President Donald Trump

[baldgriff]

i guess if we can stop paying for east coast cities that continue to rebuild in the paths of hurricanes and flood zones, I'd be okay with it.

One would think that if a city is built below sea level on the coast, with a large water mass bordering it - they should be the 1st people responsible for cleaning up their mess. Likewise, if you have a large wooded area that has been in a drought for years and dont manage that danger appropriately............

[revo]

Yes it is unfortunate that a number of American that pay taxes have suffered tremendously. They paid taxes to the State of CA also to take care of and properly manage their forestry issues (which its possible did not happen). But CA is broke, so is the Fed somehow responsible to take care of their mess? Where do you draw the line as to when the Fed is supposed to help or not? Should the Fed be fixing Detroit's water issues?

Government is not supposed to be there to fix every problem. Each time we defer our issues to the government...............

It was a natural disaster and right now the cause is not known. But hey, let's make it so that whatever way the state voted, if it's the opposite of the president, they can get berated for months before any help arrives. This has been a bad habit for this disastrous regime. Forget about the citizens, let's play politics!

[nots]

or...

California's budget for fiscal year 2018 had a nine billion dollar surplus.

Maybe they can put their 9B surplus towards their 67B unfunded pension liability.

[revo]

Maybe they can put their 9B surplus towards their 67B unfunded pension liability.

Being that New Jersey has the most under-funded pension plan in the country, is that really an argument you want to walk down?

[nullnor]

i have a question since we are also sort of talking about where to build cities. why is Seoul in South Korea right under North Korea's artillery? couldn't they have built it a little farther away? can they move it? or is it there because of economic or other practical reasons? or maybe it even means they think the DPRK would never really attack them? yet it's one of the main reasons we don't engage North Korea. so they are perhaps actually covering for them.

i don't know. people are just going to live wherever they live. regardless whether it's in a forest fire zone or under artillery i guess.

[nots]

Being that New Jersey has the most under-funded pension plan in the country, is that really an argument you want to walk down?

What argument? That NJ sucks worse than California? No argument from me. Born, bred in NJ, left for Florida 3 years ago. You’re talking to the wrong guy.
But, NJ having a more poorly funded pension really doesn’t mean that Calpers is in great shape now does it?

[Fresno Bob]

or...

California's budget for fiscal year 2018 had a nine billion dollar surplus.

and pays way more in taxes than it gets back from the feds

[revo]

What argument? That NJ sucks worse than California? No argument from me. Born, bred in NJ, left for Florida 3 years ago. You’re talking to the wrong guy.
But, NJ having a more poorly funded pension really doesn’t mean that Calpers is in great shape now does it?

I agree with both. They're not. But many states aren't, surprisingly (or not surprisingly) enough. I don't really concentrate on corporate pensions that much any longer (I used to head up pension plan sales for one of the largest accounting firms in the country), but I believe municipalities have 7 years to fund a pension shortfall, unless those rules have changed, so they can keep kicking that can down the road.

[baldgriff]

How about this.... we get bond funding to build something, then rather than paying the bonds off, we do another bond to raise funds to pay the old bond off, thus moving the debt.

[Judge Jude]

or...

California's budget for fiscal year 2018 had a nine billion dollar surplus.

coincidentally, I actually talked with a brilliant economics expert today, and CA came up.

he said that they had built an economic model that was particularly volcanic.

way over my head, but he basically said that CA will be well ahead of the curve in good times - and well behind in bad, so a correction is inevitable.

this wasn't a partisan point. I think it was that CA has so much revenue determined by its high state tax rate that in good times, some $3B cashout by an enterepeneur can add $500M to the Treasury just like that, and it's all good.

but when the economy slows, those windfalls disappear.

this is a guy who worked with Michael Lewis on The Big Short book (not the movie).

I guess in theory, this could work. stock away the surplus for a rainy day so that....

ah, I kid. has any government ever done that?

I knew CA finances had been killing it in spite of right-wing expectations, and wondered what the secret sauce was.

[revo]

What? I never said Mexico would pay for the wall! You made that up! Fake news!

My god man, this guy will piss on your back and tell you it's raining:


"President Trump denied Thursday that he ever meant Mexico would directly pay for the border wall — despite his oft-repeated campaign promises, and memos that clearly show otherwise.

“When I said Mexico will pay for the wall in front of thousands and thousands of people, obviously they’re not going to write a check,” Trump told reporters before departing Washington for Texas, where he will tour the border.

“But they are paying for the wall indirectly many, many times over by the really great trade deal we just made.”

But the deal the Trump administration has reached with Mexico and Canada to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement has yet to be ratified by the Senate, and doesn’t require Mexico to pay up."

https://nypost.com/2019/01/10/trump-i-never-said-mexico-would-directly-pay-for-the-wall/

[revo]

Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?

[baldgriff]

Serious question -- if Trump calls a "national emergency" and circumvents Congress to build his wall, is there a reason why, say in political retaliation, a Democratic president in the future couldn't declare a National Emergency after a mass shooting and take everyone's guns away?

One is a Constitutionally Granted Right...... is the first thing that comes to mind.. Seriously??? Are you actually saying that the President (any President) has the power to take away your Constitutionally given rights?

I dont think Trump should go that route just to clarify.

[revo]

One is a Constitutionally Granted Right...... is the first thing that comes to mind.. Seriously??? Are you actually saying that the President (any President) has the power to take away your Constitutionally given rights?

I dont think Trump should go that route just to clarify.

Where does it say in the Constitution that you could own an assault rifle? Or that you need more than one gun? And BTW I knew I should have added that since there are some RJers here who like to nitpick.

[baldgriff]

Where does it say in the Constitution that you could own an assault rifle? Or that you need more than one gun?

We are not going back around the gun thing again. Suffice to say - currently we are allowed as citizens to own guns and that right has been deemed to be given based upon the 2nd Amendment. The right "shall not be infringed upon".

But Lets say for instance that the President bans ALL GUNS. What would then preclude him from Banning WOMEN from voting? What would preclude him from Banning Freedom of Speech? What would preclude him from saying certain types of people cant congregate together....... Once the precedent is set - there is no stopping where it could go.

For Fuck Sake - your argument is inane. Usually you are pretty well thought out - but this one is WAAAAAY WAAAAY out there. HOLY SHIT - Lets just get rid of our founding documents - the 3 branches of government and allow some dictator to take over. Nice!