Mosque = big story, Republicans block aid to 9-11 victims = non story

And I apologize for accusing you of lying. Your only other posts I have seen here were the ones related to the bizarre 9/11 plane claim, so that's the frame of reference I was using. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt though.

 

This Randian using force argument is over used to the point of being meaningless. I don't agree with a lot of things the government does but I believe in representative democracy. The Randian force argument would essentially mean that representative democracy should exist since anytime the government spends any tax dollars without your specific consent it is force.

Payment of fire fighters can come from a variety of sources, including Federal. Anyway if its state money then what about your state forcing you to pay for something you don't agree with.

The problem with private or charitable fire fighting is that fire's tend not to discriminate in regard to whether they are burning the property of someone who has paid, or donated or not.

 

I don't think I was misleading. We both agree that New York has way mroe debt then Texas (a republican legislature). Which was my original point. We may disagree on numbers, but who cares. It doesn't make my point false.

 

Its not but it is still a big debt unlike your earlier claim, which I am glad to see you retracted, that TX had a surplus. At the same time I don't think you can make an exact comparison given that TX economy is driven by different things than NY or CA. Its not just a matter of management but that economic drivers.

 

silly Major...you know your not supposed to make rational logical arguments in the D&D :grin:
(repped)

 

Rand believed in using force(tax payer money) for protection of individual rights (primarily the right to life). This is opposed to using force for moral opinion (concepts like welfare. unless you deem having money a right.). Since illegals don't have any rights in this country force should not be used.

I am not sure how much have the federal budget goes to firefighters (I would hope very little). I was viewed it as a state issue. If the federal government is paying for firefighters then I disapprove of that.

As long as the government was using force to protect my individual rights then I wouldn't consider it an abuse of force even if i disagreed with it's effectiveness.

I have no problem with states forcing citizens to pay for firefighters (I consider it a protection of the right to live). I am not sure I am answering your question.

 

Sort of derailing the thread, but I agree. His point is usually a very solid one, too, but often gets ignored by most people because he's a "funny man".

 

More Jon Stewart:


<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-16-2010/mosque-erade'>Mosque-Erade</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:350555' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos/tag/Tea+Party'>Tea Party</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

 

But the reason for Texas' surplus - the rainy day fund - existed long before Texas was a GOP state. The GOP governor legislature actually tripled Texas' debt from $10B to $30B in a matter of just the last 8 years. But even that might not mean a lot - debt is different if it's just general obligation debt or is backed by a payment stream (toll roads, for example). I have no idea how much of New York or Texas's outstanding debt is general vs backed by any specific revenues - but that's really the info we'd need to know to determine who's debt is unhealthier.

In the shorter term, you want to look at deficits (that's what I thought you were referring to at first); there, both states fail. Texas did well at the beginning of the recession due to a variety of factors like a diversified economy and $150 oil, but's it caught up. Both states are projected to have massive deficits for the upcoming fiscal year.

 

This is going to backfire on the GOP big time. No one is going to remember a freakin mosque come Nov.

What they will remember is that the GOP isn't friendly to minorities like Muslims, Hispanics, Gays and such, and it's going to make every other minority uncomfortable and the Republicans continue to define and self-stereotype themselves as being intolerant.

Newsflash to the GOP - there's only so many aging white men who still think like it's the 1950's. Dying breed my conservative friends, and I yearn for the America that much more free of bigotry.

 

Horse hockey.


As of July 11, 2010, however, the state faced a budget shortfall of up to $18 billion dollars

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Texas_state_budget


2011 Budget Shortfall

A budget shortfall is projected at anywhere between $11 to $17 billion as lawmakers head into the 2011 session, according to projections from economists and the Comptroller's office. Texas writes budgets biennially, or in two-year terms, so the shortfall affects the 2012-2013 state budget.

The leadership in the Texas Legislature, which is dominated by fiscal conservatives, is not expected to support attempts to raise taxes to fill the multi-billion dollar hole. But social service advocates say the state's safety net system can't afford any further budget cuts.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/


Texas Budget Mess Now as Bad as California's
by Dave Mann
Published on: Thursday, July 08, 2010

It’s come to this: The Texas budget outlook has become so bleak that we’re comparing rather favorably to the one state where balanced budgeting goes to die.

People, our budget deficit is now as bad as California’s.

Yes, the over-spending, over-regulated capital of hippiedom now has a state fiscal outlook on par with the Lone Star State.

That fact may not sit well with some people—especially in the governor’s office, which loves to bash California and never misses an opportunity to point out how Texas’ low-tax, business-friendly model has led to a more robust economy and sound state finances. When California faced a $60 billion deficit last year—a shortfall that was bigger than the entire budget of most states—you could almost hear the chortling from the Texas governor’s office. It seemed a handy example of what happens when you put big-spending liberals in charge.

It wasn’t that simple, though. The causes of California’s problems—and Texas’ lack thereof—were varied and complex. And now the states’ budget deficits are looking very similar.

Texas: $18 billion shortfall (estimated) or about 20 percent of state spending.

California: $19.1 billion shortfall (official estimate) or about 20 percent of state spending.

The numbers match up pretty neatly.

A couple of caveats: Texas—as you probably know—budgets in two-year cycles. If the budget gap does turn out to be $18 billion (and we won’t have an official number until early next year), that would represent about 20 percent of the $87 billion in state funds that Texas allocated for 2010-2011.

California budgets one year at time. But the state spends about double what Texas does. So a $19.1 billion budget gap represents about 20 percent of the roughly $83 billion California will spend this year from its general fund.

http://www.texasobserver.org/contrarian/texas-budget-mess-now-as-bad-as-californias

 

I think, in the short run, this actually works for the GOP. They are pretty good at this kind of game of stoking anger in such a way to get out the vote. Conversely, Dems are NOT good at this kind of stuff. I think Dems should be prepared for an ugly November.

That said, these decisions they are making now are going to hurt them in the long run. Manufactured anger doesn't last, but the complete f-you being given to Latinos (with the Arizona stuff) and now Muslims does get remembered. This is why black voters vote 95+% Dem. It won't be that extreme with these other groups, but it will be up there. And the next time there's a "normal" election without the manufactured anger, the GOP has a smaller base of voters to rally. I think this is a dangerous path they are on - they will win in the short term, but then get obliterated down the line. At that point, I think they will keep doubling down to manufacture more and more anger.

 

Man this thread has gotten derailed.

The idea that Texas's financial situation is equally bad as New York's or California's is insane to me. California is on the verge of needing a bailout and no report I can find backs up your claim that Texas is not well off:

States with biggest debt burden

Gaps States Face in 2011

Worst Budget deficits for 2010

Pain Index: Top 10 States

Most Debt Rideen States (Texas 3rd to last)

 

This is 2008 data + your are comparing debt data to budget shortfalls.

The notion that somehow Texas is not going to have to make serious cuts is false.

 

Simply admit that you posted a bogus figure about the financial health of this state and you can go along your merry way searching for facts.

 

I already have. Simply admit that this first responders bill was a dirty political trick at the expense of the first responders and that you have no argument so you have to pick apart little details of no relevance so you can sleep at night. BTW you posted a claim that California and Texas have the same defecit. Do you want to apologize for that?

 

California and Texas currently have budget deficits that are approximately equal to the same percentage of state revenue. The comparison is accurate. Where they differ is that California has a huge state debt. That difference is something reflected in our different state constitutions. Ours, theoritically, doesn't allow state debt, although reality is a bit different. Your point, however, was that Texas has a budget surplus, when in fact it's looming deficit, again, is in the same ballpark percentage as The State of Arnold. There is nothing for me to "apologize" for.

 

That is 100% not true. In fact you're just spewing political bull**** about a pork barrel laden bill that in fact has virtually none.

In fact you probably havent read the transcripts of the floor debates in Congress but I'll clue you in. They had NOTHING to do with fights over where the money was going. The fight was over how the bill was funded. The bill was being funded by a tax on foreign businesses in the US while the Republicans wanted to fund it by siphoning money off of funds allocated to the Obama Health Care bill.

This wasnt a political trick, it was a bull**** fight over funding the bill in which Republicans wanted to use the bill to mess with an existing health care bill that they opposed and then voted no when they couldnt have their way.

In fact here's the bill, go find me the massive pork barrel spending in it that you talked about earlier. (here's a hint - it doesnt exist)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111Q2s5jl::

 

I have read the transcripts and posted the Republicans complaint about the funding earlier in the thread. The pork I mention is paying for illegal immigrants who were responders.

The Democrats could of done two things to get health care to the first responders:

1) They could of introduced the bill by normal means (requiring a majority vote to pass not 2/3). If they had done this, Republicans would of been able to introduce amendments to the bill to two previously mentioned problems with the bill. Blue Dog Democrats would of had to vote with the Republicans and the amendments would of passed (this was the Democrats fear at least).

2) They could of fixed these issues with the bill themselves and then tried to pass by a simple majority or by 2/3 (wouldn't of mattered it would of passed either way).

They did neither of these, because they wanted illegal immigrant who were responders to get health care and because they wanted the money to come from businesses. If they just wanted to get responders health care they could have. I consider this a political maneuver at the expense of first responders.