Thread: Socialist California close to utter collapse

http://townhall.com/columnists/Bruce...ornia’s_demise

Yep it's not only close but it's inevitable. California has been ruined by socialism and environmental extremist Nazis. It has over 12% unemployment and that is going to get a lot worse. What makes me laugh though is just how stupid California libererals are. They overwhelmingly voted democratic despite the fact that liberal Democrats have absolutely ruined California. California is yet another example of the absolute destructive nature and failure of socialism and yet those dumb asses keep voting for socialism. The only people in that state who are perhaps more stupid are the ones who stay there and pay the fucking taxes that perpetuates the madness. It's really ashame because California was once probably the greatest state in the US. Fucking liberals ruin everything they touch.

Well...I'm sure they are hoping that they can get a financial bailout from the rest of the states impossed by the federal government.

And they won't get it out of the House.

Which is a part of Obama's calculations, let California, New York, Michigan, Illinois fall in hopes that the resulting civil unrest will give him the excuse to do what he really wants.

That was the plan, get the addicts addicted, and you own them.

The real question is what will become of our system of Federalism. If this is what some states are going to do with, it seems there should be some checks and balances on it.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Well...I'm sure they are hoping that they can get a financial bailout from the rest of the states impossed by the federal government.

I figure that's coming next.

California is in financial trouble, no doubt about it, but before you start crowing that it's because of "socialism," check this out:

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010 Freedom Arizona

Is the entire South "socialist," too? How about Idaho? Arizona? Utah?

That's news to me.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

I figure that's coming next.

"Too big to fail". That will be the rationale.

How long has California had a Republican Gov?

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

California is in financial trouble, no doubt about it, but before you start crowing that it's because of "socialism," check this out:

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010 Freedom Arizona

Is the entire South "socialist," too? How about Idaho? Arizona? Utah?

That's news to me.

"Could" means a mere possibility but not likely. California WILL go bankrupt and its a direct result of socialism that liberals simply will not dispense with no matter how bad it gets. That's the problem. California is infested with the most radical and far left socialist in the USA and they don't care about economic health so long as everyone is on the same economic level even if that means everyone is piss poor. That's why California will never recover. Too many radical socialist.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

California is in financial trouble, no doubt about it, but before you start crowing that it's because of "socialism," check this out:

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010 Freedom Arizona

Is the entire South "socialist," too? How about Idaho? Arizona? Utah?

That's news to me.

Well, and my personal favorite - the "red" states tend to be net recipients of federal dollars. The "blue" states tend to be net providers of federal dollars.

Yeah, that's right. Those conservatives are living off the hard work of us liberals.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

How long has California had a Republican Gov?

What good is a Republican Gov in a state that is as far left and socialist as California is?

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

"Could" means a mere possibility but not likely.

"Could" means a possibility that may or may not be likely.

In any case, that's irrelevant; what I'm taking issue with is not your observation but your reasoning. California is not in financial trouble because it is a liberal state (not, alas, a "socialist" state -- if only!). If that were the case, then we would see liberal states generally in trouble and more conservative states would not be. We don't.

Moreover, California's biggest fiscal trouble comes from the fact that the people decades ago passed a voter initiative that made it very difficult for the state government to raise taxes, but at the same time go on demanding high levels of state services. So is the problem here that the state is liberal (i.e., likes high levels of public services appropriate to an urban, advanced society), or is it that it's conservative (restricts the government's ability to levy taxes)?

You are going from the fact of California's fiscal difficulties to a place where logic simply can't go.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

What good is a Republican Gov in a state that is as far left and socialist as California is?

What exactly is "socialist" about California?

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Well, and my personal favorite - the "red" states tend to be net recipients of federal dollars. The "blue" states tend to be net providers of federal dollars.

Yeah, that's right. Those conservatives are living off the hard work of us liberals.

Well my state has a balanced budget amendment. They are running a deficit for 2011, and after adjusting it against the funds set aside for when they do run a deficit, they still have money in the bank (so to speak).

Cuts on spending kick in to make sure they don't run negative for the next year.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Well my state has a balanced budget amendment. They are running a deficit for 2011, and after adjusting it against the funds set aside for when they do run a deficit, they still have money in the bank (so to speak).

Cuts on spending kick in to make sure they don't run negative for the next year.

A balanced budget amendment doesn't preclude being a net recipient of federal funds.