Was That Ignorant ***** in California Discussed?

[Dinner]

So why then is the impasse the fault of the republicans? Seems to me the Democrats ought to cut spending if they want their budget to get passed.

Because, you numbskull, it was the Republicans who passed the amendment requiring the super majority instead of the simple majority! They wrote it, they payed for the campaign, they continue to protect it from repeal, so they're the ones who broke the state government.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because, you numbskull, it was the Republicans who passed the amendment requiring the super majority instead of the simple majority! They wrote it, they payed for the campaign, they continue to protect it from repeal, and they're the ones who broke the state government.

Given that other state governments with Republicans are actually in the black, the blame seems to be the democrat administration. Perhaps if they were competent instead of increasing taxes and spending every year, California would be in much better shape.

All the democrats have to do is present a budget with no tax increases and spending cuts, and the republicans will pass the bill. That they have refused to abide by these term is the cause of the impasse. Given the state of California and their out of control spending, it's a good thing that the Republicans are standing their ground.

[Zkribbler]

... Given the state of California and their out of control spending, ...

...such as an exploding prision population because of the 3-strikes law.

[GhengisFarb™]

Because, you numbskull, it was the Republicans who passed the amendment requiring the super majority instead of the simple majority! They wrote it, they payed for the campaign, they continue to protect it from repeal, so they're the ones who broke the state government.

It seems they're only responsible for part of it, if the elected officials had enough self restraint to not increase spending it shouldn't be as big of an issue. Perhaps you just need a more ethical class of elected official.

(Admittedly, I had to pause to quit laughing a few times when I was typing the last sentence.)

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf

Legislative, Judicial, Executive $3,816 $3,779 $3,772 -$7 -0.2%
State and Consumer Services 563 566 577 11 1.9%
Business, Transportation & Housing 1,628 1,466 2,336 870 59.3%
Resources 1,832 2,030 1,922 -108 -5.3%
Environmental Protection 81 83 79 -4 -4.8%
[b]Health and Human Services 31,121 30,935 29,996 -939 -3.0%[/b]
Corrections and Rehabilitation 10,342 10,310 9,615 -695 -6.7%
[b]K-12 Education 41,579 35,499 39,721 4,222 11.9%[/b]
[b]Higher Education 12,113 11,745 12,389 644 5.5%[/b]
Labor and Workforce Development 98 102 104 2 2.0%
General Government:
Non-Agency Department 387 411 595 184 44.8%
Tax Relief/Local Government 779 647 463 -184 -28.4%
Statewide Expenditures -938 -5,160 1/ -6,045 2/ -885 17.2%

You have a 12 percent INCREASE In K-12 education.

There's pork right there.

Corrections is only the 5th biggest item and has actually shown steady declines every year.

Exploding prison population, my aunt fanny.

Statewide expenditures up 17 percent.
Non-agency department pork up 45 percent.

Transportation and housing up 60 percent.

What a disgusting budget.

[SlowwHand]

She's clearly mentally ill. I'm really not sure why people are getting up in arms about one mentally ill woman.

One mentally ill *****....times how many children?
Do you know Eddie Chiles? "I'm mad!, and I think you should be, too!"
Yeah well, ditto and in triplicate.

[David Floyd]

Having 14 children, whether biologically or artificially, strikes me as incredibly irresponsible. That's just too many kids to take care of. Even if you are rich enough to give them a comfortable life, you can't give 14 individual children the emotional attention and support they need. It's like running a small kindergarten class, 24/7, except that none of the kids have parents - you are it!

BK, I know you think big families are God's gift to mankind, but from a purely financial aspect, even you must admit that having 14 children is incredibly irresponsible for most of us, and from an emotional standpoint, irresponsible for nearly all of us.

I really do think she has mental health problems, and CPS probably needs to take an active interest here. She wants to raise 14 kids on food stamps and student loans, while she gets a master's degree in a field in which she will start out making less than $40,000/year.

What about child care while she's at work? That'll eat up her whole paycheck!

[Q Classic]

Wanting a big family is a sign of mental illness? You know, perhaps if there were more men willing to step up she wouldn't have to be using IVF. This is an indictment of the men in California, that they can't satisfy this woman's desire for a big family.

Actually, I don't think she's married, so she shouldn't be having a family by your doctrine, anyways.

[Q Classic]

Given that other state governments with Republicans are actually in the black

Not all of them:
Nevada, RI, Arizona, Florida, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont, SCarolina, and Georgia are all Republican governorships, and all of them have deficits.

With your line of logic, you could say that since some other Democratic governorships are in the black (Kansas, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, to name a few), the blame shouldn't be on them, either.

[Q Classic]

You have a 12 percent INCREASE In K-12 education.

There's pork right there.

Why is education necessarily pork?

Do lives not matter once they're out of the womb? I thought we were trying to get children the best chance of success out here, so they can eventually support, y'know. 16 kids or so on a salary or two without governmental support?

[Dinner]

You have a 12 percent INCREASE In K-12 education.

There's pork right there.

You idiot! That's the result of a state wide proposition which the voters passed demanding that education spending be increased. One of the unfortunate side effects of direct democracy is that the people always vote to increase spending and never to increase taxes. The state government legally can't really cut much spending because so many propositions have been passed mandating spending on certain items. Basically we have to raise taxes just to pay for the legally mandated spending the people have already passed. Yet the Republicans continue to block any and all tax increases. So who is at fault? You could say the people for demanding (indeed legally requiring) the spending increases but the fact remains there is nothing the state legislature can do; they are legally required to spend the money. Since the people have spoken but the Republicans are refusing to pass a budget with the spending the people have legally required then it is ENTIRELY their fault. The Republicans need to fulfill their constitutional duties and approve the tax increases.

Right now they're holding the whole state hostage and refusing to do their legally required jobs because they don't want to go on record as voting for tax increases. Even the state's Republican governor has told them to do it but they're refusing to do their jobs. I mean even if you cut the entire descressionary budget there isn't enough in it to cover the short fall. I doubt people want all the state prisons shut down so really the only solution is tax increases which shouldn't be to bad given that there have been a lot of tax cuts over the last 10 years.

[David Floyd]

One of the unfortunate side effects of direct democracy is that the people always vote to increase spending and never to increase taxes.

And what does that tell us about the value of a direct democracy?

Absolutely ****ing worthless is the phrase that springs to mind.

[Dinner]

Ben should really wiki the proposition system and learn that once spending has been mandated it cannot be cut by the state legislature and automatically gets increases every year. The only way to undo it is to pass another proposition repealing the previous proposition but good luck with that.

[David Floyd]

What's the rule in California for a constitutional amendment ending the Proposition system, or at least mandating that spending Propositions have to be accompanied by tax Propositions?

[Ben Kenobi]

Having 14 children, whether biologically or artificially, strikes me as incredibly irresponsible. That's just too many kids to take care of. Even if you are rich enough to give them a comfortable life, you can't give 14 individual children the emotional attention and support they need. It's like running a small kindergarten class, 24/7, except that none of the kids have parents - you are it!

My issue isn't with the number of kids, but that the mother is on social assistance, and that she isn't married. Without IVF, there would be no issue here.

If she were married, I can't see why a family of 14 is a bad thing. Kids are a blessing from God.

BK, I know you think big families are God's gift to mankind, but from a purely financial aspect, even you must admit that having 14 children is incredibly irresponsible for most of us, and from an emotional standpoint, irresponsible for nearly all of us.

Depends on how long a view you take. Yes, in the short run it's more expensive, but in the long run, the benefits of 14 children are far more then the benefits of 1 or 2. The other thing you have to remember is that your marginal costs go down for each child. There are many tricks that you can use to get by.

I really do think she has mental health problems, and CPS probably needs to take an active interest here. She wants to raise 14 kids on food stamps and student loans, while she gets a master's degree in a field in which she will start out making less than $40,000/year.

What about child care while she's at work? That'll eat up her whole paycheck!

That's an excellent point. The only reason she is going on student loans is because it's basically free money while you are away at school. It makes perfect sense for me that she would go on student loans, given the field that she plans to study.