Politics 2017 Part 3

[Guard Dog]

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.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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 

[Chilloutman]

 

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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?

[Guard Dog]

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."

[Guard Dog]

 

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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.

[Chilloutman]

 

 

 

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

A new bill has been introduced into the State Assembly to use the tax dollars of hard working folks to subsidize low cost beach vacations for the "poor". Wow What a great place to be poor huh? If you work for the city of San Francisco you can get a free sex change and a trip to the beach, all paid for by your fellow citizens.

 

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!

[ShadySands]

Maybe not a Darwinist dystopia (I like that term btw) but medical bills are the number one reason for brankruptcy in the US by a country mile

[Malcador]

Well sex changes aren't like boob jobs, really.

 

This is the outrage du jour? http://m.ocregister.com/articles/beach-743100-beaches-people.html

[aluminiumtrioxid]

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

[Guard Dog]

Well sex changes aren't like boob jobs, really.

 

This is the outrage du jour? http://m.ocregister.com/articles/beach-743100-beaches-people.html

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. 

[Guard Dog]

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

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.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

I wonder if there is some way I can finagle myself a state subsidized limo driver. I'm just an average schmuck too and I really really really hate traffic. Wont somebody think of the children me?

[Zoraptor]

Edit2: Note to Swedish government, this is how you handle headscarfs: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-lepen-idUSKBN1600R6

Go to someone else's country, be told what you needed to do at a meeting then throw a paddy when you actually have to do it- to get domestic political points? I'm not completely anti Le Pen by any means, but that was pure political stunt.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, but a great one. If you go to someone else's country, and they require you to humiliate yourself, you have a full right to tell them gfy.

[Malcador]

Kind of a low bar for great. Of course, opens one up to have that turned against you when you tell another "When in Rome.."

[Malcador]

 

Well sex changes aren't like boob jobs, really.

 

This is the outrage du jour? http://m.ocregister.com/articles/beach-743100-beaches-people.html

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.

Didn't notice the link at the bottom of your post, weird. Well, not a non existent problem, just not that severe to the people affected and not like you give a toss. Partly aimed at improving existing low income housing, anyway. Price of being in a society I guess (added bonus of spinning up libertarians as well )

[213374U]

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.

 

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?

Edited February 21, 2017 by 213374U

[Gfted1]

The more that I think about it, the more I realize how badly Im getting screwed by driving myself to work 5 days a week. Check it out: 1) It costs me ALMOST $30 PER WEEK for gasoline 2) annual depreciation of my vehicle due to Illinois roadways 3) ALMOST $1000 PER YEAR for auto insurance 4) ALMOST $10 PER WEEK in assorted road tolls. It literally costs me money to go to work! If papa Illinois would kindly take these burdens off my plate it would be greatly appreciated.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

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!

[Zoraptor]

Yes, but a great one. If you go to someone else's country, and they require you to humiliate yourself, you have a full right to tell them gfy.

 

Depends. Realistically the whole trip was done for stunt value rather than to shore up Le Pen's somewhat shaky diplomatic credentials and that will certainly play well to her base, but it also illustrates that she will have problems if elected dealing with the large number of ex French colonies that are muslim and where a Christian isn't constitutionally always the President as in Lebanon. Her meeting with kind of moderate but currently Saudi puppet Lebanon PM Saad Hariri didn't exactly go well, either, and not due to any veil wearing. She doesn't have any problems appealing to her base anyway and is a shoe in for round 2, but she needs basically every Fillon supporter to then vote for her and there stunts are less helpful.

 

Kind of a low bar for great. Of course, opens one up to have that turned against you when you tell another "When in Rome.."

 

Yeah, but most people who use a 'When in Rome' type argument (for their own country/ immigrants) are actually using it as a cultural superiority argument rather than a cultural acceptance argument. Practically all the potential Le Pen supporters would think "When in France, do as the French do. When in Lebanon... you should also do as the French do, because we're just the best and our values are better than yours" more than anything else. And from that point of view the hypocrisy inherent in wanting immigrants to adopt your culture but not wanting to adopt any else's when in their country doesn't matter.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, but the French aren't moving to Lebanon, if they were you'd have a point. It's like Mexicans waving Mexican flags in US but try that **** in Mexico with an American flag.

[Guard Dog]

 

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.

 

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?

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Azdeus]

The more that I think about it, the more I realize how badly Im getting screwed by driving myself to work 5 days a week. Check it out: 1) It costs me ALMOST $30 PER WEEK for gasoline 2) annual depreciation of my vehicle due to Illinois roadways 3) ALMOST $1000 PER YEAR for auto insurance 4) ALMOST $10 PER WEEK in assorted road tolls. It literally costs me money to go to work! If papa Illinois would kindly take these burdens off my plate it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Hmm...

1) Pfft! Weak! I pay 57$. Then again, that only gets me 36 litres of 95 Oktane petrol. =(

2) Yeah, I want this too. The salt used on roads here eats metal like noones buisiness!

3) I've got a much older car than you though, so my insurance is much lower at 370$/year. But I drive a non interesting car from '98.

4) That's what I'd have to pay per day if I worked in the mail department.

 

But, atleast in this shia-law controlled communist hellhole gives me ~1000$ back in tax returns for the fuel