Guard Dog

I would not make them citizens. However I would give them work permits. The problem is keeping them illegal not only deprives the community of tax on their wages, it enables exploitation of them because they can't complain. Particularly the agricultural workers are paid less than minimum wage. If you put a stop to treating them as little better than slave labor not only do we gain the benefit of tax dollars, they get a better wage and working conditions, and it because it now costs more to hire and manage them the demand for their services will likely shrink which, long term, will reduce the number of immigrants working here. Three birds with one stone.

No kidding. I posted a few pages ago a woman right here is Tennessee is facing six months in jail and fines for giving horses massage therapy for free because she isn't a veterinarian. But an illegal immigrant can work in the stable the horse lives in, pay no taxes and that's all ok? Personally I think it's all ridiculous but it's so much worse when the government chooses to hammer some folks but ignore others. I'd say leave everyone alone but failing that how about some consistency.

I like this idea: http://ballparkdigest.com/2017/02/22/report-mlb-facebook-discussing-live-stream/

Carry on the subject if you wish Gentlemen, I'm out.

I'm sure you can understand how I take it a little personally when others try to decide how important mental health related medical care is. Which is not what I was doing! This was a discussion about what taxpayers should pay for in one particular place.

...Which is exactly why the procedure is heavily restricted and only proscribed as a last resort when everything else fails. Compare and contrast with nose jobs and boob jobs (an equivalence you have drawn yourself). The equivalence is they are elective. You don't need to have them. And in the magazine I linked to there is a school of thought in the medical community that the permanence of the surgery complicates the problem rather than relives it. There is also a study from Denmark cited the the leading causes of death in post SRS patients in that country over 20 years are alcohol related illnesses, drug overdose, and suicide. Grrr.... here you do dragging me into it!

Grrrrrr!!!! You see what you've done Alum? That was the nastiness I was referring to! You made it sound like I had some issue with treating Gender Dysphoria. I don't. I never said anything of the sort. All I said was that it was an elective procedure. And it is. This went from a discussion of whether it should be paid for by the public funded healthcare plans to a discussion on the merits of the treatment itself. Exactly the conversation I was trying to avoid. And no everyone else, sex change is not the only treatment of the condition. If you want to read some interesting points of view about it check out National Geographic from last month. I read it cover to cover. Just like I do with every other issue: https://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/magazines/special-issues/national-geographic-gender-revolution-special-issue---u.s.?code=SR50004

Ben you are missing over half the conversation. Alum & I were discussion a single benefit offered in the employer provided health insurance for public sector employees in California. It's offered as part of their employment compensation benefits. It is not "State Healthcare" in the way you are thinking. My point was whether it is a waste of tax money (that is obviously needed elsewhere, like the Oroville Dam) to offer what might be considered elective surgery on the public dime. Alum's point was that it wasn't really elective surgery and considering the number of state employees it is a benefit that will be used so infrequently as to not be worth getting in a twist over. What you are talking about here is a whole other subject.

I didn't know that. Wild stuff.

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer? It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it. I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way. I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives! (The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.) *Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that! I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing. I'm not entirely sure what is nasty about pointing out that you're quibbling over a tiny fraction of the money you earn while walking from your cubicle to the water cooler, or that SRS has nothing in common with nose jobs and boob jobs. Unless, of course, boob jobs have become a legitimate and strictly regulated way to treat conditions that pose a danger to one's mental health since the last time I checked. Still? We don't agree. To continue that conversation we're going to have to dive into the particulars of whether or not Gender Reassignment Surgery is a valid treatment or not, which all leads right back to the thing I KNOW we are not going to find common ground on: who gets to pay for it. It's a long, OT conversation and I'm disinclined to dive into it. So let's agree to disagree.

GB are you worried the media is indeed controlling your thoughts ? How deep does the rabbit hole go ..... No of course they don't. But it is arrogance and hubris of the highest order that they think that is their role.

And the "media" further discredits itself. https://news.grabien.com/story-brzezinski-our-job-control-exactly-what-people-think

Bah, the purists probably want to go back to 221 game seasons and 9 game world series! But this BS they are going to "experiment" with in the Arizona summer League for extra innings just sucks. Each team starts with a runner on 2nd in the 10th inning. Nuts to that little league crap!

About time if you ask me. I never saw the sense in going through the motions.

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer? It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it. I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way. I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives! (The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.) *Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that! I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing. I'm more than happy to provide tax money to pay the salaries and benefits of public servants but this is not a liver transplant, or a broken bone repair we're talking about here. This is personal elective procedures that are no one's problem or business but the patient and the cost of which should be borne by the patient. If it was my son or daughter and this is what they needed to be happy I'd pay as much or all of it if I could. But I nor anyone else OWES that to anyone.

You won't get any argument from me that fixing the dam should be a higher priority. That being said, the bill was introduced on January 30th, and the dam failed a week later, so the timing just doesn't work as you presented it. Regardless, the bill is a response to research by UCLA that found that, on average, going to the beach is not affordable for many some certain an amount of Californians. Your counterpoint that "you lived in Florida and you could go to the beach" is simply not how research is discredited. Read the report, find flaws with it if you must, and make an argument based on that. Apparently California has a longstanding legislative commitment to make coastal access a reality for everyone. You might disagree with that but that's a different topic. I appreciate your perspective that "nobody should get a dollar they didn't work for", but if you're going to have any taxes at all, that's pretty much a given. I don't like taxes either, but the alternative is abolishing the social contract as it is. You down for that? You won't get any argument from me that fixing the dam should be a higher priority. That being said, the bill was introduced on January 30th, and the dam failed a week later, so the timing just doesn't work as you presented it. Regardless, the bill is a response to research by UCLA that found that, on average, going to the beach is not affordable for many some certain an amount of Californians. Your counterpoint that "you lived in Florida and you could go to the beach" is simply not how research is discredited. Read the report, find flaws with it if you must, and make an argument based on that. Apparently California has a longstanding legislative commitment to make coastal access a reality for everyone. You might disagree with that but that's a different topic. I appreciate your perspective that "nobody should get a dollar they didn't work for", but if you're going to have any taxes at all, that's pretty much a given. I don't like taxes either, but the alternative is abolishing the social contract as it is. You down for that? First of all the study. You did not read my comment on the beaches in Florida closely enough. I pointed out that there is a big difference in price between visiting Miami Beach and Crescent Beach, or Satellite Beach, or Jensen Beach. I could go on. If it is not affordable to go to Miami Beach, go to one of the 2062 other public beaches or coastal parks between Pensacola and Jacksonville. The study pointed out it costs $135-$265 per night for hotel stays on the coast. Fine Now drop everything south of Santa Barbara and the San Jose/San Francisco are and re-calculate the average. I'd wager is drops by at least 30-40%. If it is too expensive to stay at Laguna or Coranado there are still over 1400 KM of coast line, 167 state parks (36 of which have camping and beach access), 14 National Parks (4 of which have beach access and camping) that have sun sand and face the same ocean as Mission or La Jolla for a hell of a lot less money. And the state does not need to spend a nickel to figure that out. This is government nannyisim wasting money and time. Now, as to your second point. It is tiresome to hear the juxtaposition of notions that anger over wasted taxes means opposition to all taxes. Taxes are a necessary evil. And they are evil. They are theft. My home and my land are paid off. I own the title and deed to both. Yet every year I write check to the Tipton County Tax Collector for over $4k because if I don't they will take both away from me. Makes you wonder if I really own it or just squat here at the sufferance of the state. But things are how they are. Roads, police, fire departments, State Parks, and indeed my own salary must be paid for so I pay my share. The same goes to the percentage Uncle Sam takes out of my paycheck every two weeks. But it boils my blood as it should everyone's, when that money I worked for is wasted, spent frivolously, used to bomb people I have nothing against, or given to feckless crybabies who could take care of themselves but choose not to. And do not twist that into some sociopathic aspersion on the "social safety net". There does need to be one and indigent people should be assisted to some extent. Primarily in ways that help them back on their feet. Not that turn them into a permanent poverty stricken underclass that can do nothing and get a check better people worked hard to provide. I recall a long time ago. 1995 give or take. I was working in South Florida. I was working a low paying job and attending school at night (that I paid for myself). I stopped in the grocery store with just $36 left in my checking account. I spent $30 on groceries that I hoped would last two weeks. Ahead of me in line was a young couple who bought a full cart of wonderful things I could not even afford and pulled out a big book of Food Coupons (what they called food stamps back then. Now they get a debit card. Don't want to poor dears to feel bad) to pay for it all. I didn't pay them much mind until I got into the parking lot and say them loading all that wonderful bounty into a nicer truck than I could ever afford to own. Here I was literally working myself to death trying to improve my situation and these two, late 20's and healthy looking, and just living for free on everyone else. That is just wrong.

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer? It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

Yeah I posted that two pages ago. Like I said, it's a non-existent problem. There are many and more miles of beach in that state with affordable and even free accommodations once you get it through your head Santa Barbara, LA, San Jose, etc are going to be expensive and Cosa Mesa and other small towns are not. I grew up in Florida and I can tell you for a fact it is a hell of a lot more expensive to stay in Miami Beach than Crescent Beach but when you are standing on the sand looking at the ocean they both look identical.

The Rays are closing in on a new ballpark too. they want one in downtown Tampa but it really looks like the fates are aligned against it. The easiest location is in the north part of Tampa where the old greyhound track used to be. It's got public transportation nearby and room to develop. But they want to be in the middle of things and that location is a little remote. They have two spots in mind in St. Pete and the city seems willing to do a lot to keep them on the west side of the Bay. But I think that is a mistake. The majority of ticket buyers are coming from Tampa not St. Pete. The Marlins made the mistake of moving away from their fan base and despite that beautiful new stadium attendance has not been all that good. I hope the Rays take note. Too bad this one fell through. It was a open air with a retractable sail cloth cover. It was supposed to go on the waterside in St. Pete.

From what I read, the bill aims to develop new and maintain already existing low-cost lodgings, not "subsidize vacations for the poor". Looks to me that you could benefit from that yourself, if you wanted to, but I could be wrong. A band-aid at best, as far as addressing wealth inequality is concerned. Frankly I'm more baffled at the outrage over free gender reassignment surgery what is so baffling about it? Well, the usual argument against any sort of inclusion of trans people in media is that they are such a teensy-tiny impossibly small minority you might as well not bother, right? And to qualify for gender reassignment surgery, not only do you need to be trans, but you actually need a qualified psychiatrist determine that not doing the surgery poses a severe risk to your mental health and HRT and assorted treatments no longer cut it, which makes any people who qualify a small minority of an even smaller minority. I have a hard time imagining that actual taxpayer money spent on this would ever rise above "this is practically chump change" levels. A rounding error. Well depends on how you look at it. There is also tiny minority of people who have... I don't know Zika for example, but its life threatening disease. I am not too educated in US health insurances but I think they are pretty strict on which diseases or even medications they cover No, not really. If a medication or treatment is FDA approved and prescribed by doctor it will be covered. It may not be completely covered or you may get a generic if one is available but you won't be paying it all out of pocket. And after that there are price share clubs and discount clubs like Medi-share and Good RX to lower costs. A lot of folks make US medical care sound like a Darwinist dystopia but that really is not the case. But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

From what I read, the bill aims to develop new and maintain already existing low-cost lodgings, not "subsidize vacations for the poor". Looks to me that you could benefit from that yourself, if you wanted to, but I could be wrong. A band-aid at best, as far as addressing wealth inequality is concerned. Frankly I'm more baffled at the outrage over free gender reassignment surgery That is ELECTIVE surgery! C'mon. If you have a state policy and need a coronary bypass then sign here... you're covered. But no one is going to die because the state refused to pay for them to become man surgically disguised as a woman (or vice versa). Why not pay for nose jobs and breast augmentations then? Or maybe they do. Meanwhile over in Oroville... tick tock tick tock

Another example of Government run amok. Massaging a horse (for free) in Tennessee will land you in jail for six months and a $500 fine: http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/17/woman-could-go-to-jail-for-horse-massage I live in Tennessee and I've found it to be on of the more same and reasonable states. What does THAT say? I'm reminded of a quote by H.L Mencken "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."

The Oroville Dam was built by CALIFORNIA Department of Water Resources as part of the CALIFORNIA State Water Project to provide irrigation and electric power to San Joaquin Valley (which is in CALIFORNIA). I missed the part where the FEDERAL Government had anything to do with that. The State of California has the 2nd highest state tax burden in the Unites States. Seems to me Sacramento should be using the money taken from the sweat and labor of it's citizens and fixing it's infrastructure rather than wasting it trying to subsidize low cost beach accommodations. Besides California has some 1400 KM of coastline, there are MANY places where it is inexpensive to vacation. In fact there are many National and State Parks on the ocean that cost almost nothing to visit. Rather than solve problems that sound good but are not really problems perhaps the folks in Sacramento should do what they are supposed to be doing.

The A's are looking at four potential stadium locations: http://ballparkdigest.com/2017/02/20/kaval-four-potential-sites-for-new-oakland-athletics-ballpark/ You have to figure if the Raiders do leave, the Warriors are already crossing the Bay, the municipalities are going to be motivated to keep their last big league pro team.