Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (202949)	5/19/2009 8:30:58 AM
From: Bank Holding Company	Respond to of 306849

The thing i absolutely hate about California Govt is you got these quasi-private companies so deeply ingrained like a really bad tape worm (HP, EDS, Insur co's in general). At some point the systems just ceases to function when people say, I've had enough.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (202949)	5/19/2009 9:01:25 AM
From: The Reaper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

Reagan years doubled absolute revenue to the Treasury per year by the end. Democratic Congress and Senate during those years managed to spend more than that each year. You keep blaming Reagan for his economic policies when the blame belongs to both houses. CA legislature can't keep itself from spending more money than they have no matter what the tax revenue. The "electorate" has had it. All these propositions will go down today. CA is on the fast track to BK without federal help. It's been building for years all due to a free spending legislature which I may add has been Democratic for years and years.

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (202949)	5/19/2009 9:40:20 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 306849

>>You're so deeply lost in the fantasy world promoted by Juan Peron and Ronald Reagan that you believe spending more than you take in is a permanent solution. It's not.<< you are blinded by your paradigm. i do not believe in spending more than i take in and i believe ronald reagan did this nation a great disservice by not reigning in the deficit. he is to blame, in large part, for why we are in the bind we are today. the fact you think i believe the opposite tells how broken your paradigm is. >>The only way to reduce government spending is for the electorate to immediately feel the pain of their decisions.<< that would help, but here is the problem. the skills required to get elected are those commonly held by sociopaths. the elite like sociopaths b/c they can own them. politicians, just like arnold, will say they will reduce spending and then increase it 50% - just like arnold. aronold became exactly what he trashed during his election run. the public has no defense when anyone with a chance to win is sociopathic liar. take obama, for instance. he said that tax payer money would not be used to bail out bankers while running. he's diverted trillions of tax payer money to bankers. he wants to transfer another trillion. he lied to get elected. there was NO VOTE to prevent the banking oligarchy from being bailed out. none. it didn't exist. the sociopath candidates had the banking industry covered - they pay the best. >>Do they want another war? A bank bail-out?<< the american people made it clear they DID NOT want a bank bailout some phone calls to reps were 99-1 against. IT DIDN'T MATTER! >>Posh new transportation systems? Then they have to feel the pain of paying for them, right now.<< i agree. i DO NOT support deficit spending. it is criminal. >>Many voters are like slugs, if they don't feel the electric shock they don't learn to avoid saying yes.<< agreed. >>Reagan and Peron used debt to give the voter anesthetic so they could carve off pieces of their flesh without the voter feeling it. That's not a solution of government spending. You need to read just your thinking.<< no, you need to adjust your paradigm. it is too simple minded. i agree with everything you said except that nonsense about me supporting deficit spending. however, i added that sociopathic liar candidates owned by special interests makes it pretty much a no win situation. bearing the pain up front and immediately would be a MASSIVE improvement in a deeply flawed system, though. btw, none of your rant had anything to do with the post to which you responded - CA doubled the size of government within 10 years while legal residents actually declined and that a metric ton of money was doled out to special interests behind the public's back. nobody asked the public to increase pensions to 90% after 30 years... but the unions wrote checks and got what they want. the point remains uncontested b/c it is the TRUTH, your simple minded, ad hominem attack notwithstanding. Elroy, does your livelihood depend directly on a government check of some sort?