The line that really, really caught my eye:
The U.S. government considers food stamps to be effective stimulus for the economy, because the recipients usually spend them right away.
Brother, if you really and truly want to help your fellow man, you will "Teach a Man to Fish". Now, of course, that's not really fair or accurate because most of the individuals on Food Stamps/SNAP are single mothers and their children... most of whom live someplace where keeping a family cow is not really an option...
But... is saying that really going to help these people?
Not even a little bit.
The Left's inability to grasp the collective damage they are doing/going to do because of their lack of knowledge regarding simple mathematical theory, i.e. The Exponential Function (but they CAN tell you what i.e. stands for) irks me to no end.
TO NO END.
And.... Here's the funny thing... when they DO ATTEMPT to explain away their silly assertions using elementary statistical analysis, they trip all over themselves with half-truths, obfuscations, and out right lies (don't get me wrong... the RINO's do the exact same thing... may they both drop dead).
Let us take it apart, shall we?
First, let's look at the default threat. California has never failed to make its bond payments on time and in full, not even during the Depression. And there is no chance we will smudge that pristine record.
First rule in financial analysis: Past results are no guarantee of future performance. Just because you are alive does not mean you won't die... this quote is the kind of reassurance we give to those with terminal cancer.
Payment of debt service is constitutionally protected, with bond payments required even when the state is operating without a budget. Debt service has second call on general fund dollars, right behind education. Under the California Constitution, making sure bond investors get their money is a higher priority than providing healthcare to kids, protecting the environment and keeping our communities safe.Constitutionally protected? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ROFL! LOL!! LMAO!!
Sorry, that got away from me.... what I meant to say was that this f&*^ing jag-off miscreant of a pea brain... a person (group) that has rejected most of the U.S. Constitution, supports judicial activism and "Case Law" says that the California State Constitution has this one covered? BULL SH*T.
The $$ coming in and going out have no idea what is written in your Constitution. $$$'s cannot read
Here is where the lies and obfuscations get serious:
During the current fiscal year, general fund revenues are expected to total $89.4 billion. Education spending under Proposition 98 will total $36 billion. That leaves $53.4 billion available to pay debt service on bonds — more than eight times the $6.6 billion the state will need.Got that? And it sounds good and even right, doesn't it? Problem is, it is disgustingly self-serving Horse SH#!. California's biggest problem is its pension liabilities. They DWARF the debt issue... and are at least 10X the bond liability. Why does this scum-bag write this drivel? To manipulate and motivate the the troops by LYING to them.... something only Republicans do, right? I am getting peptic just writing this.... but wait.... it gets BETTER.
Our critics say we are addicted to spending. But the numbers show that isn't true. Thirty years ago, general fund expenditures totaled about $7.43 for every $100 of personal income. In the 2009-10 fiscal year, that ratio was almost $2 less, at $5.52 for every $100 of personal income. In the current fiscal year, per capita general fund expenditures will total $2,246, less than the $2,289 spent 10 years ago and roughly equal to the inflation-adjusted level of 15 years ago.Dear Jerk: You skipped accounting 101 I take it? Bet your Latin's pretty good... Ever heard of ENRON? Well, my innumerate friend, California has the vast majority of its liabilities OFF BALANCE SHEET. Congratulations on the level of hypocrisy... it is unprecedented.
But Wait! There's MORE!
Moreover, state and local government has grown slimmer relative to California's population. In 2009, the state had 107 state employees per 10,000 residents, the fourth-lowest proportion in the nation and 25% below the national average. California also has the sixth-lowest combined number of state and local government employees relative to population, 12% below the national average and 16% below Texas.I swear, if this article does not stop soon I am going to blow a blood vessel...
Dear complete f*&^%ing jerk, liar, and true believer (the worst insult I can hurl):
It ain't the number of people on the payroll... its the MONEY, stupid! If you over pay and over-benefit people, and addict them to that unsustainable state of affairs (you guys seem to grasp this when it comes to the environment, but seem to go deaf, dumb, and f*&^ing blind when the concept comes up on this issue) you will be left defending the indefensible, as this jag-off is trying to do in this article.
(Oh, and BTW... No state should EVER compare themselves to Texas (well, with the exception of Alaska)... Oil revenues mask a great many wrongs.)
OK, here come's one of the few half-truths in the article...
California's current budget woes have been caused by the devastation visited on our revenue base by the recession, not a failure to curb spending. In the three fiscal years preceding this one, general fund expenditures fell by $16 billion.Dear Moron: You are correct that that is half the problem. Actually, it is only 20% of the problem... the vast majority of the disaster in waiting is on the liability side of the balance sheet... you do know what a balance sheet is?
Organized lies (propaganda) will not solve anything - Neither from the Left nor from the Right.