California’s Nightmare Will Kill Obamanomics

[Valmy]

Meanwhile California is proving once again that it is the land of fruits and nuts:

What a circus.

[KRonn]

"Look, we're pro-condiment, we're pro-fruit, but the focus needs to be on the budget crisis," McLear said. "

Yes, pro-condiments, with our without fruit! Prevent unwanted pregnancies!! Who could be against that?   

[Razgovory]

Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.

Oh you poor little thing.

[garbon]

Well, I don't know about that. I think they are managing to tax me just fine.

Indeed. What they don't do enough is cut spending.

[garbon]

CORRECT!

Grab everything that isn't nailed down is my philosophy.

That kind of attitude is what killed California.

[Valmy]

Indeed. What they don't do enough is cut spending.

I would be fine with either.

The problem is when you start increasing spending while not taxing, nobody feels the sacrifice for your policies.  The American people need to pay for the expensive policies they keep demanding the people they elect make or the system will fail.

Tax and spend or don't spend and don't tax but spending while not taxing is the path to disaster.

[garbon]

I wouldn't be fine with either. The government already takes enough out of my paychecks as it is and I'm not even in a high income bracket.

[Caliga]

Oh you poor little thing.

We wouldn't expect you to be able to relate.

[garbon]

We wouldn't expect you to be able to relate.

Perhaps we should tax the chronically unemployed on theoretically wages (as they only pose a drain on the system) and then when they can't pay, force them to volunteer for public works. That way, Michelle Obama can be said to have inspired a lot of people to volunteer.

[Valmy]

I wouldn't be fine with either. The government already takes enough out of my paychecks as it is and I'm not even in a high income bracket.

I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.

[garbon]

I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.

Sorry, but I'd rather not foot the bill for your social experiment.

[DGuller]

I know but if the government took MORE then people would decide maybe having the government do everything is, in fact, a bad idea.

Sorry, but I'd rather not foot the bill for your social experiment.

I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck.  Democracy is a wonderful thing.

[Caliga]

Perhaps we should tax the chronically unemployed on theoretically wages (as they only pose a drain on the system) and then when they can't pay, force them to volunteer for public works. That way, Michelle Obama can be said to have inspired a lot of people to volunteer.

The problem with this theory is that alot of chronically unemployed people (and I'm not saying Raz necessarily fits in this category) either flat-out refuse to work or are grossly incapable of doing nearly any sort of work.  In earlier times these sort of people might be expected to at least do unskilled labor but nowadays many of them are absurdly overweight, and plus we have machines to do alot of that shit now.

Anyway the reason why that wouldn't work is the same reason why slavery didn't work all that well: if people have no will whatsoever to work and drag their feet at every opportunity, they're more of a liability to an employer than an asset.

The most efficient solution would be mass executions.

[garbon]

I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck.  Democracy is a wonderful thing.

So you think it likely that people are going to vote to have congress members who tax the hell out of them?

[Caliga]

I'd prefer that you do, so tough luck.  Democracy is a wonderful thing.

So you think it likely that people are going to vote to have congress members who tax the hell out of them?

Apparently the answer to that question is "yes" if one happens to live in a district populated by Raz clones.