Is the economy really this good?

Or to the Chinese or whomever it was we borrowed it from.

You may not pay taxes but I do, to the tune of almost $.40 on the dollar. I want mine back.

And some day the Chinese will want theirs back. And when that day comes, it would be better if those borrowed trillions of $$$$$$$ had been spent to improve American housing than to blow the middle east to hell and back.

No, it would be better to NOT pay for some schmucks windows and insulation and NOT have to borrow from the Chinese to begin with.

But we're hell bent on borrowing to spend on something or other anyway. It's the American way. So better to spend it on American housing than on foolish warmaking, don't you agree Aaron!!!

No I don't Frank. I don't think it should be spent on either.

ziggy wrote:

You're telling us it's acceptable that these two young adults, both working and attending college parttime, should go cold or hungry this winter because the government should provided his landlord with funds to replace the drafty windows?

I am saying it would have been better to use that money for this purpose than to bomb and rebuild Iraq.

Ziggy,

I couldn't agree with you more that the list of better ways to spend money than bombing Iraq is lenghty......it could stretch from my house to the White House and then swing back to your home.

That doesn't negate the fact that a lot of people are going to suffer this winter because of the high price of oil and I blame our government along with special intrests groups for it.

I have to go pick Katie up from practice.

What's she practicing? Great name, btw (Mrs Sheik goes by Katie)

With all the billions being spent on not only the war but "research," I can't help but think we should have every home in America super-efficient by now. The gov't did well (it's nice when it happens:) in offering tax credits for efficient windows, and I think that is the kind of program that is going to work. Help out people making good choices that we know will help, as opposed to spending billions on what may or may not help.

The price of oil may ultimately be out of our control (although I'm not so sure we couldn't do more about the price if we weren't so addicted), but anyways we can and should encourage choices on the part of the citizens here not to use as much. Perhaps instead of giving so much to Planned Parenthood the Gates Foundation could be convinced to write a check for new furnaces and windows for people making less than 40,000 a year.

On the other hand, if people planned their parenthood better, we might have fewer people vying for increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive resources.

Wow. I am agreeing with Steph and Aaron? (ish). Some people can see the disasters coming and cannot do anything about it, to be sure.

I think the Gov. should incentives homeowners to insulate (and I'll be getting .15/sq. ft because I just did).

Lastly, Aaron should know that there are "gives" and "gets". My state gives and yours gets. The tax code favors your state.

If anyone should demand their money back it's California.

I couldn't agree more Craig. There is no reason you should be paying to build roads in my state because I reside in a poor state. If West Virginians want roads, West Virginian’s should be paying for it.

The federal taxes should be used very sparingly, as the constitution set forth, to pay for our common defense and the other limited enumerated responsibilities given to Congress. We’re that the case, I doubt our federal tax obligation would very minimal.

Huh......you know I just "saw" (I was actually posting here with the TV on) on CNN last night that California and Indiana have basically sold some of their roads. The focus of the report I saw was Cali and they farmed out the roads to an Australian company for 99 years.

I don't care who you are that's insanity.....having leaders elected to 2 or 4 year terms signing contracts that won't expire until their grandchildren and great grandchildren are grandparents themselves.

CNN reported this company has increased tolls 4 times in the past year.

I've thought a lot about starting a forum dedicated to California but Craig lives in CA so I have haven't. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live in that state.

SFCraig wrote:My state gives and yours gets. The tax code favors your state.

If anyone should demand their money back it's California.

Consider it all as a downpayment for the disaster relief your state is going to need when that 7.8 earthquake strikes at some point in the next 30 years.

ziggy wrote:On the other hand, if people planned their parenthood better, we might have fewer people vying for increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive resources.

We don't have an overpopulation problem we have an overconsumption problem.

As far as aborting the excess population, I don't think that's a legitimate means of population control.

As far as preventing pregnancy, I'm all about it and at times I'd be insistent if I could be!

Mike, she's practicing percussion for band. Leave it to my kid to join the band her senior year. Timpani, sleigh bells, triangle, and the thing she's most excited about, the gong. lol

I've heard the back of a band bus can be some wild times...

Just be glad she's not playing the flute...

Stephanie wrote:

SFCraig wrote:My state gives and yours gets. The tax code favors your state.

If anyone should demand their money back it's California.

Consider it all as a downpayment for the disaster relief your state is going to need when that 7.8 earthquake strikes at some point in the next 30 years.

Actually, the most likely big-ticket Earthquake is to happen in the Midwest, along the New Madrid fault line. Whereas we've done seismic retrofitting I fear much of the Midwest has not.

In any case, "why would anyone live here" is not really a valid question. For one, it's the most populous state in the union so you'd have to ask a lot of people that.

Second, what about the massive flooding in Iowa, Wisconsin et al. that occurred recently? Would you ask why they choose to live in Iowa?

And the weather here is awesome.

SFCraig wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

SFCraig wrote:My state gives and yours gets. The tax code favors your state.

If anyone should demand their money back it's California.

Consider it all as a downpayment for the disaster relief your state is going to need when that 7.8 earthquake strikes at some point in the next 30 years.

Actually, the most likely big-ticket Earthquake is to happen in the Midwest, along the New Madrid fault line. Whereas we've done seismic retrofitting I fear much of the Midwest has not.

In any case, "why would anyone live here" is not really a valid question. For one, it's the most populous state in the union so you'd have to ask a lot of people that.

Second, what about the massive flooding in Iowa, Wisconsin et al. that occurred recently? Would you ask why they choose to live in Iowa?

And the weather here is awesome.

Try to look at it from an outsiders perspective for a moment.

Every year we hear about massive wildfires devouring entire communites. How many acres of Cali burned this year?

We hear with almost as much regularity about mudslides taking out homes.

Earthquakes.....in recent days I have heard and read numerous seismologists say that the chances of a 7.8 earthquake striking California within the next 30 years is 99%.

They have to pipe potable water into major cities for amazing distances.

When an outsider, like me, reads and hears about all of these things many of us naturally have a tendency to thank our lucky stars we don't live in such a place. When you add in the problems many of the cities face with illegal immigrants and gangs and riots in the streets upon occasion, I personally question the mental health of anyone who chooses to move there.

Massive floods don't occure in Iowa every year like wildfires do in California or Wisconsin. I should have phrased the question a little better. My real question is why would anyone choose to live there if they can get the hell out.

I knew you'd be offended but this isn't directed at "you". It is what my mind thinks of when I think California.

No offense taken. However, as a former midwesterner who thought very much as you do, I'd say it's distorted. California is a massive state in both population and land mass. Events in California would be like lumping floods in Iowa, tornadoes in Oklahoma and Kansas, and the levees of New Orleans.

Northern California is (normally) full of water. It's Southern California that has no abundance of fresh water. But then again. most of the southwest does not have what it needs.

(Southern California is also considerably more conservative than Northern California). The adage goes, "Northern California hates Southern California and Southern California doesn't know we exist."



Every election cycle there is talk of Southern California breaking off and forming its own state. I always say, "Good Riddance. We'll keep the water, the best Universities in the country, Silicon valley, the logging industry, oil refineries, wind turbines, natural resources, etc"

And You can have Hollywood.

Aaron wrote:I've heard the back of a band bus can be some wild times...

Just be glad she's not playing the flute...

Damn right. My wife was a school bus operator for 22 years. She'd come home from haulin' those band students with some hair-raisin' stories to tell.

As far as aborting the excess population, I don't think that's a legitimate means of population control.

I don't either. Mike. But still, planned parenthood is better than unplanned parenthood. Planned parenthood does not have to be about abortion.

ziggy wrote:On the other hand, if people planned their parenthood better, we might have fewer people vying for increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive resources.

Does this mean that you favor reducing the number of immigrants allowed into this country? Our increasingly scarce and extremely expensive resources are the reason I favor restricting the number of immigrants into this country.

Does this mean that you favor reducing the number of immigrants allowed into this country?

For a starter, I favor better enforcement of existing immigration laws. But as certain enabling employers prefer to hire illegal alians than to pay Americans a living wage, that is not going to happen any time soon.

Our increasingly scarce and extremely expensive resources are the reason I favor restricting the number of immigrants into this country.

That fact of scarceness and more expensive resources is a world wide condition. The pregnancy rate (birthrate) worldwide needs to drop significantly to avoid an eventual population meltdown because of too many people consumiong too many scarce resources.

That fact of scarceness and more expensive resources is a world wide condition. The pregnancy rate (birthrate) worldwide needs to drop significantly to avoid an eventual population meltdown because of too many people consumiong too many scarce resources.

Right, Ziggy.....but you and I and our fellow Americans can't control the practices of other countries. The best we can possibly hope to do is adequately manage the population of THIS country. We can't adequately do that if we're allowing hundreds of thousands of immigrants in each year.

In addition, when we take large numbers of immigrants from other nations facing a resource crunch we're enabling those citizens to continue on their paths to population meltdown.

One thing I do not fear is a population explosion. Remember we're living at a time when "super bugs" are mutating that are not affected by any antibiotics in our current tool kit.