's fault. They allowed themselves to be bribed into allowing Enron to manipulate the markets, so yes, it is their fault.

The state government proposes the spending bills. So what's that about not having the money? Well, you can't credit card your government. You can, but then you have to hit taxpayers up later on down the line AGAIN AND AGAIN to pay for the deficits.

Economies, if handled properly and taken AWAY from centralized control, will not just "go up and down."

icm, I'm sure your teacher is educated, but, her opinion is just that, an opinion.

She's probably just a big government liberal who believes all solutions to all problems require a government program, service, and agency. How much you wanna bet on that?

Joey, the economy goes up and down, it's a fact of life! Now, i don't know why you think that gray davis and the rest of the democrats are to blame for this because the governor and the state legislature can't do much in the realm of economics because they have no real economic power. On the other hand, much of the blame can be placed on the power companies who were guilty illegal corporate activities, and price gauging.

By the way, my government teacher, whom i really do like cause she's so funny, says that libertarians are crazy right wing lunatics...
but hey, takes all kinds...

How would that make the problem get better?


-Jenny

The problem will only get better if you A) Lower taxes, and B) Stop spending.

Only then will you see the situation improve slightly.

You still have to get government out of running schools, health care, etc.

Like I said, McClintock would have been the dagger in the back of those Democrats' back had he won.

And hey, don't think I'm a supporter of Texas state government, either. I'm not a "Ron Paul Republican" for nothin, ya know.

(aside: Ron Paul Republicans are the Republican Liberty Caucus)

Davis was NOT into throwing money at every program. With his last budget, he cut money for every single social problem except prisons.

I looked it up, and California's 2001-02 educational spending per-student is dead even with Texas's. And what's more, that spending is going down very quickly, leaving schools little time to adjust. Recently a measure was passed to try and even out school spending -- so that districts in rich neighborhoods (that get profits from property taxes) will be receiving much less money from the state. This sounds like a good idea (to me anyways), but the change was made so suddenly that now richer public schools are closing left and right. The elementary and middle schools I went to have now cut their music and arts programs, their library programs, most of their health education programs, and most of the schools no longer employ school nurses. A couple years ago, an excellent alternative high school program of 30 years was cut because of funding issues. The community college I went to had to cut one third of their classes mid-year. Trust me, this *is* a problem.

And I don't think the problem is going to get better with the ****ing Govenator in office.


-Jenny

This is in response to all the talk over at the "Recall at California" thread. I decided to just post it in here because there was cross-over information that could be used for both:



Well, you also have to look at the fact the state senate and house (I think you guys call it an assembly) are filled and controlled by Democrats.

Tax-and-spend liberal Democrats at that.

So any program, service, or function they can throw money at, they're going to.

Even if they don't HAVE the money.

Davis was just like them; he'd sign almost every effing spending bill there was, and to just blame him would be stupid, because the entire assembly needs to learn fiscal discipline.

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this hardly any funding for schools crap. If you people would look at the numbers and stats state, local, and the national government(s) use in funding education, my, my, my. Your stances would change.

The last thing schools need is more money.

But we still have not learned if Arnold is going to even veto these spending bills the Dems are going to throw at him. He claims he won't raise taxes, and that the people don't want any more taxes, and I think that's great.

But just you watch. His liberal Democratic family and advisers will throw up their hands and compromise the entire deal and just say screw the taxpayers - AGAIN.

I don't feel sorry for anyone out in that state. You people who don't vote deserve much of the tax burden anyway. The ones that aren't old enough, I realize you can't vote, but if you voted for a tax-and-spender, then you deserve sky-high taxes.

But I liked the fact 14 percent of the vote went to McClintock. That guy was endorsed by tons of Libertarians, and for good reason. He's for state's rights, he's against the feds coming in busting down people's doors when they're LEGALLY using marijuana, and he's for vetoing all those assinine spending bills.

The Democrats would have been in a HORRIBLE situation had McClintock won; he just wouldn't have signed into law all those spending bills.

People will say, "Well higher taxes will fill up the budget hole."

You're absolutely wrong if you believe that.

Don't you people get it yet? The less you tax someone, the more money THEY will have to spend and to generate the economy. The regulations are killing businesses.

The politicians in Enron's back pockets caused the market to be manipulated, and then in turn, have all of their utility bills go up.

And notice that all the people who kept calling the recall a bad idea were, surprise, surprise, tax-and-spend liberal Democrats (Feinstein & Co.).

I actually used to think Bill Simon was a decent conservative, but he's just a moderate like everyone else in the Republican Party.

And fwegan, just so you'll know, the recall started as a grassroots effort among independents, third-partiers, and anti-Davis Rs and Ds, NOT just the Republican Party.

The recall was FUNDED by a Republican, yes, but it wasn't a Republican Party initiative.