• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Will Los Angeles burn?

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
Lets look at some things. There are roughly 500,000 welfare recipients in the greater Los Angeles metro area. The State of California is on the verge of bankruptcy. The State of California has already told working taxpayers who have OVERPAID their taxes and are due tax refunds that they will not receive refund checks for the foreseeable future. Southern California has been one of the hard hit areas for home foreclosures. For every $6 of tax income going into California's treasury there are $10 in payments the state is obligated to pay.

So lets get back to those welfare checks. If California is broke and has to stop sending out those checks there will be a half million people with nothing to lose and no food. Now presume that 95% of those people are not going to do anything more than complain . . . that still leaves 25,000 who may get very angry, very hungry and potentially riot.

So will LA burn? It will be interesting to watch what happens in California over the next 3 to 9 months.

But California is not alone. New Jersey is in bad shape too. Ever been to Newark? Burning that down may actually be a good thing. There are roughly a dozen states that are in SERIOUS RISK of bankruptcy.
 

Erik

SelfBane
Site Supporter
unfortunately, my first reaction to the title of this thread was "with luck"...
 

Melensdad

Jerk in a Hawaiian Shirt & SNOWCAT Moderator
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
unfortunately, my first reaction to the title of this thread was "with luck"...

Well that is what I think about Newark, NJ so apparently our minds are equally warped :whistling:

As for LA, I really think that California is in a major mess and the possibility of some really bad things happening there are pretty high. This is one case where having Barack Obama as our first half-white President may come in handy. If he has calming words and if he jumps in with a "bailout" package for California, then it is very likely that unpleasantness can be avoided. But it will change the course of this nation if we begin to bailout states.

Currently states like Indiana (where I live) are exporters of tax dollars, so I get taxed and some of my federal $$$ come back to my state in the form of federal payments, but some of my federal tax dollars go to other states for federal payments for federal programs. IF we begin to "bailout" states then the federal taxes we pay will be used for STATE projects. Basically the people of California can't tax themselves enough so they will be taxing residents of other states to pay for their overspending and the federal government will be the tax collector.

That is a MONUMENTAL shift in our tax system and the way our nation of states works. It will dramatically decrease the power of individual states, move us toward a nationalized system of government and will further erode our freedom.

It seems like a very bad thing.
 

Erik

SelfBane
Site Supporter
Well that is what I think about Newark, NJ so apparently our minds are equally warped :whistling:

It's been 15 years since I lived in Union, NJ. At the time I didn't spend much time in Newark, but thought it and Hoboken were pretty grim when passing through. As to the state bailout thing, I don't have a good solution but think it will end badly if that's the route things go.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Currently states like Indiana (where I live) are exporters of tax dollars, so I get taxed and some of my federal $$$ come back to my state in the form of federal payments, but some of my federal tax dollars go to other states for federal payments for federal programs. IF we begin to "bailout" states then the federal taxes we pay will be used for STATE projects. Basically the people of California can't tax themselves enough so they will be taxing residents of other states to pay for their overspending and the federal government will be the tax collector.

Substitute Quebec for California and Ontario for New Jersey and you have the Canadian tax system. :sad:
 

xsinawl

New member
California, huh? Do you reckon that Robert Duvall can muster another "I love the smell of napalm in the morning"?
 

k-dog

Member
I thought the welfare system was a federal program passed out at the state level which would mean that California could only pay welfare with those dollars and nothing else. That way the people still get their money. That is if my memory serves me correct.
 

Locutus

Banned
Let's hope not. Rather, let's hope the San Andreas fault let's go!! :jumpingSm


That way, the MSM won't be able to blame it on Bush, Cheney, or the NRA. :whistling::whistling:
 

RNE228

Bronze Member
Site Supporter
Unfortunately, for you, when the San Andreas goes, the rest of the US is going to slide off in to the Atlantic Ocean, leaving California as an Island. Reno, Nv may be lucky and survive as ocean front property:hammer::hammer::yum::whistling::whistling:

It'll shake people up enough, we'll finally split the state, NorCal will keeps it's water, and its more rural aspects. SF will slip south a bit, be part of SoCal, and can share thier views and politics.

Can you swim?:yum::yum::yum:

Let's hope not. Rather, let's hope the San Andreas fault let's go!! :jumpingSm


That way, the MSM won't be able to blame it on Bush, Cheney, or the NRA. :whistling::whistling:
 

RNE228

Bronze Member
Site Supporter
Dang, you guys rip on us. I guess it's tough y'all living in a perfect state.

Honestly, I wish we could/would split this state. I would not mind if LA and SF were in another state. If you subtract thier politics etc, California is really a great place.
 

RedRocker

Active member
Dang, you guys rip on us. I guess it's tough y'all living in a perfect state.

Honestly, I wish we could/would split this state. I would not mind if LA and SF were in another state. If you subtract thier politics etc, California is really a great place.

Beautiful state, but what the hell happened in the last 40 years? Some God awful stuff must of gotten in the water.
 

RNE228

Bronze Member
Site Supporter
Beautiful state, but what the hell happened in the last 40 years? Some God awful stuff must of gotten in the water.

The 1960's, Haight-Ashbury et-al. And then 10 or 20 million extra people.

Fortunately, our area is still nice to live in. But, we still have to put up with Bay Area and LA politics etc. And, we get judged based on what happens in Berkeley... Instead of what happens in Georgetown, Placerville, Coloma, Amador City...
 
D

darroll

Guest
I’v turned over a new leaf and will be nice to California.
The last time they ran out of water (a few years back) they passed a law that said they were going to use the Columbia river. I guess they forgot to look at a map. The Columbia river is on the border between Oregon and Washington. They had planned to run a huge pipe right down our coast. This started state war number one (SWI). That was as nice as I could put it.
Now they can send their hungry people to Oregon where there is food. This is true as we have wild geese everywhere, they even eat our lawns and flowers. I guess this could help us with our goosing problem. I hope they will cook their own goose. (no pun intended)

:wink:
 

Erik

SelfBane
Site Supporter
Dang, you guys rip on us. I guess it's tough y'all living in a perfect state.

Honestly, I wish we could/would split this state. I would not mind if LA and SF were in another state. If you subtract thier politics etc, California is really a great place.

If you pay attention, I did not say anything bad about the state -- but I REALLY, REALLY don't like LA. the Bay Area is pretty, has some nice museums, but other than that isn't so great for me.
OTOH, The northern & Eastern parts of the state are Great! Yosemite, Tahoe, Redwoods, etc...
 

Locutus

Banned
Actually, I think Kalifornicatia would be a great state if you folks could just get rid of Hollywierd, the rest of the greater LA area, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Santa Barbara, and Sacramento.

San Luis Obispo is a nice place, and would be even nicer if the coast highway was rerouted 50 miles east of it.
 

XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq

Master of Distraction
Staff member
SUPER Site Supporter
Some related articles:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6677.html

California’s Tipping Point

Posted by Shannon Love on January 23rd, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/?p=6677&print=1
I think a threshold or tipping point exists in the ratio between the political power of those who pay taxes and those who consume taxes directly. After that tipping point is reached, those who pay taxes become the economic slaves of those who consume taxes.


I think California has passed that point. [h/t Instapundit] Tax consumers now control the state government and can vote themselves almost any level of personal income and benefits they wish while taxpayers cannot muster the political capital to defend themselves.



This might seem overwrought but it has a precedent in the concept of the military-industrial complex. When that arch-leftist Eisenhower created the concept he warned that those who benefited from military spending, from stockholders and CEOs of defense companies to strippers who work the clubs outside military bases, would bring political pressure to distort defense priorities. He was right. The problem has bedeviled us ever since WWII. We keep bases we don’t need and buy new toys instead of spending money on training ammo.


Now, in addition to the existing vested interest in military spending, imagine that the 3 million active and reserve service members along with 500,000 civilian military employees all belonged to a single compulsory union. Imagine that the union endorsed candidates and policies, donated a lot of money to campaigns, assigned soldiers to go door-to-door and man phone banks. Imagine that the majority of people in Washington were in the union and had constant access to politicians. Unions provide a ready-made organizational framework that makes unions much more politically effective than a similar number of unorganized citizens of the same size would be. Their ability to buy advertising alone dwarfs that of any other group. The military union could bring enormous pressure to bear on any politician and force them to vote for more military spending. How much more distorted would military spending be than it is now? How much harder would it be to reduce military spending?


This is the condition that California and other states with powerful public-sector unions find themselves in. California has ~2.3 million unionized government workers and ~18.6 million civilians. With so many people organized with a laser-like focus on increasing taxes and spending, the private working citizens of California find it nearly impossible to prevent government workers from voting their own paychecks.


In effect, government workers have hijacked democracy. Instead of state employees working for the people, the people now work for the state employees. As far as the state government is concerned, people in the private sector work merely so that they can be taxed for the benefit of the tax consumers. They’ve entered a condition not unlike like that of pre-industrial serfs.
Of course no one is being whipped, but in effect an ordinary citizen of California cannot get their desires for reduced state spending implemented due to the disproportionate power of the State’s employees and allied interest. It appears now that the government unions will not accept any solution to California’s budget crisis except increased taxes in a declining economy. Ordinary citizens have no choice but to either emigrate or just lie there and take it.


By long custom and law, the U.S. military has remained ruthlessly apolitical. Serving members do not endorse candidates, organize politically in any fashion or make independent public statements about campaign issues. That standard evolved due to the obvious danger of having a military with a positive feedback loop into the political system that controls its budget. The same danger exists for all other state employees, albeit in a slower and less dramatic fashion.


No one should be able to vote their own paycheck. Government-employee unions should be legally restricted from engaging in any kind of political activity. If not, it is only a matter of time before civil servants become civil masters.

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stor...23bottom21148-chiangs-coup-d233tat/?uniontrib

U-T Editorial: Chiang's coup d'état

Blocking furloughs a shameful abuse of power

2:00 a.m. January 23, 2009



For years, the Democrats who dominate Sacramento have made it clear in 100 ways that their No. 1 priority is protecting and enriching unions.


This isn't just made plain on legislation involving issues that business and union groups fight about year after year. It also holds for issues that are near and dear to rank-and-file Democrats.


When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed his “Million Solar Roofs” initiative, Democratic lawmakers blocked it because he wouldn't require that the solar panels be installed by union shops. When a bill was introduced to use the Internet to make it easier for poor families to enroll their kids in health care programs, Democrats killed it because it might prompt layoffs of union members who handled paper applications.
So much for their party's support for environmentalism or social services for the needy. Democratic officeholders know their political futures largely depend on keeping unions happy and behave accordingly.


Now the state budget crisis has yielded the starkest example of this subservience yet. Controller John Chiang, a Democrat who aspires to be governor, is refusing to enforce Schwarzenegger's order that state workers take two unpaid furlough days a month beginning Feb. 1 to ensure the government has enough money to continue to perform its basic functions.


Why? Chiang says it is illegal. To the contrary, established case law gives government bodies considerable leeway during emergencies. The unions challenging the furlough plan are going to need to establish that such an emergency doesn't exist. Good luck with that.


But questions about Chiang's intercession go far beyond the flimsiness of his assertion that the furlough plan is illegal. Even if it were, when did voters pass a constitutional amendment giving the controller power to veto the governor's decisions?
The answer, of course, is that they never did and never would. Voters know there can be only one governor at a time.


Considered in this context, Chiang's actions border on a bureaucratic coup d'état. It looks even more like a coup when you consider that Chiang is about to unilaterally implement his own plan to deal with the cash-flow crunch. When it was announced last week, most of the attention focused on his intention to withhold $1.9 billion in state tax refunds. More attention should have focused on Chiang's move to withhold $188 million in assistance to more than 1 million aged, blind and disabled Californians – money they rely on for food, rent and utility bills.


They are not going to be inconvenienced by Chiang's decision. Their lives will be grossly disrupted. But the controller doesn't care. He's taken care of his top priority: protecting public employees. He knows the unions always will remember this massive favor.


So will the rest of us. Chiang's outrageous abuse of power should haunt him as long as he is in the public eye. If we have anything to say about it, it will.
 
Top