Thread: California decides to help itself to an interest free loan via its citizens

Originally Posted by Imperator

well I heard some 'news' on the way in actually it was a rep state congressman saying he thinks that Calis budget short fall next year will be 20 Billion and the state will issue IOUs wide scale, so the no interest loan that they are helping themselves too, oh and its approved for ALL of 2010 btw, you may not even get it back next year in a check you can cash…....

I know it's technically sad, but the idea of a state passing out I.O.U's is just hilarious to me. I want to see Joe Schmo paying for everything in I.O.U's just to see what the state would do

Originally Posted by turnitup5000db

I'm going to say this again to see if I can get you to understand this time.

If the Democrats do something stupid and the Republicans don't stop them, it's the Republicans fault?

Keep in mind I'm a libertarian with no party affiliation, and I live in the middle of farm country in the midwest. California Republicans, California Democrats, and California itself could burn and I would care less. I think they're all authoritarian morons and deserve what they get. Slamming Republicans in this matter has no effect on me other than making me question whether you can be nonpartisan and wondering at your reasoning capacities.

cool and I would say as a Cali rep. my wife and I never bought the hype, we were for Mclintock and did what we could contribution wise to help him, we saw Arnold for what he was to start with.....hes a Rino, period...and always was in his heart.

Ajax you're locked in a arguement thats really going no where, arnold was a rep. for about a year IF that.....he went to his true colors....so bashing reps for his excesses is silly...

Petitioning the general government of the Union to pay the Debts of any State in poverty could be considered a form of ensuring a republican form of government via Statism; by abolishing a poverty of Statism within our republic.

The several States are prohibited in emitting "bills of credit" by section 10 of our federal Constitution. Fiat money and IOUs are forms of bills of credit.

Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

California is going broke. How long do you think it will be until the State government has to actually admit it is bankrupt? Will they? What will be the consequence of a major state of the United States actually declaring bankruptcy?

The really strange thing about all of this is that California is a very rich state and has the means to pay their bills if only they would use it.

Sad.....




......but I am laughing my ass off at their troubles. couldn't happen to a greater bunch of fools.

The general government of the Union has a delegated responsibility to ensure that doesn't happen within our republic.

Article 4
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

In other words, an Anarchy is prohibited by our federal Constitution in any area occupied by the several States of the Union.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Petitioning the general government of the Union to pay the Debts of any State in poverty could be considered a form of ensuring a republican form of government via Statism; by abolishing a poverty of Statism within our republic.

The several States are prohibited in emitting "bills of credit" by section 10 of our federal Constitution. Fiat money and IOUs are forms of bills of credit.

Let me ask you this.

Don't you think that its totally fucked up that California needs MORE MONEY all because the liberals in the state of California cant stop spending on entitlements for those who contribute NOTHING????

^^ Do you realize that spending on the lazy decreases the value of our dollar because those people contribute NOTHING to the economic process?

You might as well flush all that money down the toilet.

Hell print more money because your getting nothing out of if and in the end the consequence will be the same.

Seriously, you cant spend money on people who don't contribute to society, it is absolutely TOXIC to our economy not to mention a total waste of money.

At least put those who are on entitlements to work so you dont have to PAY somoene else to do that job.

Make them dig ditches for fucks sake, that would at least help the problem a little.

Hmmm, CA is a Republican governor with a dem legislature. It has huge deficits.

MT is a Democratic governor with a balanced house and Republican senate. Montana has no budget deficit.

Further noting what happened during the Reagan years (huge deficits - dem congress), Clinton years (massive shrinking of the rate at which the deficit was growing - republican congress), bush years (huge deficits, repub congress then dem congress), I think the solution is obvious.

Dems should always be elected to the executive role, and republicans should be elected to the congress. California recalled the wrong player with Davis. They should have recalled their legislature.

Swoop,

I think you may be resorting to a fallacy of false cause with your line of reasoning. We were running massive surpluses until republicans were elected.

How do you solve for a natural unemployment rate without socialism?

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Hmmm, CA is a Republican governor with a dem legislature. It has huge deficits.

MT is a Democratic governor with a balanced house and Republican senate. Montana has no budget deficit.

Further noting what happened during the Reagan years (huge deficits - dem congress), Clinton years (massive shrinking of the rate at which the deficit was growing - republican congress), bush years (huge deficits, repub congress then dem congress), I think the solution is obvious.

Dems should always be elected to the executive role, and republicans should be elected to the congress. California recalled the wrong player with Davis. They should have recalled their legislature.

So we agree that the left is absolutely horrible with money and they are also out of control spenders?

Republicans need to be the "accountants" Liberals should NOT be allowed to spend ANY tax money. They should have to clear it first with republicans because this spending liberals do is absolutely atrocious.

You CANT spend money and get nothing in return for it, thats why there's a deficit.

Its accounting 101 EVERYTHING must balance out. When it doesn't, you have a fucking problem that needs to be immediately assessed, investigated and corrected. Entitlement spending is a liability thats only going to get worse and worse as time goes on.

The only way to justify entitlement spending is to put those who receive entitlements who pay nothing in taxes to work...

Thats the only way you can balance the spending liberals do.

It is republicans who have given us our wars on abstractions.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Swoop,

I think you may be resorting to a fallacy of false cause with your line of reasoning. We were running massive surpluses until republicans were elected.

How do you solve for a natural unemployment rate without socialism?

You put people to work....

I'm not against government entitlements AS LONG as those entitlements are earned.

You have to GET SOMETHING for the money you spend to make it worth while because otherwise its going to be a liability and a deficit.

Handing out free money is just as good as flushing it down the toilet.

How would you "put people to work" without sufficient socialism? Consider that no one has a Right to Work, even in republican right to work States.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

How would you "put people to work" without sufficient socialism? Consider that no one has a Right to Work, even in republican right to work States.

Capitalism would still exist obviously as would the free market.

You just take those who are able bodied on welfare now or recieving some form of entitlements and put them to work. If they dont want to work then they get nothing.

They have a choice, work or get nothing.

It wouldn't really be socialism, nor Marxism.

My whole point is the government has to to get something of value for all this taxpayer money they're spending on entitlements. IF THEY DON'T then IT is and always will be a deficit.

Government employment ISN'T socialism nor communism. It only is when thats the ONLY option available.

When you have options you always have a choice, I'm against the government being the ONLY choice available.

You can have these people dig ditches. If they dig ditches that means the government DOESN'T have to issue a contract to have those ditches dug., hence the entitlements balance out on the accounting ledger.... The government actually gets something of value for the money they're spending.

Its a win-win for everyone.

Only problem is........ YEP the fucking unions. The unions would go ape shit over an idea like this.... Actually they have already.

My idea is nothing new..