I find it hilarious that you're all looking to me as some fucking oracle of wisdom on this, when I've already said, I don't know how many times already in this thread, that I know shit about Cali politics.

I just suggested it's a bit more complicated than that "it's all the liberals fault!" alarm 101 keeps fucking abusing.

When it was suggested that "Podunk didn't get special consideration, why should Cali?" I tried to point out that Cali has a shit ton of important industries that didn't get a bailout, and that this may further complicate the matter.

I don't really believe that the other states don't matter, but I don't believe that Cali should be treated the same as Podunk for all the reasons I stated.

WTF is so hard for you people to grasp?

You claim to know little about CA politics, but you def. know the liberals cannot be to blame.....because "it's just too complex". LOL...Spending money is not complex homebrew. The only ones to blame are liberals.


Neither should get shit.


We get it...you don't.

The current Republican track record doesn't suggest they'd be any thriftier. If they were in charge of CA, they'd probably blow a ton of money subsidizing defense and energy companies and kissing their ass. Plus they are all bark and no bite when it comes to the immigration problem. They're too busy protecting the industries that use that cheap labor.

But, in the words of Avatard, the republicans would be spending the country's money, not money out of their own pockets, therefore, Cali problems would be the fault of the republicans.

OK, I'll run with your characterization of my position:

So what we have is two groups. One spends our money on social programs...for us. Another diverts our money to the rich.

Both spend.

Why not have the ones that at least spend our money on US?

I fail to see what attracts anyone to the republican position who isn't a millionaire or billionaire.

If you actually WORK..the money the Dems spend on "us" is actually your money on people who DON'T work or don't pay taxes. At least this is how CA does it.....fuck that.

Which Republicans would have rectified, if they really say it as being a problem, no? Passed in 1977? That's 33 years including 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush Senior, and 8 years of Bush the Lesser. That's more than 50% of the time between when that law was passed, and when all hell broke loose.

Not only was it not withdrawn, but it was "improved" over that time. Any Republican who points to the Carter years as the origin of the problem, must also wear the problem, himself, for the 5 sessions during that time that the Republicans had both The House and The Senate. A ticking time-bomb, but no one fixed it?

So as long as the money isn't going to you, why do you prefer it goes to the rich, and not the poor? You think the rich is gonna share theirs with you?

Who's to say that with a meal to feed their family, the poor won't steal from you less...would this not also benefit YOU?

Share the wealth, share the wealth, share the wealth.

That's all I hear. Fucking bums wanting a free ride.

Right. I know. You tend to think very much in black and white. That's why I'm trying alternate ways of communicating this.

So, I ask you...if the Democrats to you equal only "share the wealth", and having that happen can only help raise life standards and education for all (thus you indirectly), why would you prefer the Republican alternative, which is ultimately to just make a tiny few millionaires (the richest 1%) and billionaires even richer?

If Democrats only suggest "share the wealth" to you, then this at least keeps the overall distribution of wealth more equitable, and guarantees greater overall prosperity, peace, and quality of life.

Why would you not prefer this?