Author Topic: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?  (Read 591 times)

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« on: November 09, 2010, 08:06:27 PM »
OK, riddle fans, here's a toughie: What's the difference between California voters and the passengers on the Titanic?

The passengers on the Titanic didn't vote to hit the iceberg.

Most Americans understand that California is sinking. What is almost incredible is that it has voted to sink.

On Election Day, 2010 Californians voted Democrats into every statewide position (one is still undecided). This is the party that singlehandedly has brought one of the world's greatest economies to near ruin. There may well be historical parallels to what Californians did -- but I cannot think of any.

A listener called my radio show two days after the elections to tell me that his business is booming -- thanks to Californians. His occupation? He's a real estate agent in Phoenix, Ariz.

The middle class has begun to leave California. It is, of course, impossible for most members of such a large group to leave a state; few people leave their family, their friends, their job and their home except under the most dramatic circumstances. But this fact makes all the more noteworthy the exodus from California that has been taking place.

You have to wonder how many businesses and individuals would leave California if their friends and family could also leave, if they could find a comparable job elsewhere and if they could sell their homes without losing money. What you don't have to wonder about is who would stay under those conditions. The state of California would eventually be left largely with those groups who voted Democrat in this election: rich liberals (such as those who live in Nancy Pelosi's Marin County, in the bay area and in West Los Angeles); state and municipal workers (who vote Democrat in as direct a pay-for-vote scheme as a law-based society allows); those who rely on state and city governments for entitlements; and those Latinos who either fall into the last category or who unfortunately identify the Republican Party with anti-Latino sentiments because it opposes illegal immigration.

Those who believe in individual responsibility, the free market and personal liberty are a minority in California. We greet each other as Americans would greet each other meeting in a foreign country.

We watch as one of the greatest places in the world -- with its extraordinary natural beauty, almost uniquely beautiful weather and agricultural abundance -- wastes all of this as a result of having become a left-wing experiment. What is particularly saddening is to see a state whose success was achieved because it was a Mecca for the adventurous in spirit do everything possible to crush that spirit and drive away those who have it.

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2010, 09:36:16 PM »
I've yet to see one pro-Brown CA resident actually talk about any of Brown's positions on issues. People like BayGM, who would rather spend three weeks avoiding Ozmo's questions on the subject, are too busy talking about Whitman and appear clueless.

The fact that the majority of Californians appear to vote on party lines and not where the candidates actually stand on any of the issues is a good example of why that state is a fiscal wreck.


MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1398
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #2 on: November 09, 2010, 09:44:37 PM »

Good post. But you forgot to give proper credit to the man who wrote the column : my favorite Radio Host Dennis Prager. And you didnt post the entire column.

http://www.guy?page=1

Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

Hereford

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4028
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #3 on: November 09, 2010, 11:29:36 PM »
That's all I had. Thanks for the rest.

I seriouly don't know where Brown sits on ANY issue, other than being a 100% pro-union backer. His entire campain was based around bashing Whitman...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2010, 04:54:37 AM »
Great article!   But this is no different than in NY, although we did get 6 new GOP house seats and the GOP took back the senate in the state leg. 

But the overall themse is the same. 

Again - those who benefit from the theft can always be relied upon to vote for more for the same. 

Brown, Boxer, fienswien, pelosi, waxman, maxine waters, et al represent this shit and filth of society - the welfare bum, the govt union hack, the racist minorities looking for handouts and reperations, the whacked out fringers on the far left from SF, the commies, the dope addicts, the guilt ridden suicidal whites, etc etc.   


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2010, 05:38:29 AM »
California: America's Greece
By Josh Lipton  November 8, 2010 11:24 AM



________________________ ______________________
       


CAN CALIFORNIA BE SAVED?

There is no state in our union suffering a bigger fiscal fiasco than California, with its structural budget deficit, $500 billion unfunded pension liability, and double-digit unemployment rate.

Yet, while most of the country gave Republicans a resounding victory in last Tuesday’s congressional elections, Californians voted for still more liberal Democratic policies.

As Steven Greenhut pointed out in a recent City Journal article, California voters resurrected the career of their 1970-era governor Jerry Brown; Senator Barbara Boxer won reelection; and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom won overwhelmingly in his race for lieutenant governor.

They supported Proposition 25, which lowers the state’s two-thirds vote requirement for passing budgets. This will push Republicans in the legislature further to the margins. They rejected Proposition 23, which would have suspended the state’s global-warming law until unemployment fell. They also voted down Proposition B, which would have imposed modest reforms on San Francisco’s pension and health-care systems for retired employees.

All this leaves economists concerned about the Golden State’s future.

“The Left Coast is working on becoming America’s Greece,” writes Dr. Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research, adding, “This state is among the most likely to experience a financial crisis over the next couple of years, and now is even more likely to wind up in a fiscal ditch.”

For their part, California’s politicians honestly don’t understand all the fuss. Lt. Governor-elect Newsom, for instance, had this to say after winning the race:

"We're nothing but a mirror of our consistent thoughts. You tend to manifest what you focus on. If you look around for what's wrong, you'll find it. But as all we know up here in San Francisco, when you focus on what's right, you see it all around you. . . . There is absolutely nothing wrong with California that can't be fixed by what's right with California. . . . If you're from another state, you'd love to have the problems of California."

Barbara Boxer – that’s Senator Boxer to you! – chimed in on election night that it's her "eleventh straight election victory, and what a sweet one it is . . . [since] everything was thrown at us, including the kitchen sink, and the stove and the oven and everything, millions of dollars of negative ads from known and unknown opponents, millions and millions of dollars."

Maybe some of these lawmakers assume that their friends and neighbors in more fiscally responsible states will just ride to the rescue, if need be. Don’t count on it, says Allysia Finley, a lapsed Californian and current assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com, in an editorial this morning:

“We've tried to help you, California. Some spent millions on campaigns to entice you to change your reckless behavior. And you told them to kick rocks. So here's our final warning: When you inevitably crash and burn, don't count on us to bail you out."

http://www.minyanville.com/dailyfeed/california-americas-greece/


George Whorewell

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7362
  • TND
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2010, 06:48:41 AM »
Illegals can't swim?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2010, 05:25:57 AM »
Updated: LAO deficit projection: $25.4 billion (CA)
Sacramento Bee ^ | 11/10/2010 | Kevin Yamamura


________________________ ________________________ ___

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown will face a massive $25.4 billion budget shortfall next year - twice as large as legislative leaders were anticipating - according to a new projection from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

California faces another major budget problem because tax rates are slated to drop next year, the federal government will provide far less relief to states, and state leaders enacted a flimsy fiscal plan last month.


Of the $25.4 billion, $19.3 billion is projected for the 2011-12 fiscal year that begins in July. The remaining $6.1 billion is due to overly optimistic assumptions in the current 2010-11 budget plan.


Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/11/lao-deficit-projection-254-bil.html#ixzz14wO8tAdV


(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.sacbee.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41759
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: How Do California and the Titanic Differ?
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2010, 12:16:11 PM »
S.F. may hit drivers with variety of tolls
 Source: San Francisco Chronicle


Drivers crossing greater downtown San Francisco and the southern border with San Mateo County could be hit with a new toll costing them as much as $1,560 a year.

Everyone from workers to parents dropping off their kids at school could have to pay the new charge, which is designed to ease congestion and raise revenue for extra bus service, pothole repairs and bike and pedestrian improvements.

For several years, San Francisco transportation officials have considered imposing a charge to drive in targeted neighborhoods, and on Wednesday they said they hope to move forward with one or more pilot projects.

The earliest the new tolls would go into effect would be 2015, and then only for a six-month to one-year experiment to gauge public reaction and the effectiveness.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/1...