j_b

You are looking at the problem the wrong way. The cost of social services is high because people can't afford them on their meager and decreasing wages. State spending and individual debt have the same cause: most people haven't seen any of the so-called economic growth over the last 30+ years.

Agreed. I suspect that this is without even factoring in the tab for public employee retirement costs. you say this as if public employees aren't entitled to retire. fascinating? is that the extent of your thought process on the topic? do you have anymore strawmen you'd like me to answer? There is nothing in these numbers which contradict what I said. Now if you want to make the effort of constructing an argument, I just may answer it in detail.

California budget shortfall is due to the precipitous drop in tax revenue (of which 50% drop in sales tax relative to last year) that occurred as unemployment rose and the housing bubble burst. For much of the past decade, californians like many others, have used their homes as collateral to sustain consumption because real wages declined. The era of make believe wealth is over and it's likely to get worse.

What is painfully obvious is that California is just one of the many states all over the world with huge deficits due to the economic and financial fiasco created by 30+ years of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. It's not surprising that the sorry characters who touted these policies now need the standard scapegoats to create diversions from their failures.

nobody said prisons were the biggest item if it's what you are inferring.

CA shells out far more for healthcare for illegals than it takes in from taxes from its residents. you do the math, Einstein Do you actually believe what you wrote? pathetic.

McCarthyist goons don't need arguments.

We pay almost twice as much for healthcare than countries that have single player healthcare but reactionary wingnuts blame immigrants and commies, while the insurance and healthcare lobbies whine they couldn't compete with single-payer formulas. You do the math.

During economic hard times caused by the very same policies they supported, reactionaries always try to create diversions by inciting to xenophobia and racism.

where did I blame "capitalism"? If you can't tell the difference between capitalism and its extremist version (laisser faire) that has ruled the roost for the last 30 years, and attained a distribution of wealth similar to that of the early 20th century, there is little I can do for you.

Illegal immigration doesn't occur in a vaccum. Illegals come because Mexico's farming economy was ruined by NAFTA and US subsidy to agribusiness, and because many employers, including major corp like wal-mart, give them jobs. Moreover, illegals contribute significantly to California's economy including to sale taxes and fees.

Are you suggesting that California lets the top tier taxpayers off the hook and hit the poor? I really don't see how you got there from what I said. Perhaps you should explain, but in anycase, no I don't want to let the top tier off the hook. That is however precisely what reagonomics accomplished through regressive taxation. I don't know the exact number; however, I know that progressive taxation was decreased and regressive taxation (sales tax, fees, etc) was increased, which resulted in a ~20% effective increase on average.

Spending on prisons are the main per-capita growth item in California's budget and it should be slashed before suggesting anything else. Isn't it grand how the no taxes, trickle down, and prosperity mantra of the charlatans has finally revealed itself to be an increase in taxes and fees (+20% in Cal IIRC), the largest transfer of wealth ever to the top of the income bracket, and bankruptcy. How long will people keep drinking the koolaid?

Good stuff. The greatest myth about individuality is that individual diversity should provide the main rationale for our societal model whereas, in fact, we are mostly similar and our fundamental needs are overwhemingly the same.

Nope, you didn't grant them - those are all powers that the one and only entity likely to enforce the kinds of restrictions that you are evidently in favor of. I never talked about restrictions even though restrictions already do exist (despite your behaving as if it were impossible) such as in adverts for children and regarding subliminal advertising. Furthermore, if anyone is for restrictions it is likely to be you for I suspect you want to keep the control of media in the hands of the highest bidder, i.e. mega-corporations, all in the name of “freedom” of course. Clubs, religion, sewing circles etc ... don’t have a virtual monopoly on coming into your home and brain uninvited to keep repeating the same manipulative messages. There is no need for anyone to make such distinctions and any solution has to account for the role of media in society. I haven’t given lots of thought to this topic but off hand I’d say it should involve the break up media conglomerates and the enabling of media that do not resort to advertising techniques distorting perception, cognition, motivation, etc …

I didn't grant anyone "the capacity to arrest, imprison, dispossess, detain" (besides to the judicial and police institutions through my elected officials). I only showed that your so-called freedom amounted to the freedom of plutocrats to manipulate, distort and control human impulses, which is nothing more than commercial propaganda that you otherwise have no problem identifying in some instances. Between corporocracy masquerading as the pursuit of free will (the so-called libertarian model) and democracy by and for the people, it is a no-brainer.

"attacking him" is hypocritical? That's quite some leap in logic there buddy. Could it be that my "attacking him" is due to his being a hypocrite?

Agreed. Much less after privately endorsing them beforehand. Not opposing these policies when it mattered is criminal but significantly less so than promoting and implementing them, so stop distracting your readers from attending to the punishment of the real culprits.

You didn't take my position as granted. My position is that relentless commercial propaganda manipulates individuals into doing what they otherwise wouldn't do; therefore, the loss of freedom occurs when commercial interests control and distort human impulses in order to sell more junk. It's rather remarkable that repetitive manipulative techniques, which are otherwise branded as "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" suddenly become "informational advertising" when corporatists use them. It's not clear to me that you can draw the lines that clearly. If someone mightn't have taken a trip to Costa Rica if they hadn't seen a brochure, or read a particular book if they hadn't seen an ad for it in a paper both qualify as things that people "might not have otherwise done" if not for marketing, I drew the line at manipulating, distorting and controlling human impulses. Not at providing information. We could find zillions of outcomes that are harmful, and you'd probably agree that many are harmful. if observers can identify some propaganda as brainwashing, they certainly can determine what isn't in another person's interest. I didn't "grant external authorities all powers necessary to restrict the information that people are exposed to", but it is remarkable that you don't think it is already case insofar the corporate media only communicates "information" that furthers it own interests.

campaign rhetoric doesn't make up for not opposing devastingly harmful policies when it mattered.

You didn't take my position as granted. My position is that relentless commercial propaganda manipulates individuals into doing what they otherwise wouldn't do; therefore, the loss of freedom occurs when commercial interests control and distort human impulses in order to sell more junk. It's rather remarkable that repetitive manipulative techniques, which are otherwise branded as "brainwashing" and "indoctrination" suddenly become "informational advertising" when corporatists use them.

It didn't bother you so much when the same spineless democrats let Bush and his cronies do their things unopposed for 8 years. Hypocrite.

The Torture Memos and Historical Amnesia By Noam Chomsky

Noting that the obscene amount of money spent every year in commercial propaganda leads to sales is "farfetched"? Apparently, you didn't go to business school. Nope - no plans to either. You? Me neither, but again I don't need to go to school in order to take note of the obvious: manipulative commercial propaganda is necessary to get people to buy products they otherwise wouldn't buy because they don't need them. I know it is your greatest wish to portray people like me as elitists who only have disdain for the "great grazing herd", but this terminology is yours, not mine, and I only disdain the demagogues, not their victims. I am hardly alone in refusing unsustainable consumerism and people follow different path to reach the same conclusions so I fail to understand how your question would be relevant, except of course to shift the goal posts and not discuss the role of commercial propaganda in getting people to purchase stuff that is harmful to them and their environment.

Noting that the obscene amount of money spent every year in commercial propaganda leads to sales is "farfetched"? Apparently, you didn't go to business school.