Andy9o8 2 #26 July 3, 2010 QuoteDude up are a hoot!! I have no idea what that sentence means. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 July 3, 2010 Quote Quote Dude up are a hoot!! I have no idea what that sentence means. Nor do I"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #28 July 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteDude up are a hoot!! I have no idea what that sentence means. It makes as much sense as the rest of his posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 July 3, 2010 >And who controls the budgets? In California the governor submits the budget. If a deficit is forecast, the governor is required to identify ways to make up the money. It then goes to the legislature, who can amend it and must eventually approve it. It then goes back to the governor who must approve it a final time, and who can amend it line by line before it becomes law. So the governor both creates the budget and has final say over what's in it. D'oh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #30 July 3, 2010 just blame the unions.. they support the democrats and in turn the democrats support them..in every state that is in financial trouble has the unions demanding more and more. New Jersey Governor Cristie is the only one with the guts to fight the unions unlike the "girly man" running California . Read this.......... Christie, who was sworn in as New Jersey's 55th governor Tuesday, made good on a campaign promise to close a loophole that exempted labor unions from rules on pay-to-play — the practice of rewarding political donors with lucrative government contracts — saying it was time to level the playing field. New Jersey's ban prohibits state agencies from awarding contracts worth more than $17,500 to companies that have donated more than $300 to a gubernatorial campaign or any state or county political party committee within 18 months. But unions — which donate heavily to Democrats — had been exempt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #31 July 3, 2010 Quote>And who controls the budgets? In California the governor submits the budget. If a deficit is forecast, the governor is required to identify ways to make up the money. It then goes to the legislature, who can amend it and must eventually approve it. It then goes back to the governor who must approve it a final time, and who can amend it line by line before it becomes law. So the governor both creates the budget and has final say over what's in it. D'oh! Other than line item veto powers, the fed model is the same. I didn't realize the Cali gov had line itme veto powers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #32 July 3, 2010 Quote just blame the unions.. they support the democrats and in turn the democrats support them..in every state that is in financial trouble has the unions demanding more and more. New Jersey Governor Cristie is the only one with the guts to fight the unions unlike the "girly man" running California . Read this.......... Christie, who was sworn in as New Jersey's 55th governor Tuesday, made good on a campaign promise to close a loophole that exempted labor unions from rules on pay-to-play — the practice of rewarding political donors with lucrative government contracts — saying it was time to level the playing field. New Jersey's ban prohibits state agencies from awarding contracts worth more than $17,500 to companies that have donated more than $300 to a gubernatorial campaign or any state or county political party committee within 18 months. But unions — which donate heavily to Democrats — had been exempt. Yes, if you can revoke the federally granted power to collectively bargain, you can keep the little guy down and the rich will do better - nice to see we agree on something. Shall we also state that wages are lower and workplace mortality higher in red states, which are usually right to work states? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 July 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLike Clinton being forced to sign a balanced budget by the Reps, then? No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content. Gotta provide some, first. Like I said, it's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. Here they are: No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. What in that is untrue? From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 July 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLike Clinton being forced to sign a balanced budget by the Reps, then? No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content. Gotta provide some, first. Like I said, it's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. Here they are: No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. What in that is untrue? From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. Let me simplify this for you via enumeration: 1) No, his tax increases happened in 93, 2) the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, 3) shutting down the gov for a bit. 4) So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, 5) hence his presidency was fiscally successful. I really can't simlify it much more, unless you want everyone to see you continue to run, answer them comprehensively. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #35 July 3, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLike Clinton being forced to sign a balanced budget by the Reps, then? No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. It's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. As with Rush, I hope hitting the quote button feels good, as you have failed to respond to any content. Gotta provide some, first. Like I said, it's your fantasy world, live it like you want it. Here they are: No, his tax increases happened in 93, the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, shutting down the gov for a bit. So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, hence his presidency was fiscally successful. What in that is untrue? From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. Let me simplify this for you via enumeration: 1) No, his tax increases happened in 93, Immaterial to the discussion of signing a budget or not 2) the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, 3) shutting down the gov for a bit. agreed and agreed 4) So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, Yeah, except for that whole 'signing the budget' thing. Quote5) hence his presidency was fiscally successful due to the Republican balanced budget. Fixed that for you. QuoteI really can't simlify it much more, unless you want everyone to see you continue to run, answer them comprehensively. You *are* aware of how silly your little "answer me or else" playground dares make you look, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #36 July 3, 2010 Just like Bush was held hostage by a Democratic congress for the last two years of his presidency, Arnold has had to deal with a financially irresponsible government his whole term. Anybody remember his message to the state congress a while back? Here is a reminder. I suggest you re-read the message. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/schwarzenegger-sends-lawm_n_336319.html Lucky continually seems to forget exactly how government works. Congress writes the bills, the president or governor signs them. If a president or governor can veto line items, it doesn't help the process to much, it's still crap in, crap out. A bill or budget still has to be of quality going in. Term limits. Nough said. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #37 July 4, 2010 Quote It's really a national trend to incarcerate mentally ill people, or in the case of Texas, execute them. WRONG! Texas appoints them to the Texas State Board of Education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 July 4, 2010 QuoteBoth states spend way too much money incarcerating their citizens for committing victimless crimes. It didn't used to be that way. Then state workers got collective bargaining. Since then, the teachers' union and correctional officers' union have become the players in California politics. Both are heavy contributors to the political party that runs the legislature. Take a look at what kinda relationship Gray Davis had with the correctional officers' union. Anybody who wants to make drugs legal is going to get their asses kicked by the correctional officers union. Take away unions and you'd be amazed at how many victimless crimes become merely victimless acts. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #39 July 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBoth states spend way too much money incarcerating their citizens for committing victimless crimes. I look forward to see the numbers California's prison population has grown exponentially. Two primary factors caused the growth" 1. Ronald Reagan closed all the state hospitals, causing a trans-institutional effect where now, the mentally ill are serving prison time instead of being safeguarded in hospitals, 2. the three strikes law. While in theory, the three strikes law is great. However, there are circumstances where it is completely inappropriate. For instance, on can steal a pack of gum and it is a misdemeanor. Steal a second gum and becomes felony petty theft. Steal a third pack of gum, it's felony petty theft with priors, three strikes, your out and in prison for 25 years. You might want to restudy your figures! I don't sdeee a single fact Other than the deruglating mental hospitals, whic I think was a huge mistake! I work in the CDC. I see it first hand. And, yes, I know the law pretty well when it comes to this subject. I've had patients in the prison with similar scenarios and have read many C-files, so I've seen these kinds of things first hand. The mental health population in the prison has grown tremendously, with estimates of having the prison population to 50% by 2012. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 July 4, 2010 Quote Quote It's really a national trend to incarcerate mentally ill people, or in the case of Texas, execute them. WRONG! Texas appoints them to the Texas State Board of Education. And Illinois elects them as Mayors and Senators. Still beats shutting down science labs like at Berkeley HS. No wonder people are streaming out of Cali like rats off a sinking ship. Better get out of Illinois quick, before all those bitter gun-clingers in Chicago spread to your area.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #41 July 4, 2010 Yes, if you can revoke the federally granted power to collectively bargain, you can keep the little guy down and the rich will do better - nice to see we agree on something. Shall we also state that wages are lower and workplace mortality higher in red states, which are usually right to work states? _________________________________________________ The little guy is the tax payers who have to pay for the unions and their large pensions. the public sector does not need to be represented by unions who are earning more and more while the taxpayers are earning less and less . the public sector unions have priced their selves out of the job markets in most states. they need to go.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #42 July 4, 2010 Quote I know the law pretty well Pfft. Your source is highly suspect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #43 July 4, 2010 Quote Just like Bush was held hostage by a Democratic congress for the last two years of his presidency, Arnold has had to deal with a financially irresponsible government his whole term. Anybody remember his message to the state congress a while back? Here is a reminder. I suggest you re-read the message. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/schwarzenegger-sends-lawm_n_336319.html Lucky continually seems to forget exactly how government works. Congress writes the bills, the president or governor signs them. If a president or governor can veto line items, it doesn't help the process to much, it's still crap in, crap out. A bill or budget still has to be of quality going in. Term limits. Nough said. According to Bill Von, in Cali the gov writes the budgets, the legislature passes them and the gov line item vetoes what he doesn't want and then signs it, so apparently your understanding is lacking. As for federal, the pres writes a proposal, the house writes and passes a budget, the senate votes to pass it or it gets volleyed back and forth and then teh pres signs or vetoes it. See, the part you really have to pay attention to and get a grasp of is the last part where the pres signs or vetoes it. A president can't claim he was out numbered other than a veto override. If the pres signs, he owns it; quit making excuses for the garbage you've elected and actually own their dirty deeds. You can blather on about how the other guy wouldn't have been better, but what we know is the guy you elected took an awesome economy and ran it to hell, then left Obama to put it back together again. ***If a president or governor can veto line items, it doesn't help the process to much, it's still crap in, crap out. If a gov can line item, he/she then has zero to bitch about, he/she owns the entire thing. At least in reality anyway. Term limits won't help, GHW, Reagan and the whole Republican mess fucked up lots in just 1 term, so it's an entire flushing of the morons who think letting teh rich hang on to all/most of their money won't lead to economy stagnation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 July 4, 2010 Quote Quote It's really a national trend to incarcerate mentally ill people, or in the case of Texas, execute them. WRONG! Texas appoints them to the Texas State Board of Education. Or to the governor's chair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #45 July 4, 2010 Quote Yes, if you can revoke the federally granted power to collectively bargain, you can keep the little guy down and the rich will do better - nice to see we agree on something. Shall we also state that wages are lower and workplace mortality higher in red states, which are usually right to work states? _________________________________________________ Quote The little guy is the tax payers who have to pay for the unions and their large pensions. the public sector does not need to be represented by unions who are earning more and more while the taxpayers are earning less and less . So you want to revoke the federal right to collectively bargian in teh name of less government intervention? I'm not saying that collective bargaining s/b mandatory, but you're saying teh government should prohibit it. I see, the less-controlling right. Quote the public sector unions have priced their selves out of the job markets in most states. they need to go.. Then explain how wages might stay at what they are now? Do you really believe an employee, all employees not represented have a chance against the bigs? Again, I'm not an anarchist so I want unions to continue to represent the workers pending their acceptance of the union into the workplace. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 July 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteBoth states spend way too much money incarcerating their citizens for committing victimless crimes. QuoteIt didn't used to be that way. Then state workers got collective bargaining. Since then, the teachers' union and correctional officers' union have become the players in California politics. Ahh, the good ole days when employers could just call in strike busters to beat picketers to death as an example to others. God what I would gove for that; you with me, brother? Workers need to realize they are shit and that they are servants to the rich and quit asking for rights and esp silly things like HC; that's only for some people, right Lawrocket? QuoteBoth are heavy contributors to the political party that runs the legislature. Take a look at what kinda relationship Gray Davis had with the correctional officers' union. The church often heavily contributes to the Nazi (Republican) Party so they will do neato things like kill stem cell research funding; what's your point? QuoteTake away unions and you'd be amazed at how many victimless crimes become merely victimless acts. And how wages drop to that of redneck states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #47 July 4, 2010 Quote1) No, his tax increases happened in 93 QuoteImmaterial to the discussion of signing a budget or not But very material to that of your point: From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. TRUTH: The tax increases that were well on the way to changing deficit numbers occurred before Jan 95. Quote4) So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, QuoteYeah, except for that whole 'signing the budget' thing. Clinton signed budgets that he agreed with, at least 1 he refused to until the R's sent him one that didn't cater to teh rich. CLINTON OWNED WHAT HE SIGNED, HE REFUSED TO OWN THE BS THE R's SENT HIM, SO HE VETOED AND LET THE GOV SHUTDOWN. Quote5) hence his presidency was fiscally successful due to the Republican balanced budget. QuoteFixed that for you. The budget was fixed in 93 as Clinton decided to undo some of fascist pig Ronny's tax cuts, all else after that were a series of compromises where some taxes were cut again. Of course as compromise, the cap gains tax was cut, receipts dipped a little, but the tax increases were enough to carry them. Once again, WHAT CLINTIN SIGNED, HE OWNED - GOOD OR BAD. Quote2) the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, 3) shutting down the gov for a bit. Quoteagreed and agreed Good, as I said, WHAT CLINTON SIGNED - HE OWNED - WHAT HE REFUSED TO SIGN, HE REFUSED TO OWN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DFWAJG 4 #48 July 4, 2010 Quote You might want to restudy your figures! I don't sdeee a single fact Other than the deruglating mental hospitals, whic I think was a huge mistake! From Psychiatric News: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/1.1.full Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tf15 0 #49 July 5, 2010 QuoteWhich Party has been in control of those states for decades?? Decades? ILLINOIS James R. Thompson January 10, 1977 January 14, 1991 Republican Jim Edgar January 14, 1991 January 11, 1999 Republican George H. Ryan January 11, 1999 January 13, 2003 Republican (Now in prison) Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #50 July 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhich Party has been in control of those states for decades?? Decades? ILLINOIS James R. Thompson January 10, 1977 January 14, 1991 Republican Jim Edgar January 14, 1991 January 11, 1999 Republican George H. Ryan January 11, 1999 January 13, 2003 Republican (Now in prison) Rush has long run off, nothing to see here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #47 July 4, 2010 Quote1) No, his tax increases happened in 93 QuoteImmaterial to the discussion of signing a budget or not But very material to that of your point: From your point of view, not a thing - when something good happens, it's always because of a Dem and whenever something bad happens, it's always the fault of a Rep. TRUTH: The tax increases that were well on the way to changing deficit numbers occurred before Jan 95. Quote4) So your point is once again wasted, Clinton stood up to the R's in congress and rejected one of their annual budgets that was way too much for the rich, QuoteYeah, except for that whole 'signing the budget' thing. Clinton signed budgets that he agreed with, at least 1 he refused to until the R's sent him one that didn't cater to teh rich. CLINTON OWNED WHAT HE SIGNED, HE REFUSED TO OWN THE BS THE R's SENT HIM, SO HE VETOED AND LET THE GOV SHUTDOWN. Quote5) hence his presidency was fiscally successful due to the Republican balanced budget. QuoteFixed that for you. The budget was fixed in 93 as Clinton decided to undo some of fascist pig Ronny's tax cuts, all else after that were a series of compromises where some taxes were cut again. Of course as compromise, the cap gains tax was cut, receipts dipped a little, but the tax increases were enough to carry them. Once again, WHAT CLINTIN SIGNED, HE OWNED - GOOD OR BAD. Quote2) the Reps then tried to get him to sign off on tax cuts and he rejected most of them, 3) shutting down the gov for a bit. Quoteagreed and agreed Good, as I said, WHAT CLINTON SIGNED - HE OWNED - WHAT HE REFUSED TO SIGN, HE REFUSED TO OWN. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #48 July 4, 2010 Quote You might want to restudy your figures! I don't sdeee a single fact Other than the deruglating mental hospitals, whic I think was a huge mistake! From Psychiatric News: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/20/1.1.full Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tf15 0 #49 July 5, 2010 QuoteWhich Party has been in control of those states for decades?? Decades? ILLINOIS James R. Thompson January 10, 1977 January 14, 1991 Republican Jim Edgar January 14, 1991 January 11, 1999 Republican George H. Ryan January 11, 1999 January 13, 2003 Republican (Now in prison) Three times is enemy action Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #50 July 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhich Party has been in control of those states for decades?? Decades? ILLINOIS James R. Thompson January 10, 1977 January 14, 1991 Republican Jim Edgar January 14, 1991 January 11, 1999 Republican George H. Ryan January 11, 1999 January 13, 2003 Republican (Now in prison) Rush has long run off, nothing to see here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
