Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-30-2011, 11:55 AM
 
9,727 posts, read 9,755,658 times
Reputation: 6408

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
It is all that liberal legislation that protects the illegals and brings more of them there . California will implode eventually with all those handouts.
President Romney better add required austerity measures for the State of California to get federal aid as one of his top priorities in 2013.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-30-2011, 12:46 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,948,610 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Welfare is huge business. There are places where Medicaid and food stamps and WIC plus federal housing assistance are making the economy. That's big money pouring in.

California would be in a bad way if the big federal dollars stopped pouring in to support it's large and growing welfare class.
and isn't that the point that conservatives are trying to make-that all this government borrowing and spending will not be able to continue?

the government cannot keep borrowing 1.2 trillion dollars regularly, as the math will not work, and all the interest payments keep pulling money away from any productive sector growth or stability. (....which then creates more demand in welfare/social service needs-a really bad cycle-as california is finding out).

sometimes i think that obama and congress are actually trying to tank the system so that none of the government benefits will have to be honored.

does anyone think that all this borrowing is even sustainable?

i see they are going to delay anything on the next 1.2 trillion dollars obama wants until after their vacations are over. really?

it's a shame because when you think about california it is a beautiful sunny state, and citizens should be flocking there-yet the opposite is happening as citizens flee the state. That should tell them something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,121 posts, read 3,106,544 times
Reputation: 2312
So California's rate is 2.5 times the national average?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 12:53 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,854,420 times
Reputation: 22474
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
and isn't that the point that conservatives are trying to make-that all this government borrowing and spending will not be able to continue?

the government cannot keep borrowing 1.2 trillion dollars regularly, as the math will not work, and all the interest payments keep pulling money away from any productive sector growth or stability. (....which then creates more demand in welfare/social service needs-a really bad cycle-as california is finding out).

sometimes i think that obama and congress are actually trying to tank the system so that none of the government benefits will have to be honored.

does anyone think that all this borrowing is even sustainable?

i see they are going to delay anything on the next 1.2 trillion dollars obama wants until after their vacations are over. really?
Good question but silly to ask it to liberals who obviously do believe in unlimited nonstop government spending and unlimited government welfare handouts, unlimited illegal immigration because the whole world wants in on the very easy money and handouts.

The liberals obviously believe unemployment benefits can be extended indefinitely - welfare programs expanded to include anyone from any country. All we have to do is keep raising the national debt because in their minds it can never go too high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 01:02 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,948,610 times
Reputation: 4459
speaking of unemployment, the numbers are mind-boggling---look at this:

State and local governments spent $66.2 billion in unemployment compensation, representing an 86 percent increase from 2008.


this report has so many interesting statistics and graphs on government spending.
Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts

or this one:
State and local government revenues declined 22.1 percent from 2008 to $2.1 trillion in 2009. The decline, similar to last year, was driven in large part by insurance trust revenue, which declined 683.5 percent in 2009 from $85.3 billion to –$498.0 billion. (rut-row).

or this:
In contrast to revenues, expenditures increased 4.6 percent to $3.0 trillion for state and local governments in 2009.

or this one is bad:
Cash and security holdings are dominated generally by public-employee retirement trust funds which comprise 51.7 percent of the total category. It includes only the cash or security holdings of governments, excluding nonfinancial assets such as real or personal property.
• State and local government cash and security holdings declined 15 percent to $4.6 trillion in 2009. (in 1 year)-- bye-bye.

does anyone think this can keep working?

Last edited by floridasandy; 12-30-2011 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 01:05 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,686,185 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
speaking of unemployment the numbers are mind-boggling-look at this:

State and local governments spent $66.2 billion in unemployment compensation, representing an 86.0 percent increase from 2008.
Source: 2009 Annual Surveys of State and Local

this report has so many interesting statistics on government spending.
Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2012 - Charts
Don't forget that p/t workers were allowed to claim unemployment insurance with parts of the 2009 stimulus bill. That would have inflated the numbers drastically. Only a few states refused that part of the stimulus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 01:15 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,948,610 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Don't forget that p/t workers were allowed to claim unemployment insurance with parts of the 2009 stimulus bill. That would have inflated the numbers drastically. Only a few states refused that part of the stimulus.
well, isn't that what all these 1.2 trillion dollar requests are about-extend and pretend, instead of trying to actually fix anything?

of course, every time you ask for more money the interest goes up, crowding out everything else, including the ability to create enough growth to actually pay anything back.

running up the charge card isn't the same as paying it off, and as everyone knows it puts you further in the hole.

are they angling for bankruptcy as a country?

whose debts are reneged on then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 01:54 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,948,610 times
Reputation: 4459
let me add one more post to the mix, which i saw on the blaze earlier. we also have the disaster of high ranking government employees literally robbing their cities blind, as in philadelphia:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/phil...urn-on-monday/

Tasco, along with many of her fellow Council members, is enrolled in Philadelphia’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). DROP allows city workers to collect salary and build up pension money during the last four years of their employment, writes Aaron Kase of Philadelphia Weekly.

Naturally, when DROP was originally introduced, it was touted as being “revenue neutral.” It’s been anything but that. Since its introduction, Philadelphia’s DROP program has cost the city $258 million in extra pension costs over a decade, according to a 2010 Boston College study.

on top of everything else, the cities are supposed to fund this BS? that's literally 258 million dollars deferred from running a city.

oh, and retiring with a half million dollar pension and then returning to work the next day, when so many people are out of work, is DISGRACEFUL, and philly is not a rich city:

Residents with income below the poverty level in 2009: (obviously worse now)


Philadelphia:
25.0%
Whole state:
12.5%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Syracuse, New York
3,121 posts, read 3,106,544 times
Reputation: 2312
Aren't we getting off-topic here? I thought this thread was about California having thirty-three percent of the welfare recipients, not a cattle call of every conservative grievance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-30-2011, 02:13 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,286 posts, read 87,613,229 times
Reputation: 55569
Unfortunately we are becoming a 3 horse economy just like Hawaii--- welfare, military and tourism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:28 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top