Have you ever looked at a map of California?
I sense that your time will be short on these boards, Rekd.
You see, Southern California is in the desert and it has to import water. The Colorado, which is also geographical boundary, is a valuable source of that water. But, it’s not just California’s–it also belongs to Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. The fights over the allocations have been fought all the way to the SCOTUS. Hence, the stakes are much higher and hence the need for a board to address those issues. If California was to lose access to the Colorado, you would see the Imperial Valley dry up, and San Diego dealing with catastrophic water shortages. Consequently, you’ll see the price of fresh vegetables rise through the roof in the winter, and San Diego’s economy collapse.
It’s clear that your that you have absolutely no clue about water issues with respect the American West. To help you fight your ignorance, I will suggest Mark Reisner’s excellent tome, Cadillac Desert.
As for the rest of you scree–how old are you, 13? 14?
nvm
These chatter bots have a long way to go before they pass the turing test.
The mismatch in perceptions sometimes makes me wonder if right-wingers live in a parallel universe, where the facts are different. For example…
:smack:
When the need for 2009 stimulus arose, many of us thought public investment in roads and bridges was appropriate. This caused such inexplicable shrieking from the right, I wondered if the Koch Brothers had made contrarian bets that depended on deteriorating infrastructure. Yet “most people, including the wealthy, have no problem with paying taxes to fund roads and bridges” ??? Wow.
Education is as important as roads and bridges and, contrary to right-wing gibberish, most of the money spent by Dept of Education goes directly to fund schools and students. Demolishing Dept of Education seems to be a top priority for the Idiots. Yet “most people, including the wealthy, have no problem with paying taxes to fund schools” ??? Wow.
It would be interesting to understand your parallel universe, Starving Artist. Can you post screen-shots from newspaper front-pages and Google searches over there?
Looking into it, it seems to be a government-instituted lobby for the elderly. Also, unless I have my figures wrong, it appears to be almost on the level with, say, Greenpeace as far as funding goes; $488 sure breaks the bank (that’s $488, not $488,000 or $488,000,000). Clearly, you took a look at the name and ignored what the department actually does and what kind of funding it gets.
Wrong. It’s a government institution put in place to deal with funds for welfare programs for the elderly. http://www.aging.ca.gov/
Also, it’s budget is not that large:
http://www.aging.ca.gov/legislation/governor_budget.asp
(That $182,000 for 2011/2012; in the grand scheme of things not that huge)
Wrong. It’s a government organization to ensure that women are being treated fairly. http://women.ca.gov/
It’s also tiny; again, $467.
I’m going to stop there, because it’s plentifully obvious what you did: you took organizations whose role you do not know, and judged, by their name, whether or not they were worthwhile. Never mind if they get large amounts of government funding or not. Never mind if their role actually is as banal as you think. But without looking into what these organizations do, you’re left to assume that there is waste, when in fact it’s thoroughly possible for a state the size of California (I think it’s actually bigger and more populous than most European countries) to have thousands of regulatory bodies and need every single one. But what did you do? You didn’t actually look into it. No, what you did was the equivalent of going to the federal government and saying, “NPR? National Pulitboro Radio? Wasteful, we don’t need it. FBI? Fuckbuddies Institution? Fuck if we need that.” You judged by name alone, without even looking at what it means, let alone what the institution does.
TL;DR: You’re a pompous idiot who has no idea what he’s talking about.
I just want to say that posting a list of several hundred names of state agencies, completely free of context, as some sort of argument concerning government waste, is incredibly effective and devastates in advance any rebuttal I could possbily think of.
Well, no, not really.
Short, his time will be. Strong, the force is not with this one.
Then yours is simply an argument from ignorance.
“I don’t understand what all these big-worded things are doin’, so they must be wastin’ my moneys!!!”
Or the brain.
Oh come on, people. Surely we can all agree that all educational spending is wasted money. I mean, none of it seems to have helped Rekd, did it?
While I agree with your points in general, I should point out that the amounts shown are in *thousands *of dollars, not dollars.
LoL @ the insults being flung around here like monkey’s flinging poo.
Way to represent! 
Here’s some more for you to get mad about and call me names over…
Our current national debt is $14,639,000,000,000.00
Our national debt in 2009 when Obama was sworn in to office was $10,626,000,000,000.00
That means the current POTUS has increased our national debt by a staggering $4,247,000,000,000.00 in just 945 days. That kind of spending has not been done in such a short time by any other President.
Ever.
Bush increased the national debt by $4,900,000,000,000.00 in his 8 years as POTUS. Obama will knock that out in 3. Yet Obama is still clinging to the Blame Bush mantra and refuses to take responsibility for his own spending. Time to man up, Mr. President.
The Gross National Debt is at 97.6% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. We will never get out of this hole with Obama spending $4,247,000,000.00 every single day, even when he’s on vacation.
Remember when he spent nearly $800 billion to keep jobless rates below 8%? They’re still above 9% (if you don’t count the underemployed and those that have been unemployed so long they’ve fallen off the radar, otherwise you’re up closer to 20%).
Are you sure you want to open up a second front when you’re still getting slaughtered on the first?
I’m not the one reduced to slinging insults. How is that a loss for me? 
No one is “reduced” to slinging insults in this forum. That’s what this forum is for.
If you want a serious debate, take it do GD. You can have your ass handed to you there.
Presuming he isn’t one already.
It’s not, but scrolling up I see a lot of facts that are shooting your argument (such as it is) to hell. Those are the ones who are handing you your ass.
Obama is personally responsible for every dollar of federal expenditure? Really? How does that work, exactly?
The same way that Iraq and Afghanistan are ‘Obama’s wars.’