News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[tzor]

Suffrage is an interesting topic. First of all, the Coulter quote is often misinterpreted to appear to be simply complaining about one group of women who she thinks are acting stupidly at the voting box and she prefaces it as a “personal fantasy.” (But then again I’m not going to drill down the 4,000 levels of liberal masturbation to find the exact context of the full quote.)

I consider it a fundamental truism that there exists idiots (indeed there are all kinds of idiots) and those idiots vote, often idiotically. I still remember that famous quote last year where this one “voter” was waxing that since she voted for Obama she was going to get free gasoline or something stupid to that effect. I see a whole different “idiot” mentality when it comes to local school budgets. Democracy isn’t perfect, but I’ve yet to see an alternative that is stable in the long term.

For the record, I am a complete supporter of women voting, including Coulter.

As for women being “barefoot;” as far as I am concerned almost all practically are. Really, do you call those flimsy things you wear, with only a few straps on the top and barely a 1/8” of sole a proper “shoe?” Now I can see a good solid Birkenstock that has a good solid layer of cork, but not those things that are mostly flopping off of you feet at any moment.

Whenever the conservatives talk about their heroes, they always bring up dudes who actively fought against basic civil rights. Watch any conservative commentator talk about their heroes and count the names before they get to William Buckley.

And even then there’s a joke somewhere in the middle. While I will admit that I am a fan of the late William F. Buckley Jr. I also admit that this conservative libertarian was equally against the criminalization of marijuana. Most “conservatives” tend to ignore that fact. (That’s ok, most liberals tend to be equally myopic over their own “heroes” as well.)

“Conservative / Liberal” is always a vague concept at best when trying to classify people. Why not look at Republican and Democrat instead. After all, we have that great Republican who fought for civil rights.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. … who did you think I was thinking of?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Califorina is the perfect example of the problems of big goverment with big reaching regulations without a vague understanding that the state simply doesn't have the resources to pay for all of this stuff in the first place.

Are you joking? Just to be completely clear, you're talking about the state of California, right? The one that has one of the 10 strongest economies in the world?

California can pay for its social services. The problem arises when it chooses not to.

As for women being “barefoot;” as far as I am concerned almost all practically are. Really, do you call those flimsy things you wear, with only a few straps on the top and barely a 1/8” of sole a proper “shoe?” Now I can see a good solid Birkenstock that has a good solid layer of cork, but not those things that are mostly flopping off of you feet at any moment.

My wife just got these kickass shoes called "five fingers", and she really likes them so far.

However, making light of female slavery makes you a bit of a jerk. Which means you're in good company, but I just thought I should point that out.

[Gelare]

Are you joking? Just to be completely clear, you're talking about the state of California, right? The one that has one of the 10 strongest economies in the world?

Uh, not to interrupt everyone during your crazy time, but California recently went bankrupt. They've stabilized for now, but seriously, "strong economy" doesn't mean "can pay for infinite social services".

[Username17]

Are you joking? Just to be completely clear, you're talking about the state of California, right? The one that has one of the 10 strongest economies in the world?

Uh, not to interrupt everyone during your crazy time, but California recently went bankrupt. They've stabilized for now, but seriously, "strong economy" doesn't mean "can pay for infinite social services".

But California went bankrupt because the Republicans stalled the budget. Had we passed a budget, we would not have gone bankrupt.

Basically, the Republicans can take their fiscal responsibility bullshit and shove it up their asses. They seriously deliberately forced the state into bankruptcy for no reason at all.

-Username17

[RobbyPants]

My wife just got these kickass shoes called "five fingers", and she really likes them so far.

My coworker got a pair of those, but he hasn't brought them in yet.
[/offtopic]

[Murtak]

I got a pair of those because I like to run around barefoot or in socks and I just moved into a new flat with really cold floors. Works decently so far, the rubber soles keep my feet warm just fine during the warmer months. No clue yet how well they will work in winter. I may have bought a size too small, since I managed to cut of circulation to a toe a couple of times. Other than that they are great, comfy while allowing you to feel the ground you walk on. I actually prefer driving with them than driving with shoes.

[tzor]

But California went bankrupt because the Republicans stalled the budget. Had we passed a budget, we would not have gone bankrupt.

Frank, this is not a contest between who has the best tin foil hat. But let’s look at the “official” documents.

Figure INT-01 displays the components of the $60 billion budget gap the state has faced in developing the budget for 2009-10. As the figure shows, the largest contributor to the budget gap is the reduction in the baseline revenue forecast for 2008-09 and 2009-10. This reduction is due almost entirely to the economic recession. In May 2008, the Department of Finance forecast the output of the state’s economy (as measured by personal income) to be $1.589 trillion in 2008, $1.655 trillion in 2009 and $1.739 trillion in 2010. In the May 2009 forecast, the equivalent values were $1.559 trillion, $1.543 trillion and $1.564 trillion, reflecting reductions of 1.9 percent, 6.8 percent and 10.1 percent, respectively. General Fund revenues are very sensitive to changes in the economy, so these reductions in economic output translated into massive reductions in the baseline revenue forecasts between May of 2008 and May of 2009 of 20.4 percent for 2008-09 and 22.7 percent in 2009-10. Figure INT-02 shows General Fund revenues over the last decade and demonstrates how severely the recession has affected revenues in the last two years.

Spending growth also contributed to the budget gap. For much of the last decade, state spending grew faster than population and inflation. As Figure INT-03 shows the budget reduces spending below the population and inflation trends. While the figure shows that spending grew sharply in 2004-05 and 2006-07, it is important to note that about half of the increase was due to repayment of debts incurred during the last state budget crisis and to the loss of one-time solutions adopted during that crisis.

So we come to the economic summary for the bureaucratically impaired. Revenue is a function of the economy; when it is good it is very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Expense is generally an “entitlement;” once you vote a group more money only hell and high water will make you want to cut back. Oh you can borrow once and pull accounting tricks once, but those are only one shot gimmicks and they won’t help you in the long term.

California’s budget situation is likely to remain challenging for some time for two reasons. First, while the economic forecast projects a recovery from the recession will begin next year, the recovery is not expected to be as robust as in past years. Second, some of the solutions to the budget crisis are one‑time, or of limited duration. This is to be expected in the face of such a severe fiscal crisis. It would simply not have been possible to have balanced the budget entirely with permanent tax increases and ongoing spending cuts, given federal, constitutional and other limitations. Further, as much of the current budget shortfall is associated with a temporary economic downturn, the inclusion of some temporary solutions is appropriate. Preliminary projections for the coming fiscal year suggest that the state will face a significant budget shortfall; perhaps in the $7 to 8 billion range, with even larger shortfalls projected in out‑years. However, the state’s ability to manage its way through the nadir of this economic cycle demonstrates a determination and ability to overcome future budget challenges. Moreover, the budget contains a wide range of reforms that will significantly reduce spending growth in the future.

[Murtak]

So we come to the economic summary for the bureaucratically impaired. Revenue is a function of the economy; when it is good it is very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Expense is generally an “entitlement;” once you vote a group more money only hell and high water will make you want to cut back. Oh you can borrow once and pull accounting tricks once, but those are only one shot gimmicks and they won’t help you in the long term.

Ok, let's assume your statement is true for a second. More economy = good, hand-outs = bad because you can't cut readily cut back on them - corrects? Now have a look at what happens during a recession. People spend less money because they are afraid they will need their money later, correct? Of course that only works for those affluent enough to actually not spend everything they get on the essentials. So the rich will save their money and the poor will keep spending.

So by your own argument you should only ever hand out money to the poor. Sure, you can't later take that back, but since the money goes back straight into the economy (and what's more, straight into industries likely to be based in your own country) you don't really lose out on anything.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Somebody get this man a drink!

[Crissa]

Nearly 2/3rds of the California legislators voted for a budget which included no new loans or liens, and had modest cuts to services and increases in fees.

However, 1/3rd of our legislators are Republicans. Who have, by the way, only voted to expand spending, cut taxes, and create more loans. They have not voted for a budget.

So Frank is entirely correct, and tzor is quoting irrelevant passages.

-Crissa

[angelfromanotherpin]

Conservapedia rewriting the Bible to remove 'Liberal' elements.

[Ganbare Gincun]

“Conservative / Liberal” is always a vague concept at best when trying to classify people. Why not look at Republican and Democrat instead. After all, we have that great Republican who fought for civil rights.

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. … who did you think I was thinking of?

That's not much of a surprise, given the fact that the Republican Party was intricately intertwined with the fall of the Confederacy and the institution of black slavery. Needless to say, the Republican Party wasn't very popular with white Southerners. Up until the 1960's, Southern Whites were almost universally Democrats, and Southern Blacks were almost universally Republicans. But that all changed whenever JFK and Lyndon Johnson championed and ultimately passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Nixon launched his "Southern Strategy" in 1970. To quote an excellent article about this issue that was written by a graduate student by the name of Simon Balto:

"Though it’s true that the Republican Party of the post-Civil War United States was the party of liberal advocacy (indeed, even radical in the sense of the “Radical Reconstruction” of the 1860s and ‘70s South), one doubts that Republicans of that era would find much in common with today’s GOP that has gone to such extreme lengths to suspend and dismantle the promising victories toward social and economic equality that the civil rights movement achieved. This is, after all the, the party that brought us, among other things: hyper-incarceration of the nonwhite poor; the revocation of improved-opportunity efforts such as affirmative action and minority-owned business set-asides; taxation plans that robbed American cities of their economic base; and the exacerbation of the American wealth gap, with those at the lowest rung of the economic ladder sacrificed at the neoliberal altar".

So yeah. The Republican Party can suck it.

[Ganbare Gincun]

So we come to the economic summary for the bureaucratically impaired. Revenue is a function of the economy; when it is good it is very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Expense is generally an “entitlement;” once you vote a group more money only hell and high water will make you want to cut back.

Tzor, do you think that taxes are just some kind of mechanism for needless income redistribution? Oh, wait. You're a teabagger. What was I thinking? Of course you do! But believe it or not, there is an actual reason why people in countries all over the world pay taxes. Allow me to refresh your memory:

Taxes are the collective price we pay for public goods and services. State and local taxes support our public schools, streets and highways, public hospitals that form the backbone of the state’s trauma care system, parks and beaches, the public health infrastructure that ensures that our food is safe to eat and our water is safe to drink (and that delivers water to homes across California), as well as a range of other services. While the primary purpose of a tax system is to raise the money needed to support public services, tax policy can also serve as an end in itself, providing incentives for taxpayers to engage in desired activities or providing cash assistance to certain individuals.

California would be able to balance its budget if it had tax revenue proportional to the needs of the state. But thanks to Proposition 13, they haven't been able to do so. Proposition 13 not only slashed California property taxes to a maximum of 1% of the assessed value, but it also requires California to have a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected. This is further compounded by the fact that over the past 15 years, California lawmakers have enacted tax cuts that will cost the state nearly $12 billion in 2008-09. That’s a larger loss than the $11.0 billion 2009-10 temporary increase in state tax revenues included in the February budget agreement. Moreover, while the tax increases included in the budget are all temporary, regardless of the outcome of the May election, the September 2008 and February 2009 budget agreements included massive corporate tax cuts that are permanent and that will reduce state revenues by approximately $2.5 billion per year when fully implemented. The fact of the matter is that California is simply not accruing the tax revenue that they need to offset the expenses that are necessary to provide services to the public.

And what is the answer to this situation in the eyes of California Republicans? The only answer they have for any situation, of course: Giant Frog more tax cuts, of course. Which is a fine idea if they want to auger the state into the ground, but is a terrible idea if they want to set their financial house in order. California would be much better off if their Republican legislators would just shamble off to Galt's Gulch and let more reasonable people take over governance of the state.

[Maj]

Somebody get this man a drink!

That is fucking awesome.

[Sock Puppet]

Conservapedia rewriting the Bible to remove 'Liberal' elements.

Rewriting the ever-lovin Bible to suit their own political agenda? God-diggity-damn, if there has ever been a more classic example of hubris I am at a loss to think of it. If anything, this is further proof of God's non-existence, seeing as these jackasses have not (yet) been struck down by the proverbial lightning-bolt.

[Maxus]

Conservapedia rewriting the Bible to remove 'Liberal' elements.

Rewriting the ever-lovin Bible to suit their own political agenda? God-diggity-damn, if there has ever been a more classic example of hubris I am at a loss to think of it. If anything, this is further proof of God's non-existence, seeing as these jackasses have not (yet) been struck down by the proverbial lightning-bolt.

I heard about Conservapedia the other day and checked it out to see if it was as bad as I thought it'd be. I can't say I'm surprised by things like their definition of 'liberal' and their claims to objectivity. Even the Bible project doesn't particular surprise me, though it does make me despair for conservatives ever stopping themselves from self-destructing and harming other parts of the country with them.

[Maxus]

Somebody get this man a drink!

Most awesome, and perked my mood up.

[mean_liar]

I think Ben Franklin's hand over his heart is the point at which I started to cackle.

...

I must admit that I was bested in humor by a friend:

"That kid must be pointing out the Establishment Clause to Jesus."

[violence in the media]

I liked the immigrant part myself. Essentially, you're free to worship as you choose, as long as it's Jesus.

[tzor]

So we come to the economic summary for the bureaucratically impaired. Revenue is a function of the economy; when it is good it is very good and when it is bad it is horrid. Expense is generally an “entitlement;” once you vote a group more money only hell and high water will make you want to cut back.

Tzor, do you think that taxes are just some kind of mechanism for needless income redistribution? Oh, wait. You're a teabagger. What was I thinking? Of course you do! But believe it or not, there is an actual reason why people in countries all over the world pay taxes.

First, I thought we agreed that I am not a “teabagger.” I’m a … oh never mind.

Second, I will never argue that “no” taxes are good. (In fact I will gladly argue the opposite; effective and efficient government is always my goal.) Each level of government (and proto-government if you consider such concepts as fire districts and school districts) has their own level of responsibilities and duties to perform. At the base level those items have to be paid for. This is the first and most important reason for taxes.

Barring the federal government with the ability to print money, the only way one can put money into the government system is to either take it out of the private system through taxes or to borrow the money from the private system in the form of bonds. This means that the government is dependent on the proper functioning of the private sector; in fact it has a vested interest to encourage growth as well as a vested interest not to kill that goose laying those golden eggs.

Bureaucracy is still the bane of government. (Remember that in the private sector people fail all the time; towns and states just don’t have the luxury to do so. Bureaucracy has killed many a corporation.) When times are good, instead of saving for a rainy day, one simply spends more. When times are bad, one discovers that the revenues are not sufficient to support the previous spending goals.

Finally, I view the entire system as a hybrid system, a combination of the public sector and the not for profit sector. While the government generally doesn’t do a good job of saving well, others in the private sector do. During hard economic times the trick is to get them to kick in, either by direct supporting of charities or through the purchase of government bonds. Raising taxes just won’t do it. In the first place it’s hard to fine turn the tax to get those who saved and not hurt those who did not do likewise. In the second place, no one really likes taxes. They may give charity, and they may invest in bonds, but if you find a way to get their money through taxes they (like the BORG) will quickly adapt and change their ways to keep that from happening again.

[Koumei]

but if you find a way to get their money through taxes they (like the BORG) will quickly adapt and change their ways to keep that from happening again.

Not if you do it my way: "You have too much money, so we are taking a chunk of your stuff. Comrade, get the truck!"

With a special provision for "You caused this problem and have way too much money, so we are taking all of your stuff. Including your pants. And we'd shoot you but bullets cost money, so think yourself lucky. Comrade, get the truck!"

[Crissa]

That's why the Federal Reserve does not serve at the President nor Congress's knee, and is instead independent, tzor.

So no, the 'government' cannot 'just print more money'.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

People like to be asked out on their merits, news at 11. OK Cupid did a study on first emails and their likelyhood to get a reply. But there are some not-so-surprising results:





-Crissa

[Heath Robinson]

I think Ben Franklin's hand over his heart is the point at which I started to cackle.

Someone on Pharyngula just linked to an alternative version. I like the alternative, frankly.

"Shinji did WHAT to Asuka?"

[Prak]

I think Ben Franklin's hand over his heart is the point at which I started to cackle.

Someone on Pharyngula just linked to an alternative version. I like the alternative, frankly.

"Shinji did WHAT to Asuka?"

Can't get the original version to load, but it took me a moment to notice what was going on with the short packed version.