Thursday, August 11, 2011

London, or Wisconsin?

In London, and in several cities in Britain, there have been recent riots because police shot one man of the wrong color--and a socialist underclass with no hope for improvement took advantage of an opportunity to destroy. That Britain has disarmed its citizenry only made the violence worse; you can't fight a Molotov Cocktail with a cricket bat.

In progressive Wisconsin, Republicans last year took over the state government--in free and fair elections--for the first time in forever. Liberals, in a snit, tried to recall some. They succeeded a little, but Republicans still run both houses of the legislature as well as the governor's office. There's little reason now to believe that the attempt to recall the governor next year will succeed. Democrats are abusing the system in Wisconsin--they just can't believe they lost in that state, and they'll try everything they can to get power back.

The streets or the ballot box, which way will California go?
California has already fallen behind the revenue hopes that Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers used to solve the budget deficit in June, raising fears Tuesday that deeper education cuts may be in the state's future.

Controller John Chiang said for the first month of the new fiscal year, California missed its $5.2 billion July general fund revenue target by $538.8 million, or 10.3 percent.

To help bridge the deficit in the face of Republican tax opposition, Democrats relied on an optimistic assumption that California would receive $4 billion more than previously forecast through June 2012.

Under the budget agreement, if revenues fall short, California will ask districts to shorten the K-12 school year by up to seven more days, as well as impose a fee hike at community colleges. Other cuts would hit public safety, universities and social services.
Remember that this year's state budget requires school districts to staff at the same levels as last year. How can we afford this? And how can we afford this list of departments, agencies, boards, offices, etc., that make up California's government?

When California collapses and change is mandated by reality, will we go the way of London or the way of Wisconsin? It's not like either one would be an ideal choice; socialists aren't going to give up easily either way. If it's Option A, at least some people have firearms in California....


Anonymous said...

You know which is the only western country where the the "underclass" have less chance of improvement than in the UK is?

Clue: It isn't Canada

Darren said...

I disagree. There might *be* less intergenerational movement, but there's not less *chance* of it. There's a culture of poverty out there, one that rejects the very attributes that contribute to "success" in our country. Nanny-statism supports that culture, but it's more easily avoided here in the US.

DADvocate said...

The study linked above uses a lot of data 30 or 40 years old or older. It also uses a lot of data based solely on males. I question how much the data actually related to today.

Also, looking primarily at males ignores the affects of feminism. Much of feminism attacks and degrades men. From top to bottom, educational institutions favor women nowadays. Women make the majority of students in colleges, law schools and medical schools. Only in the technical fields do you find a predominance of males.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this link, but it's fails if it is to support socialism or communism over capitalism. Indeed, you can more effectively argue that the advance of socialism, feminism and other liberal philosophies contributed to the lack of mobility, especially for those lower classes trapped in government made ghettos, government run sub-par schools, etc.

Anonymous said...

Darren: So, the US system works in theory, but not in application?

DADvocate: Nobody mentioned communism. Or socialism. All western societies have pretty much the same basic model, namely a mixed economy with both public and private provision of services. And nobody with any real chance of being elected is advocating moving away from that model in any western country. The political debate is about the precise mix of that economy and what will work best in each situation.

Darren said...

Let's not be an idiot, anonymous. Our system was built on checks and balances that limit the role of the federal government. California is *not* the federal government. And the state government is dysfunctional, to say the least.

Now onto socialism. If you think this president's *stated* philosophy isn't socialist, that it isn't redistributive in intent, then we're just not going to agree.