Damn! Oroville by SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's a slow-motion disaster in the making. 200,000 people evacuated. Ever see Dante's Peak? My favorite disaster movie. Anyway, kind of like that, but with 10X the people.

I hope the earthen slope holds out.

If it were me, I'd flog that main spillway for all it's worth. It looks to me like even if the entire chute below the hole drops into the river, it won't compromise the water gates above. But that's just me. Imagine being the engineers making that decision!

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2017 4:21 PM

THGRRI

Live link but I don't want to post it here. Might be best if you go to YouTube to open it.

---------------------

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2017 7:41 PM

THGRRI

The untold story

20 inches of rain, 12 feet of snow finally end 5-year drought in N. California

---------------------

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 13, 2017 7:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
20 inches of rain, 12 feet of snow finally end 5-year drought in N. California

Not so fast, premature ejaculation!

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/

The long-term outlook for California’s drought can be better assessed in the months ahead. On April 1, the California Department of Water Resources conducts its annual snowpack measurement. This benchmark is important because it provides a comprehensive examination of the snowpack’s water content. Historically, after April 1, snows begin to melt, producing runoff that recharges reservoirs and groundwater systems slowly throughout the ensuing months. If there is not excessive heat, as has been the case for the last 3 years, this slower runoff provides usable supply for the year and can enhance the aquifer recharge process. The April 1 measurement will help California better understand the effects winter snows have had upon the state’s water resources.

When compared with historical, long-term data, analysis of surface-water runoff data now being collected by the USGS streamgage network will also help scientists better understand the effects that winter storms of 2017 have had upon California’s drought conditions. Runoff is an important component in maintaining healthy waterways and ecosystems and also contributes to groundwater replenishment through groundwater surface-water interactions. The USGS California Water Science Center – along with cooperating local, state, and federal agencies - continues to collect long-term data that are needed to assess the effects of climate variability on water resources.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2017 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Following record rainfall, the Oroville Dam is in trouble.

HEY! Here's an infrastructure project ready to go!

Let's see.
California cities say Eff-You to The United States, we refuse to abide Federal Law and will be Sanctuary Cities for Criminals and Felons. (Violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution).

California State has proposed Secession From the Union, and also de-facto Secession from the Laws of The United States by becoming a (Legislatively proposed) Sanctuary State for Criminals and Felons.

California only produces Debt and Deficit Budgets, refusing to pay it's own way knowing that Americans from the honest States and Taxpayers will support the insanity that is California Politics. The incompetence of California Elected Officials like Moonbeam Brown (nobody can use the excuse they didn't know what he was like) means the repairs or corrections of the Oroville Dam have been avoided.

And NOW Libtards have the gall to demand the Federal Government of The United States of America must bail them out yet again, swooping in like an Avenging Angel to save the poor, incompetent and delusional Libtards of California from their own stupidity?

At some point, they should be left to lay in the bed they have made for themselves. This seems a good place and time. If they learn from this inconvenience of 200,000 voters, perhaps the rude awakening of tens of millions of California Voters on the verge of Economic Collapse can be forestalled.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2017 6:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, CA is an EFFU "sanctuary state" ... what a ridiculous stand! But CA is a net supplier of money to the Federal budget, a powerhouse agricultural state, the home of Silicon Valley and of many bio-genetic research universities, location of the largest west coast port, etc. It is the tenth largest economy in the world. CA's budget is in pretty good shape ... we have surplus and are setting aside $$$ for a rainy day. We also have some large military and naval bases.

So aside from our policy on illegal immigration (which I think is ludicrous), our out-of-control development relative to our water supply, and our potential pension problem, CA has a lot to offer the rest of the USA! So I expect that there will be some harsh words, hard bargaining, sharp elbows and busy busy lawyers, but no divorce.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2017 6:52 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Water level has been lowered, and yes, the main spillway took a beating, but survived. Melting snow will be filling the lake until June-July. I guess they start permanent repairs after that?

Concern now is the downstream levees, which protect farmland from flood. Personally, I think they should let the land flood - now is the time to recharge the groundwater. The best place to keep water is underground, not behind dams.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 18, 2017 7:03 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

When warming occurs, the snow-pack will be less and less a passive storage mechanism. I think they should reintroduce beavers, that could potentially do a good job impounding water in many, many upstream ponds, allowing for slower water release downstream, as well as good recharge.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 4:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
When warming occurs, the snow-pack will be less and less a passive storage mechanism. I think they should reintroduce beavers, that could potentially do a good job impounding water in many, many upstream ponds, allowing for slower water release downstream, as well as good recharge.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

Now that they know how to direct beavers where to build their dams, this seem like a point of great opportunity.
In olden days, when eradicating beavers and/or their dams, it was apparently not known how to work with them. They are feverishly productive workers at dam building.

But won't you need to change CA law which requires over half of all fresh rainwater to be express-channeled to the ocean?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Yes, CA is an EFFU "sanctuary state" ... what a ridiculous stand! But CA is a net supplier of money to the Federal budget, a powerhouse agricultural state, the home of Silicon Valley and of many bio-genetic research universities, location of the largest west coast port, etc. It is the tenth largest economy in the world.

CA's budget is in pretty good shape ... we have surplus and are setting aside $$$ for a rainy day.

It looks like $1.9 Billion deficit last year's budget (current fiscal year), and projected $1.6 Billion deficit for the upcoming budget.
Fancy accounting tricks don't count when you are increasing your debt.
Who is buying your debt? China?

Quote:

We also have some large military and naval bases.

So aside from our policy on illegal immigration (which I think is ludicrous), our out-of-control development relative to our water supply, and our potential pension problem, CA has a lot to offer the rest of the USA! So I expect that there will be some harsh words, hard bargaining, sharp elbows and busy busy lawyers, but no divorce.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:00 PM

Last I read California has a $422 Billion deficit. Did something change in the last 3 weeks?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:44 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

That deficit was somebody's projection to an unstated time in the future, based on their assumptions regarding presumed retirement costs. Nothing changed. You just misattributed scare-mongering as fact.

The current budgets realized a surplus.

2015
http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/05/californias-budget-surplus-soars
-to-new-heights-schools-to-benefit/

2016
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/17/66216/california-analyst-projects-
2-8-billion-budget-sur/

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 6:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
That deficit was somebody's projection to an unstated time in the future, based on their assumptions regarding presumed retirement costs. Nothing changed. You just misattributed scare-mongering as fact.

The current budgets realized a surplus.

2015
http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/05/californias-budget-surplus-soars
-to-new-heights-schools-to-benefit/

2016
http://www.scpr.org/news/2016/11/17/66216/california-analyst-projects-
2-8-billion-budget-sur/

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

Fair enough, but those obligations aren't going to just go away. I'm going to call it half-scare-mongering / half-truth.

What is the actual state of California's finances now. Not just a surplus being run this year, but an honest realization of what they have or they owe?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 6:45 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"those obligations"

You posted about this before and I responded before.

To recap: The person who made those so-called projections didn't provide any basic information such as - what year were those projections run out to? (It makes a big difference!) Were those annual projections or total projections? (It makes a big difference!) With severe shortcomings like that those claims don't pass the laff test. And that's not even checking the details, for example - where did the basic figures come from? WERE THEY ACCURATELY RELAYED? and not inflated? What calculation was used? And so on.

It read like fiction, or somebody's weird dream, and not based on anything remotely related to the real world.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:17 PM

Sure. I just admitted that they were likely inflated, somewhat, to prove a biased point. There are obligations though, and they will have to be accounted for. Illinois is having a problem now with government pensions it owes for government workers and teachers and such.

What I want to know is, if you take future obligations out of the picture, where is California at right now. How far in the red or black are they today?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 19, 2017 9:55 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"What is the actual state of California's finances now. Not just a surplus being run this year, but an honest realization of what they have or they owe?"

Well, it's like this, jack. Despite everybody's attempts to create a budget, taking into account all foreseeable circumstances, nobody really knows how 2017 is going to turn out. Can I tell you how 2017 will turn out? No. Can you tell me? No. Can you tell me what California's 2025 budget will be like? How about 2050?

Remember 2008? Sure the financial system started to melt down at the end of 2007. But nobody could predict what the year was going to look like when you got to the vantage point of December 31, 2008.

You do what you can with the information at the time. But what the result will be is anyone's guess.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 12:04 AM

You're not answering my question.

Strip away all of the very real future obligations California faces.

Forget about hopeful budget surpluses this year or any year in the future.

How much money does California have in the bank, or how much money does it owe today.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 12:09 AM

I don't know if the usdebtclock is a reliable site or not, but their state debt clock actually shows California with over 450 Billion in debt.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-
clock.html

lol geez. That thing counts up so fast that California's additional debt from just the time I started writing this post is what I could live on for the next 3 years....

[EDITED TO ADD]

To be fair though, this usdebtclock paints a much different picture for Indiana than the story I read a few weeks back claiming that we had a 2.14 Billion surplus.

It's growing at a much slower rate than California, but they say that Indiana has a debt of nearly 49 Billion.

I wonder if this website is just attributing part of the national debt to each state, regardless of what their actual state business debt is.

[EDITED TO ADD]

Here's another website with just about the same numbers for both states.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_population

LA Times article about California's unfunded government liabilites.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-unfunded/

$322 billion in public retirement plan debt alone.

Still can't find any information about what California has right now as we speak though.

I'm just going to say that California is currently in right about $130 Billion in debt by subtracting that $322 in future retirement debts from the $450 billion the other two sites says California owes.

After all these updates, I could probably live the rest of my life on the Debt that California has accrued since I started writing this post.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:21 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

for categories and budget numbers, go to figure 2 Administration’s General Fund Summary which projects another surplus.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3324

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:24 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The 'debt clock'? Really?

That's more or less the same figure that you cited earlier - with even less going for it as genuine information! It doesn't even say if it's government, personal, business, or all three. Current debt or projected debt. Debt that can't be paid or debt that's more than covered by income.

It's stupid. And you're very stupidly digging yourself into a hole when the facts aren't there to back you up.

Maybe you should start with facts first and work your way to a conclusion, rather than the other way around.

The facts are that CA had a budget surplus in the previous two years and is expected to have one again. Money out is more than covered by money in. That's in part due to changes of CA law, an improved economy, and better budgeting.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:54 AM

I will say congratulations for California reigning in their debt for the last two years then, if they are truly running a budget surplus.

You still haven't answered my question though. What is California's current overall financial situation. I'm not talking about the budget surplus this year or last, and I'm not talking about future debts.

I'm assuming at this point that you're not answering that question because you don't know either.

[EDITED TO ADD]

I have to ask you, just so we're clear on this. You do realize that running a budget surplus for the year does not mean that California has an overall budget surplus, right?

The Dems love to throw around how Bill Clinton ran a budget surplus for a few years there, but we were still a few Trillion dollars in debt overall regardless.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:56 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

answered above with the CA budget link look below the big circle gif

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:58 AM

No you didn't.

Tell me now. What is on their books.

Do they have cash in the bank? How much?

or do they owe money? How much?

Very simple question.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 1:59 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

as I said b4 - four posts up - figure 2 it gives the status of the general fund - money carried over, money in, transfers, money out; and total

and please READ this time, instead of pouting like a two year old

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 2:05 AM

So they hope to have $10.2 Billion by the end of the year.

Forgive me if I don't believe that.

$422 Billion might be a gross exaggeration of the state of California's finances, but trying to claim that they actually have $10.2 million in the bank when they have a ridiculous amount of debt on the books is just fudging the facts in the opposite direction.

My bro's family has a small amount of money in the bank. They also have about 1/2 a million dollars in mortgage/school/credit card debt that dwarfs whatever they have sitting in their checking account.

So do they have $5,000, or are they in the red 1/2 a million dollars?

This is why I live debt free and most Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt. But I guess when everybody is doing it, it's easy to look at California's situation and say they're in the black. Admitting how bad off they actually are would be admitting how bad off you likely actually are.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 2:08 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
when they have a ridiculous amount of debt on the books

You still haven't provided evidence for that.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 2:13 AM

You provided a link that doesn't take into account any future debts the government has already incurred and has yet to pay off. Just because you don't' like the debt clock doesn't mean that you can completely dismiss the debt clock.

I added to the last post, BTW. You replied before I finished.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 2:29 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
any future debts the government has already incurred

You haven't provided a link that enumerates what they are, or even if they exist.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 3:03 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So I found articles about California's so-called debt. The problem is - it's projected TOTAL FUTURE expense accumulated to 30 years into the future. IT'S NOT CURRENT DEBT.

And it's a figure that projects what would happen if everything stayed exactly the same as in 2014. If investment returns stayed the same. If the health care system stayed the same. If the size of California's economy stayed the same. If the number of people in CA stayed the same. If the US economy, and the global economy, stayed the same. If the laws stayed the same ... and so on.

But things have already changed, including the laws under which CA can retain a surplus year to year. (Previously, CA wasn't able to save any surplus away for the future.)

So, while people can project into the future, that future only comes true if nothing changes. But it's already too late for that.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I will say congratulations for California reigning in their debt for the last two years then, if they are truly running a budget surplus.

You still haven't answered my question though. What is California's current overall financial situation. I'm not talking about the budget surplus this year or last, and I'm not talking about future debts.

I'm assuming at this point that you're not answering that question because you don't know either.

[EDITED TO ADD]

I have to ask you, just so we're clear on this. You do realize that running a budget surplus for the year does not mean that California has an overall budget surplus, right?

The Dems love to throw around how Bill Clinton ran a budget surplus for a few years there, but we were still a few Trillion dollars in debt overall regardless.

The Clintons NEVER ran a surplus budget. EVERY SINGLE YEAR they increased the Federal Debt. Identify one year during their reign that the Federal Debt decreased. Every year they spent more than they raked in from taxes resulting from Reaganomics.

For the CA deficit, I did not make linkys because I didn't think it was a secret. Moonbeam Brown's accounting trick to hide $1.9 Billion in spending was revealed, and he proposed $2B in deficit this past Jan, for the next budget.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-s-400-billion-d
ebt-worries-analysts-6812264.php

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/18/1-8-billion-error-adds-to-califo
rnia-deficit-projection/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/18/1-9b-accounting-error-adds-
to-california-deficit-projection.html

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01/10/gov-jerry-brown-california
-2-billion-budget-deficit-warning/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-jerry-brown-budget-trump-ri
sks-20170110-story.html

Like Bobo says: math doesn't work the way we Libtards think it should - or words to that effect.

To review: all of these California deficits and debts are not surplusses! Deficit is the opposite of surplus.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 8:30 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
http://uscommonsense.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-
issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/

Furthermore, aggressively excluding long-term liabilities (such as those for public employee pensions) from debt discussions is dangerous to citizens and policymakers, alike. While the state does acknowledge its long-term liabilities, it generally fails to treat them as “debt.”

There's a difference between 'unfunded liabilities' and debt, that charlatans are only too willing to obscure, as this article does.

CA does have actual debt - bonds that have been issued, where a fixed amount of money will have to be paid at a fixed time. Those future debt payments are easily calculated.

But unfunded liabilities are things that may - OR MAY NOT - come due in the future. Those POTENTIAL FUTURE amounts are only projections .... estimates. And those projections are based on a particular set of CIRCUMSTANCES that may - OR MAY NOT - exist.

FOR EXAMPLE:
The CA retirement systems - like other retirement systems - invest. They assume a particular rate of return, and a particular contribution from workers - out of which they will pay retirement benefits. CA is pledged to make up the difference if there's a shortfall.
Will there be a shortfall over the next 30 years? It depends on how the investments do. It depends on workers contribution numbers and rates. It depends on retirement age. It depends on how long people live into retirement. It depends on the level of retirement benefits allowed.

BUT ALL OF THESE ARE MOVING TARGETS. From 2003 returns were running 11 - 15% until 2008. And while they've recovered almost completely, that divot cut long-term return averages from 7.5% to 7.1% What will future returns bring? If you knew the answer, you'd be a rich man. BUT NOBODY KNOWS. And certainly not the people projecting into the future.

MEANWHILE, worker numbers have dropped, but worker retirement contribution has gone up. The net effect is that more money than was originally assumed is now flowing in due to worker contributions.

SIMILARLY, retirement age has been raised significantly. That too means that retirement systems will see an improving balance sheet.

AND AT THE SAME TIME lifespan is getting shorter.

AND ALSO there is a case currently before the CA Supreme Court about whether or not the retirement systems may retroactively reduce benefits.

Along the way there's been the 'Ventura Decision' which trimmed the types of payments one may include in the pension calculation. And so on.

The POSSIBLE FUTURE PENSION PAYMENTS are only estimations, but there are many, many moving parts that will materially affect it in incalculable ways.

And that's just regarding pensions.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Call me a Debby Downer, but I always assume that the worst will happen. Murphy's Law and all of that. This way of thinking is how our governments should be run. California is completely unable to take care of it's own problems because it has no ability or desire for thinking about the future. Not being able to predict the future is no excuse for not trying to plan for the future.

I'm not going to argue anything about California anymore because the truth is that I really don't care at all about it. I've never been outside a state that didn't touch the Great Lakes, so California might as well be on Mars for all that it matters.

I admire your glass is half full attitude and hope it works out for you, personally. Be sure to save a little money for a rainy day though.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 10:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
California is completely unable to take care of it's own problems

says the guy whop lives in a state that sucks the money off the federal teat that California funds.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 10:04 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

darn dbl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 20, 2017 11:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

coda

Jack, you seem to think I'm saying everything will turn out ok. But what I said many times was that NOBODY KNOWS. Not me. Not the authors of the articles. Not Sacramento.

And I even agree with you that it's prudent to plan for the worst case scenario.

But what I take SERIOUS exception to is FAKE NEWS. You know, the kind that exaggerates- or makes-up- or hides- things to push an agenda. Like the articles and websites posted here.

I'm not the smartest person I know. I'm not even the smartest person on this board. But if even *I* can spot the distortions in those 'news' stories, then surely a reporter, whose job it is to - there's a word I'm looking for - report - can do that even better than me.

So, why do you think that story got flogged all over the place? And, why did YOU choose to repeat such an obviously flawed fable? Surely there's enough real stuff that needs to be addressed that put us in real peril, without spreading the gafla that just wastes everyone's time.

How did your beloved 'democratic' party fuck up so badly?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:42 PM

One linky I didn't post was this one:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances

28.8% of their budget is going to the Teachers Union. (Fake Education, dumbing down)
24.3% is going to Medicaid.

That's over 51% right there.
They have no interest in fixing their own problems.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I will say congratulations for California reigning in their debt for the last two years then, if they are truly running a budget surplus.

You still haven't answered my question though. What is California's current overall financial situation. I'm not talking about the budget surplus this year or last, and I'm not talking about future debts.

I'm assuming at this point that you're not answering that question because you don't know either.

[EDITED TO ADD]

I have to ask you, just so we're clear on this. You do realize that running a budget surplus for the year does not mean that California has an overall budget surplus, right?

Can you explain what you mean here?
What is the difference between running a budget surplus for the fiscal year and having an overall budget surplus for the fiscal year?
Or do you mean "overall" as in combining several different Fiscal Years together?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Yes, CA is an EFFU "sanctuary state" ... what a ridiculous stand! But CA is a net supplier of money to the Federal budget,

Do you have info to support this? According to the following linky, 15 other States require less Federal Spending per capita than CA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Quote:

a powerhouse agricultural state, the home of Silicon Valley and of many bio-genetic research universities, location of the largest west coast port, etc. It is the tenth largest economy in the world. CA's budget is in pretty good shape ... we have surplus and are setting aside $$$ for a rainy day. We also have some large military and naval bases.

So aside from our policy on illegal immigration (which I think is ludicrous), our out-of-control development relative to our water supply, and our potential pension problem, CA has a lot to offer the rest of the USA! So I expect that there will be some harsh words, hard bargaining, sharp elbows and busy busy lawyers, but no divorce.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

This is what that little hole in the main spillway turned into ....

Wow.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2017 6:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Yes, CA is an EFFU "sanctuary state" ... what a ridiculous stand! But CA is a net supplier of money to the Federal budget- SIGNY

Do you have info to support this? According to the following linky, 15 other States require less Federal Spending per capita than CA.- JSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Not so fast, Sherlock! According to MANY studies .... here is one ... CA sends more money to the Federal government than it receives back. In this case, $0.78 comes back for every $1.00 sent.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-
.pdf

According to this later (2015) map, California was ranked 7th least dependent (net tax dollars). Delaware was least dependent (1), followed by Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, Kansas and California.

At the other end of the dependency spectrum Mississippi and New Mexico were tied for most dependent on Federal tax dollars (50), followed by Alabama, Louisiana, Montana and Maine tied at 46.

It's an interesting map

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-
givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 2, 2017 7:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Yes, CA is an EFFU "sanctuary state" ... what a ridiculous stand! But CA is a net supplier of money to the Federal budget- SIGNY

Do you have info to support this? According to the following linky, 15 other States require less Federal Spending per capita than CA.- JSF

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

Not so fast, Sherlock! According to MANY studies .... here is one ... CA sends more money to the Federal government than it receives back. In this case, $0.78 comes back for every $1.00 sent.

https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/ftsbs-timeseries-20071016-
.pdf

According to this later (2015) map, California was ranked 7th least dependent (net tax dollars). Delaware was least dependent (1), followed by Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, Kansas and California.

At the other end of the dependency spectrum Mississippi and New Mexico were tied for most dependent on Federal tax dollars (50), followed by Alabama, Louisiana, Montana and Maine tied at 46.

It's an interesting map

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-
givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

Thanks for your reply with linkys.
Looks like CA is one of 17 states which are "net suppliers" - which doesn't mean much - D.C. just eats up funds. 7 other states are greater net suppliers - CT, DE, IL, MN, NV, NH, NJ.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 3, 2017 10:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You're welcome. It's an interesting map. Aside from the fact that the Deep South is a big suck for Federal money ... and that they are notoriously corrupt states ... it's hard to see a pattern.

The Northeast states, for example, are net suppliers of Federal dollars, but Maine is an exception. Why?? Why is New Mexico such a sink for money? Is that because the economy is so small that Los Alamos represents a big part of it? I know that Delaware has very generous incorporation laws, so they have a LOT of registered corporations there and probably generate a lot of tax dollars, but what does Kansas have that makes it a net provider? Or is it that Kansas just refuses to take Federal money? And what's with Montana? Aren't they a bunch of rugged western individualists? So why are THEY sucking so heavily on the government teat? It's very curious. If I had more time I'd research that.

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR IS A DEEP-STATE TROLL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 6, 2017 8:27 PM