California is so fucked... - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 05-23-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn

Yes sir and now these crazy groups want to push Washington to fund the same crap all over the country, so we all end up the same way!!! No one is going to be turned anyway if they need to see a doctor. We do not do that. Even the Mexicans that come up from Mexico and are not legal get medical services, how come people who live here don't get that???

Thank you Black Jesus.

Loryn · 05-23-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Yeh, this is always the counter argument when I mention privatizing Social Security. It's always "people are so busy with their 40 hour work week and kids, how could we possibly ask them to spend five hours a year meeting with a financial planner to balance their investments?"

Sorry, I think it's a silly argument. Very very silly. If people can't spend five hours a year working on their retirement (yes, that's all it really takes,) then I really don't know what to say... that's just beyond retarded. There are so many different types of funds and investments set up that automatically balance your retirement portfolio according to your goals and your age it isn't even funny. Everyone is busy, everyone! Time management is about shifting your time into areas that are a priority... retirement is a priority to anyone with any sort of vision at all. To those without a vision... they need to wake up.

Bare minimum... take my 15%, give the old and sick 5%, put another 5% in some retarded slush fund that politicians can rape and pillage as they see fit, let me decide where the last 5% goes.

I agree with you Sly. People don't get their own thinking. I laughed out loud when I read Kane's post. So many people think just like him. They don't plan their own retirements they just rely on the government. I will not take SS. I plan on handling myself, like we all should. SS is there for people who fall on hard times. This is the problem with America today. People are relying too much on the government to support them. Look at California.
Now just image how government health care will turn out, which some people call free health care or universal, because then it doesn't sound like what it is government health care. SS, which over the years people became dependant on as you can see and do not plan their own lives, is a big government program and it failed!!! Now what happens when the government health care fails??? You're going to have a whole country depending on it and the whole health care industry depending on the government. It belongs in the private sector, or it will fail. People from all over the world come to America for surgeries because our health care is in the hands of the people, not a corrupt government.
Government should be there for people who fall on hard times, not there to support everything and everyone who have the ability to support themselves, but would rather have a free hand out. This socialist way of thinking is disgusting, wimpy, uneducated, and a group of followers who are easily scared by words. Stop looking at the government for your answers, they are not it, WE ARE!!!

Loryn · 05-23-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Thank you Black Jesus.

I like that I am going to use that, if it's okay with you!!!

baddog · 05-23-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn

I like that I am going to use that, if it's okay with you!!!

Sly · 05-23-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn

I agree with you Sly. People don't get their own thinking. I laughed out loud when I read Kane's post. So many people think just like him. They don't plan their own retirements they just rely on the government. I will not take SS. I plan on handling myself, like we all should. SS is there for people who fall on hard times. This is the problem with America today. People are relying too much on the government to support them. Look at California.
Now just image how government health care will turn out, which some people call free health care or universal, because then it doesn't sound like what it is government health care. SS, which over the years people became dependant on as you can see and do not plan their own lives, is a big government program and it failed!!! Now what happens when the government health care fails??? You're going to have a whole country depending on it and the whole health care industry depending on the government. It belongs in the private sector, or it will fail. People from all over the world come to America for surgeries because our health care is in the hands of the people, not a corrupt government.
Government should be there for people who fall on hard times, not there to support everything and everyone who have the ability to support themselves, but would rather have a free hand out. This socialist way of thinking is disgusting, wimpy, uneducated, and a group of followers who are easily scared by words. Stop looking at the government for your answers, they are not it, WE ARE!!!

I think you absolutely should take Social Security when it's your turn. You are paying into it. A part of your paycheck (or taxes) goes towards Social Security, a pretty fair part actually. That money is yours. YOURS. People need to realize this... that is our money getting squandered.

I have absolutely no problem helping out the sick, people that need help, the elderly... whoever it may be. What I am growing less tolerant of day by day is politicians raping funds that are not theirs simply because "they can."

kane · 05-23-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loryn

I agree with you Sly. People don't get their own thinking. I laughed out loud when I read Kane's post. So many people think just like him. They don't plan their own retirements they just rely on the government. I will not take SS. I plan on handling myself, like we all should. SS is there for people who fall on hard times. This is the problem with America today. People are relying too much on the government to support them. Look at California.
Now just image how government health care will turn out, which some people call free health care or universal, because then it doesn't sound like what it is government health care. SS, which over the years people became dependant on as you can see and do not plan their own lives, is a big government program and it failed!!! Now what happens when the government health care fails??? You're going to have a whole country depending on it and the whole health care industry depending on the government. It belongs in the private sector, or it will fail. People from all over the world come to America for surgeries because our health care is in the hands of the people, not a corrupt government.
Government should be there for people who fall on hard times, not there to support everything and everyone who have the ability to support themselves, but would rather have a free hand out. This socialist way of thinking is disgusting, wimpy, uneducated, and a group of followers who are easily scared by words. Stop looking at the government for your answers, they are not it, WE ARE!!!

For starters I am planning for my own retirement and I am doing it in a way where I am assuming that I won't have social security. Maybe when I get to that age it will still be there and I can draw it. Maybe it will be so torn down that I will only be able to draw a small amount and it won't be enough to live on and maybe it will be completely gone. I am operating on the assumption that I won't be able to rely on it so I am saving my money accordingly.

I don't look to the government for answers, but I don't think having a safety net in place for people is a terrible idea. Let me ask you this. If something terrible happened to you tomorrow and you were forever disabled and had to live the rest of your life unable to work or even really care for yourself do you have enough set aside that you could not only care for yourself (as in buy food and pay rent ect) but also provide for any medical care you might need? Do you have enough that you could do this for the rest of your life?

Social security isn't just for people who are old and retired, it is for people who get sick, hurt or whatever and can no longer care for themselves. I have no problem (and said so in my post) with people being able to take a small amount of their social security and putting it aside in an account of their own. I just think cutting it out completely would be a disaster. I'm not a whining socialist. I don't want the government to take care of me. I don't want a bunch of free hand outs. I simply think having a safety net in place is a good idea.

kane · 05-23-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Yeh, this is always the counter argument when I mention privatizing Social Security. It's always "people are so busy with their 40 hour work week and kids, how could we possibly ask them to spend five hours a year meeting with a financial planner to balance their investments?"

Sorry, I think it's a silly argument. Very very silly. If people can't spend five hours a year working on their retirement (yes, that's all it really takes,) then I really don't know what to say... that's just beyond retarded. There are so many different types of funds and investments set up that automatically balance your retirement portfolio according to your goals and your age it isn't even funny. Everyone is busy, everyone! Time management is about shifting your time into areas that are a priority... retirement is a priority to anyone with any sort of vision at all. To those without a vision... they need to wake up.

Bare minimum... take my 15%, give the old and sick 5%, put another 5% in some retarded slush fund that politicians can rape and pillage as they see fit, let me decide where the last 5% goes.

So then assume this is the situation. And I have had jobs in the past where I have had 401K accounts and 1-2 times a year I could split up how I wanted that money invested (IE low, medium or higher risk investments) so I understand where you are coming from. I go to a financial planner. A guy who is smart. A guy who has made a lot of people a lot of money. He makes some recommendations for me and I think they are good solid ideas so I follow his lead. For several years everything is great. Then we have something like we just had and the bottom drops out of the market. If he had me in funds that were invested in anything that had to do with sub prime mortgages I'm a huge loser. I could lose everything I have. If not everything I could lose a nice chunk of it that takes me several years to regain. So if I am 35 it isn't that big of a deal. I still have many years to rebuild it and can recover from this. If I am 65 I'm fucked.

We are not to far off in our ideas. I said in my original post if people had 2% of their social security to invest on their own it might work out better. I have no problem with people having access to some of the money to invest as they see fit. Some will do well, some will lose all of it, but at least they get some control over it. I do have a problem with people getting 100% control over the money. I'm not saying that government is great and that they do a perfect job of handling this money. I know they fuck it up and the could do much better. I am saying it you leave it up to individuals to handle themselves many of them are going to fuck it up badly.

GAMEFINEST · 05-23-2009, 03:15 PM

here is a political bump

Socks · 05-23-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I raised [and paid] for my kids. No guilt here.

But if your neighbour doesn't raise their kid properly, and doesn't pay for the kid properly, and you see their kid walking alone around shoeless and dirty on the street, what would you do?

Would you take them to the authorities?

Guess who pays for that?

If you don't agree with helping them, then you should just close your blinds and let them wander around until they get hit by a car or something. That way it's less expensive for you, the taxpayer.

We call those people "sociopaths" though, you might want to find a different group of people to belong to.

cherrylula · 05-23-2009, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

But if your neighbour doesn't raise their kid properly, and doesn't pay for the kid properly, and you see their kid walking alone around shoeless and dirty on the street, what would you do?

Would you take them to the authorities?

Guess who pays for that?

If you don't agree with helping them, then you should just close your blinds and let them wander around until they get hit by a car or something. That way it's less expensive for you, the taxpayer.

We call those people "sociopaths" though, you might want to find a different group of people to belong to.

That goes on here everyday in Louisiana.

Not calling the authorities would just be considered "normal."

czarina · 05-23-2009, 04:37 PM

cali has always been messed up but nowadays things are even worse than ebefore.

baddog · 05-23-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

But if your neighbour doesn't raise their kid properly, and doesn't pay for the kid properly, and you see their kid walking alone around shoeless and dirty on the street, what would you do?

Would you take them to the authorities?

Guess who pays for that?

If you don't agree with helping them, then you should just close your blinds and let them wander around until they get hit by a car or something. That way it's less expensive for you, the taxpayer.

We call those people "sociopaths" though, you might want to find a different group of people to belong to.

I'd send them to Canada.

SuzzyQ · 05-23-2009, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Stop being a welfare state is a much better idea.

CHING! CHING!... We have a winner.
Dont worry. When they have the big quake, CA will fall into the ocean.

SuzzyQ · 05-23-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killerk

california has way too many illegals here that don't pay for shit, and too many welfare people living off the system. Getting paid cash for jobs while they take free healthcare, free housing etc.

Ching! Ching! Another winner!

kane · 05-23-2009, 06:15 PM

One thing interesting that could come out of this is they make the cuts and get their budge back in line they could become an example for other states. There has been a lot of talk about cutting spending, well it looks like they are going to have to do just that. Let's see if they make good choices and stop wasting money where they can and try to really get the state back on track or if they just start slashing everything in an effort to make the voters suffer so that in the next elections they will vote for whatever taxes/programs the politicians want.

Pleasurepays · 05-23-2009, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

One thing interesting that could come out of this is they make the cuts and get their budge back in line they could become an example for other states. There has been a lot of talk about cutting spending, well it looks like they are going to have to do just that. Let's see if they make good choices and stop wasting money where they can and try to really get the state back on track or if they just start slashing everything in an effort to make the voters suffer so that in the next elections they will vote for whatever taxes/programs the politicians want.

logic and math will not win over unbridled empathy. the problem is a state full of right brain dominant people. you can't make those people see the world in a different way.

if they were to cut spending today... it would ONLY be because they bankrupt their own state as the housing market collapsed and they found themselves in the midst of a major recession. it wouldn't be because cutting spending was seen as a prudent and wise thing to do.. but is only being considered simply because its the last available option, assuming Black Jesus doesn't try to bail out California as an option.

Even facing the obvious fact that there is only one choice... to cut costs and programs, they aren't doing it. They certainly aren't going to do it any other time and over the long term as some sort of new found fiscal responsibility.

this state has always been in financial trouble and its always raised taxes as an answer and a financial collapse has always been inevitable.

kane · 05-23-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

logic and math will not win over unbridled empathy. the problem is a state full of right brain dominant people. you can't make those people see the world in a different way.

if they were to cut spending today... it would ONLY be because they bankrupt their own state as the housing market collapsed and they found themselves in the midst of a major recession. it wouldn't be because cutting spending was seen as a prudent and wise thing to do.. but is only being considered simply because its the last available option, assuming Black Jesus doesn't try to bail out California as an option.

Even facing the obvious fact that there is only one choice... to cut costs and programs, they aren't doing it. They certainly aren't going to do it any other time and over the long term as some sort of new found fiscal responsibility.

this state has always been in financial trouble and its always raised taxes as an answer and a financial collapse has always been inevitable.

True. Most likely they will get some federal money and they will make some cuts then when the economy eventually turns around and things are getting better they will go right back to their overspending ways.

What amazes me is how the leaders of that state see there is no options in front of them yet they won't vote to cut spending. It would seem to me the best choice would be to take an active roll in the spending cuts so you might be able to protect a few key things that might otherwise get cut as opposed to just standing around and watching as it happens then complaining later.

But then again I guess that goes with the whole making sense thing and most of our elected leaders will have no part of making sense.

STAROTICA · 05-23-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Stop being a welfare state is a much better idea.

yeah tell 'em to move back to mexico or get a real job.

Sly · 05-23-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

True. Most likely they will get some federal money and they will make some cuts then when the economy eventually turns around and things are getting better they will go right back to their overspending ways.

What amazes me is how the leaders of that state see there is no options in front of them yet they won't vote to cut spending. It would seem to me the best choice would be to take an active roll in the spending cuts so you might be able to protect a few key things that might otherwise get cut as opposed to just standing around and watching as it happens then complaining later.

But then again I guess that goes with the whole making sense thing and most of our elected leaders will have no part of making sense.

They are probably afraid of losing their legislative seat by being the one that "canceled XYZ program." Their top priority at all times is to keep their seat... it's a shame.

kane · 05-23-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

They are probably afraid of losing their legislative seat by being the one that "canceled XYZ program." Their top priority at all times is to keep their seat... it's a shame.

Yep that is a major flaw in our system. They get elected and then think only about getting re-elected not doing what is best for the people. I think they should have term limits on senate and congress and state reps. Just like the president they should get two terms. Then they focus on doing their job, not getting elected.

baddog · 05-23-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

Yep that is a major flaw in our system. They get elected and then think only about getting re-elected not doing what is best for the people. I think they should have term limits on senate and congress and state reps. Just like the president they should get two terms. Then they focus on doing their job, not getting elected.

Good idea. Once they get the hang of things we can replace them.

LA Crew · 05-24-2009, 12:44 AM

Well it's official, California is using monopoly money for tax returns and welfare. If any Californians have one of these notes could you please post a scan or a pic of it? I wonder if they would have Mr.Swarzenazi's picture on them.

kane · 05-24-2009, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA_quince

Well it's official, California is using monopoly money for tax returns and welfare. If any Californians have one of these notes could you please post a scan or a pic of it? I wonder if they would have Mr.Swarzenazi's picture on them.

I know they gave out basically I owe you for a lot of people's tax returns. Did they make good on those or are they still outstanding?

kane · 05-24-2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Good idea. Once they get the hang of things we can replace them.

I think if they keep the current senate terms it would be okay. This way they get up to two 6 year terms. I think that would give them enough time to figure out what they are doing.

I suppose in the end it could cause some issues because if you get people in there that are actually good and doing their job eventually they will leave.

baddog · 05-24-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA_quince

Well it's official, California is using monopoly money for tax returns and welfare. If any Californians have one of these notes could you please post a scan or a pic of it? I wonder if they would have Mr.Swarzenazi's picture on them.

I just deposited my CA State Income Tax refund on Friday. I wasn't expecting to get a negotiable check, but I did. Duess we will see if it bounces or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

I think if they keep the current senate terms it would be okay. This way they get up to two 6 year terms. I think that would give them enough time to figure out what they are doing.

I suppose in the end it could cause some issues because if you get people in there that are actually good and doing their job eventually they will leave.

How many successful [huge] businesses are you aware of that does a forced retirement of anyone that has 12 years experience? It might work for OR, but CA is a slightly different story.

raven1083 · 05-24-2009, 07:58 AM

sad to know

Pleasurepays · 05-24-2009, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

What amazes me is how the leaders of that state see there is no options in front of them yet they won't vote to cut spending.

i think the issue in these situations, is usually not "options available to them" - its a lose/lose situation for everyone.

i think the true issue is who will blink first and take the political hit from their constituents. doing the right thing in this case is political suicide. "my opponent, voted against feeding children. my opponent voted against education. my opponent voted against clean air... my opponent voted against rainbows and bunny rabbits.." etc etc.

Pleasurepays · 05-24-2009, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

But if your neighbour doesn't raise their kid properly, and doesn't pay for the kid properly, and you see their kid walking alone around shoeless and dirty on the street, what would you do?

Would you take them to the authorities?

Guess who pays for that?

If you don't agree with helping them, then you should just close your blinds and let them wander around until they get hit by a car or something. That way it's less expensive for you, the taxpayer.

We call those people "sociopaths" though, you might want to find a different group of people to belong to.

no.. you see, you outline the simple problem with liberal thinking. "who will pay for..." this idea is always followed by the obvious "who can we take the money from to pay for it..."

you should be thinking "why is this person allowed to have children", "why does this person still have custody of his children"... "this person clearly does not deserve custody of his children and is proving that" .. what should the consequences be to this person and other similar people for the burden they have put on all of us?

throwing money at social problems NEVER make the problems go away. you can't continually take money from people who actually produce, from people who actually have their shit together, from people that actually make great decisions, parent their children well, get educations and strive everyday to excel and achieve and toss it to those who just don't.

making sure there are consequences for bad behavior and poor decision making does.

class warfare has bankrupt California... final solution??... take more money from wealthy people. working well so far!! congrats!!

this is where it has all led to and now what?

how many of those children you mention are going to get help next year? more ?? or less ??

AdultSoftwareSolutions · 05-24-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Our generation can very well get totally screwed on Social Security if they don't straighten the fuck out. We are paying our cut for this "federal retirement program," which is basically what it is... I would rather pay a smaller cut that would go to the elderly and the sick, and then I get to keep the rest of my cut and invest it how I see fit. I do not like my money going into some massive "retirement pool." Nobody should. They proved time and time again that they cannot manage money, why are we putting our retirement futures on their shoulders?

And before anyone asks, yes I do have a private retirement fund... that isn't the point.

The gov't has no reason to not pay social security. If they don't have any money, they can just print more. ;) Why do you think they stopped reporting the M3 money supply?

It's interesting that Norway actually has a budget surplus and invests the excess in a state investment fund. How our country would be so much different if we didn't spend what we didn't have. What a concept.

Funny thing is the gov't could get things in order if they really wanted to but the way our political system is set up, none of our politicians will think for the long term good.

05-23-2009, 03:15 PM	#58
GAMEFINEST Make STACK$ Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: sexy time Posts: 14,424	here is a political bump __________________ Compound interest.

05-24-2009, 12:44 AM	#72
LA Crew Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: city of angels Posts: 1,356	Well it's official, California is using monopoly money for tax returns and welfare. If any Californians have one of these notes could you please post a scan or a pic of it? I wonder if they would have Mr.Swarzenazi's picture on them. __________________

05-24-2009, 07:58 AM	#76
raven1083 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,687	sad to know __________________ Femdom Stories \| Bound BBW Blog and Videos \|Bondage Sex Videos and Pictures Hardcore Japanese Bondage \| BDSM Movies And Galleries Mistress Cuckold CBT

05-23-2009, 04:37 PM	#61
czarina Webmaster Extraordinaire Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: A beautiful beach... Posts: 10,748	cali has always been messed up but nowadays things are even worse than ebefore.

05-23-2009, 06:15 PM	#65
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	One thing interesting that could come out of this is they make the cuts and get their budge back in line they could become an example for other states. There has been a lot of talk about cutting spending, well it looks like they are going to have to do just that. Let's see if they make good choices and stop wasting money where they can and try to really get the state back on track or if they just start slashing everything in an effort to make the voters suffer so that in the next elections they will vote for whatever taxes/programs the politicians want.