Thread: BANKRUPT - California Declares Fiscal Emergency

It's really a smoke and mirrors budget. Some of the so-called cuts requre a two thirds vote which is almost impossible to get. In the meantime the Shyster wants us to vote for tax increases before the cuts are voted on! If the increases pass what do you think the Shyster will do? He'll sign the budget without at least some of the cuts and than claim he's working for the people.

RELATED

CA. Gov. to disconnect 48,000 cell phones for state workers

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-224275-cellphones.html

CA. Gov. to disconnect 48,000 cell phones for state workers

Originally Posted by NoBueno

CA. Gov. to disconnect 48,000 cell phones for state workers

================================

Wouldn't they save quite a bit more to disconnect the millions of illegal aliens living there, along with the mayor of Los Angeles and all the enablers in the California congress and senate?

Answer: YES!


Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - Enabler of Illegal Alien Invasion With His Chief Right-hand Avisor . . The Catholic Church
April 10, 2006

VIDEO: L.A.'s Homeless Immigrants
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interacti ... TE=7219%27

Originally Posted by NoBueno

CA. Gov. to disconnect 48,000 cell phones for state workers

Requiring 48,000 cellphones to be turned in by June 1 will save the state about $20 million a year.

Requiring 48,000 cellphones to be turned in by June 1 will save the state about $20 million a year.

Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinio ... 2903.story


Someone who hops the fence has broken the law

January 22, 2011

I recently read a letter on the subject of illegal immigration that brought a tear to my eye. The writer is no doubt a caring and warm-hearted individual, but that wasn't what tugged at my heartstrings. Rather, I was moved by the author's failure to understand one of the most serious problems facing our country.

The writer starts off from a solid premise, "The United States must have guarded borders and enforceable immigration laws," but immediately demonstrates that he misses the entire point when he adds "that is not the case, and so we must find some way to grant amnesty to those honest, non-criminal people who squeezed through the loopholes."

A person who enters this country in a manner that does not conform to U.S. immigration laws is committing a criminal act, prima facie. The fact that he/she might otherwise be an honest person is irrelevant. This is no more squeezing through a loophole than someone who breaks into and squats in your home while you're away on vacation.

In the immigration analogy, this person is to be referred to by some politically correct, "sanitized" term (e.g., uninvited house guest) who must be fed, educated and given medical care — at your expense — until such time as he/she might decide to leave.

The writer concludes, "we should provide a way for them to earn legal status when their residency is already a status quo." A legal U.S. immigrant, Albert Einstein, defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Our feckless politicians act as though they're smarter than he was because they continue to "reward" illegal immigrants as soon as they've hopped the fence.

Our federal deficit is huge and continues to balloon, and there are many states and municipalities that are functionally bankrupt. At the local level, we continue to cut services that are funded by taxes collected from legal U.S. residents while providing free, public education for the offspring of illegal immigrants.

We need more effective tools to close our porous borders, even as we admit that previous successes in this area have been illusive. More importantly, we need to remove the unintended incentives that attract illegal immigrants to this land. While this will surely not be easy, it has to begin without further delay. The price of continuing inaction will be far too great.

Mike Friedrich is a resident of Plantation.

I don't personally see what the big fuss is over allowing states to file bankruptsy. I may be misunderstanding something of course as I'm no economy major. I'm strongly against bailing out bad choices and states have made those just like the fed government.

They say if the states default it will ruin the states but I don't see how. It ruins their credit on borrowing but well... isn't that the problem? Shouldn't they only be allowed to spend what they have vs what they wish they had? Yes, bankruptsy destroys your credit and tears up that credit card.... but seems to work for people and business's alike being told not to spend what you don't have... I figure a state should work the same way.

Of course I can see the issue if the US defaults as a nation... as I'd like to see that federal credit card torn up simply not paying and saying "sorry, to bad" would destroy the value of the dollar destroying many US business's that have any internation ties which the vast majority do in some way even if its just where a few of their products come from. As the US isn't in a state of being able to be fully self sufficient currently (even though I wish it was).

So... am I missing anything? Is there really some horrible point to allowing states to declare bankruptsy and the Fed courts just sit in to make sure they at least try and do what they can while NOT bailing the state out?

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Requiring 48,000 cellphones to be turned in by June 1 will save the state about $20 million a year.

:wink: :wink:

[quote:3acgj12t]Welfare Tab for Children of Illegal Immigrants Estimated at $600M in L.A. County

:? :?[/quote:3acgj12t]
I would like to see all welfare cut to illegal aliens and anchor babies, BUT, that wouldn't save any state any money.
Welfare money comes from the federal government to the state.
If the state doesn't give it to anyone they have to return it to the feds.
The more the feds give any state, the more they give away.
So it is like stimulas money to cities, counties and states.
If they don't give it out they must return it to the feds and they don't get the benefit of it being spent in their community.

Some benefits are a combination of federal and state funds but the states feel the same way about that money because for each state dollar they spend they get 2 or 3 federal dollars to go with it. Therefore it is in the city, county and states' interest to spend the money and keep the money flowing.

Brown shrinks governor’s office by 11 percent

. . . Brown said he’ll cut the governor’s office staff by 25 percent . . .

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1173790.html#1173790