The harsh lessons of California

California is lined up, hands extended, palm up, imploring the Obama Administration to guarantee its debt –  a guarantee as inconceivable as state ownership of General Motors once was. 

 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger projects that California will create a deficit of $23.4 billion over the next year, a deficit bigger than Georgia’s entire budget. Voters this month rejected higher taxes and borrowing from future lottery proceeds to fund current consumption, prompting California officials to go hat-in-hand to Washington.  More immediately, Schwarzenegger is proposing dramatic cuts.  He would, for example, eliminate welfare and would end non-emergency health care for illegals. He’d also whack the California version of Georgia’s PeachCare health insurance program for children in families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid.  He’s eliminating some future grants for college students,  ordering unpaid leaves for state employees, and giving one-year early releases to prison inmates who are not thought to be violent and are not identified as sex offenders.

Periodically news organizations or advocacy groups send delegations to other states or cities to take a look at growth, development, a new transportation project or housing developments. Those trips invariably lead to long accounts full of unwarranted self-criticism and place-envy to set up the question:  “Why can’t we be more like…?” 

A far more valuable trip would be to Sacramento and to other parts of California to examine the question:  Where does liberalism in governing take us?  In some cases, California is far ahead of Georgia in terms of the experiments it’s tried — in public initiatives, for example, or in setting caps on state spending.  (Proposition 8, which affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman, was a public initiative.)  Georgia has never had public initiative and whenever the movement has started to get legs in the past, legislators resist, offering something weak and virtually impossible for voters to bring forth.  California once had real spending caps; the one voters rejected was more symbolic than real.  Georgia has never had them — and it should.

California also funds education almost entirely from the state level.  Bad policy?  Yes. It creates the expectation that somebody else is paying the tab.  It also tempts voters to exempt education from the usual spending constraints, as Californians have done.

Georgia is not yet a mature state.  There’s still time to fix our troubles before they develop.  Look to California for guidance.  Plan a trip.  What to do?  What to avoid?

180 comments Add your comment

Justin

May 28th, 2009
5:12 pm

Solution: Move Hollywood and the movie industry and give California back to Mexico. In fact, just give them New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada…However, they have babies like rabbits so let’s just give them Utah and Colorado also…

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP

May 28th, 2009
5:13 pm

MORE WHITE TRAILORHOUSE TRASH ON WELFARE THAN THE BLACK GHETTO WOMEN,REMEMBER WHITEFOLKS YOU ALL OUT NUMBER THE BLACKS IN THIS COUNTRY,IF THE BLACK RACE IS 14% OF THE POPULATION AND 8% IS ON WELFARE AND WHITES ARE 70% OF THE POPULATION AND 35% IS ON WELFARE THAT MEANS IT IS MORE WHITETRAILOR TRASH ON WELFARE THAN THE BLACKS AND THE HISPANICS.
P.S. THE BLOGS SHOW WHY EVERYBODY VOTED FOR OBAMA AND NOT MCCAIN-PALIN IS BECAUSE,WHITE PEOPLE GOT TIRED OF THE RACIST BULL$HIT COMING FROM THE GOP,THE SAME RACIST HICKS LIKE STINGER AND CHE SHOW THAT THE EVIL WHITES ARE BEING OUT NUMBERED,THAT`S WHY THEY ARE SO MAD AND WANT CIVIL WAR,BUT THEY WILL LOSE BAD REAL BAD AND THAT`S ON GOD!

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
5:41 pm

Or as the current economic historian who has studied the U.S. economy since the turn of the 20th Century puts it:

The Housing Crisis: Caused by the Bush Tax Cuts

don’t know about you, but watching the markets get crazy has been great fun for me. Once upon a time I wrote a book on the origins of the Fed, so every time I read about the “moral hazard” involved in bailing out insolvent lenders—or borrowers—I have to laugh. This hazard lies in thwarting the logic of the market, according to the old-school economists and journalists who preach it.

If you violate this logic—if you don’t let the market cleanse itself of imprudent investors, mere speculators, and the like—you have validated precisely what the market should be punishing. You have not let the market do its anonymously moral work of enforcing a transparent relation between honest effort and legitimate reward…

The origins of this credit crunch—maybe even a crisis—reside, by all accounts, in the housing market. Big banks bought up a lot of sub-prime mortgages, then bundled them into portfolios that could be sold downstream as reliably income-producing assets. Thus mortgage debt was “securitized,” made into something hedge funds and private equity firms, and even stodgy mutual funds, could buy into as an investment, not as a side bet. When the housing market flattened out, that is, when prices and construction began to fall and when foreclosure rates began to rise over the last two years—even with interest rates relatively steady—this mortgage debt suddenly looked dubious.

The bubble burst, in short, when everybody realized that the long-term inflation of residential real estate prices, which started about a decade ago, was over, maybe even in Manhattan.

Our questions should then be, why did this huge investment in subprime mortgages take place, and why should dismal forecasts on the housing/mortgage market affect all others? The short answer to the first question is George W. Bush’s tax cuts—and this answer should give the Democratic candidates another reason to repeal them.

The rationale for these cuts came from the supply-side arguments of the 1980s (personified by Dick Cheney). It goes like this. Investment, productivity, and employment will increase if you augment the incomes of those who do the saving and investing. These already wealthy folks will acquire a new monetary incentive to invest in goods production if you raise their disposable incomes by cutting their taxes. That investment will in turn produce larger payrolls and more taxable incomes, thus canceling the revenue-reducing effect of the original tax cuts.

Then as now, these supply-side arguments have two defects. First, the history of the 20th century is the record of increasing productivity and output as functions of declining net investment. Economic growth doesn’t require greater investment after 1919, in other words, so it certainly doesn’t need higher profits or executive incomes. In fact, any shift of income shares away from labor and toward capital—any shift away from consumption and toward saving or investment—will be a cause of crisis, not of growth.

For if higher profits aren’t needed for investment in goods production (the “real economy”), they will force their way, as unruly surpluses, into the available speculative sites, for example into the stock market of 1926-29. Or into “high-end consumption.” Or into subprime mortgage lending. Whatever.

The recent private equity mania (“leveraged buy-outs” of publicly traded companies) exemplifies these three tendencies of overwhelming capital surplus, as Ben Bernanke often said before he took up his more taciturn duties at the Fed.

But the stock market has not been as reliable as long-term investors and short-term scalawags alike would want. The dot.com bust still spooks everybody except me, but I’m the historian who compares it to the crash of 1901-02. And how many yachts can a rich man steer toward his own private coast of utopia? Where else to turn? To the housing/mortgage market, of course, the available speculative site where prices were surging after 1995, even after the stock market tumble of the turn of the century.

Second, tax cuts have never, I repeat, have never caused increased investment—not in the 1920s, not in the 1960s, not in the 1980s, and not in our own time. The empirical record is uniform: net investment keeps falling no matter what. Don’t take my word for it. Consult Peter G. Peterson, a co-founder of Blackstone (a private equity group just gone public), and a former cabinet member under Nixon and Ford.

There is no cause-effect correlation between lower taxes and greater investment because, again, economic growth no longer requires, or even allows, increasing net investment. At the macro level, we can improve productivity and output just by replacing and maintaining our existing capital stock—we certainly don’t have to make any additions to it.

So to cut taxes for the wealthiest individuals is to invite them to place their augmented incomes in the hands of people who have no choice except to bet this new money on the available speculative site, in this instance on the housing/mortgage market. There’s no place else to put it if they want to get a return better than a savings account or a stodgy mutual fund. It was a “liquidity driven bull market,” as David Rosenberg, the chief economist at Merrill Lynch, puts it (FT 8/16/07). And it has regulated all others because the bulk of the surpluses generated by tax policy went there. When it turned, everything else did.

The housing bubble was part of economic growth in the last six years, don’t get me wrong. But notice that it was first driven by “high-end consumption,” then by subprime consumption of housing, not by an original investment in goods production. It created employment in the building trades and put demand on industries that fabricate construction materials because consumption as such had long since become the leading edge of economic growth.

But what is to be done? Yes, let’s repeal the Bush tax cuts and shut off the “high-end” source of the speculative boom in housing/mortgages—also the source of the boom in mergers and acquisitions, the bread and butter of private equity. And yes, let’s subsidize “low-end” consumption of housing (among other things), to begin with by mobilizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on the Gulf Coast. In view of its pathetic performance in the real world, why not reverse the vector of the supply-side argument and start writing loans the way we write history, “from the bottom up”?

http://hnn.us/articles/41985.html

The author is HARDLY a liberal. His opposition to bailing out businesses makes that obvious.

But his historical analysis of the idea that giving tax cuts to the wealthiest stimulates the economy is exactly correct. There is NO certainty that they have some sort of magical wisdom which will always result in them spending their windfalls any better than anyone else and there are no market forces that will cause them to invest in a business rather than a Lamborghini, or start looking for someone or some sector that promises them big returns as a bunch of relatively well off and supposedly economically savvy people did when they invested with Bernie Maddoff. 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme largely invested in by people worth at least a million and usually more than a million. its obvious that putting more of their own money into their own hands did not result in them opening up a restaurant, a store, a factory, hiring a live in maid, or whatever. They got scammed, and in fact, when they avoided the stock and bond markets and simply started buying credit default swaps and collateralized mortgage obligations so they could collect a piece of those monthly mortgage payments it was in their best interests to see the prices of housing go up to inflated levels, so their income investments would returning higher monthly returns.

Of course, conservatives will blame those who took out the mortgages, not those who invented the entire scheme to begin with.

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
5:46 pm

Mort Merkel is a chittin eating loud mouth high school drop out.

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP, OBAMA HUSSEIN, WHO ISN’T A MUSLIM WINK WINK NUDGE NUDGE, HAS SINGLE HANDEDLY CAUSED HIGHER UNEMPLOYMENT AND IS GOING TO BANKRUPT THE USA. RETARD.

ALSO, WHITE TRASH MEN AND WOMEN AIN’T BE ON NO WELFARE. THEY’S WERK FOR A LIVIN’. DEM BLACK FOLK BE LIVIN OFF DA GUVMENT.

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP, you’re about as smart as any welfare baby. Always blaming whitey for your problems. Grow up and get a GED!

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
5:47 pm

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP, YOU’;RE A RACIST NAZI COMMUNIST BABY KILLER. HOW DO YOU LIKE DEM APPLES, RETARD?

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP

May 28th, 2009
6:04 pm

TRUTH HURTS DONT IT DIXIE CHE,YOU ARE A COMPUTER TERROIST,ONE THAT THROWS YOUR DIXIE BOMBS VERBALLY ON THE COMPUTER,NOTICE COWARDS LIKE YOURSELF LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH DICKHEAD CHENEY ALL PREACH VIOLENCE FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOMES,PLUS GO SIGN UP TO THE LOCAL MARINE RECRUIT OFFICE AND GET SENT TO IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN SO YOU CAN GET BLOWN UP BY A ROADSIDE BOMB?

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP

May 28th, 2009
6:06 pm

WHERE IS MOSSAD WHEN YOU NEED THEM FOR THESE REDNECK HICKS LIKE CHE?

Allen

May 28th, 2009
6:10 pm

Wow! Some great points being made here. Munch, you rock, pal. Che, you are out of your league . . . time to raise the white flag. Tray, what trailer park did you crawl out of?

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
6:18 pm

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP, BLAH BLAH BLAH. YOU;RE THE IDIOT POSTING THREATS YOU RACIST NAZI BABY KILLER SCUM BAG.

Allen, I’m out of my league. Oh sure, you’re siding with Muncher yet you tell me that I’m out of my league. By the way, please go and join Muncher in flipping burgers.

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
6:19 pm

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP, do Chris Matthews and Kieth Olbermann get you off at night? Just wondering because you seem like the type of loser who does that sort of thing.

N.J,

May 28th, 2009
6:25 pm

Of course, Republicans and conservatives cannot be blamed for their inabilities. Conservatism by nature, resists change and unfortunately they live in a universe where change is the central and most natural thing in that universe. Of course their usual arguments are that they only object to the “wrong changes” but there simply is no such thing as a wrong change. If the change is wrong, the system does not survive very long, and if it is correct it does. Historically conservatives have almost always been wrong about almost everything.

As the web site analysis called “Conservatives are always wrong” notes:

Suppose you had a friend you had known for many years, one who was very opinionated, who always seemed absolutely certain about everything, and yet who was always turning out to be wrong. He got you to buy stock in Enron and swore it would just keep on rising. He bet on the Yankees to sweep the Red Sox in ’04. He said mobile phones were just a fad, and before long people would give them up and go back to sending telegrams.

Would you trust this person’s powers of analysis? Would you continue putting any faith in his predictions?

“Conservatives,” or those who call themselves this nowadays, have an equally good and much longer record of faulty analysis and wrong prediction. In order to exist as a viable movement, they depend on everyone forgetting that they’re basically always wrong.

Unfortunately, progressives and liberals have obliged. They seem to have forgotten who they’re actually dealing with. I’m not the first to point out that conservatives are always wrong – on any longer view, it’s hard to miss – but after years of observing the dispirited moderate left and the hapless, helpless leadership of the Democratic Party, I thought it was about time for a few reminders. If we step back from the issues that preoccupy us at the moment, it’s easier both to see that conservatism has consistently been failing and to examine the deeper reasons why. There are flaws in conservative positions that eventually cause them to collapse, and those same flaws are at work today. It’s true that one side in America’s great political debates is playing a very weak hand. Fortunately, that side isn’t ours.

http://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com/

This is the primary reason that America goes back into cycles of conservatism. The simply do so by waiting until everyone who was screwed by their last reign of terror has died to make a comeback.

For the last 500 years, conservatives have been on the wrong side of every paradigm changing event in just about every field. The opposed Copernicus and his ideas about the earth going around the sun. They opposed Galileo and tried him for heresy. They opposed the founding fathers and their ideas which opposed the “divine right of kings” The conservative physicist and Nobel Prize winner opposed Einsteins ideas about the universe and totally refuted the idea that both atomic energy and the atomic bomb were at all possible. They actually orignally opposed Smith and Ricardo’s ideas about capitalism…yup capitalism is the last liberal economic philosophy to come out of the Liberal European Enlightenment which totally rejected the conservative ideas that existed in its day and replaced it with liberalism and progressivism. Yes in every age, when the choice was to either change, or make excuses was to why the change was unnecessary or bad, Conservatives in every generation have met the challenge and started wasting time looking for reasons not to change, rather than just get it over with and make the changes necessary.

Historian Arnold Toynbee points this out. New nations tenmd to be like people. Young people start out vibrant and progressive and largely liberal.Its said that in almost any field of endeavor, if you have not succeeded by the age of 25, if you have not made your mark in your profession by then, you never will.

As they get old and fat and rich they start getting conservative, and expend huge amounts of wealth and resources trying to hold back the tide of change. And thats about the most unnatural thing in the universe.

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
6:44 pm

N.J, that may be the absolute dumbest article I’ve ever read. BoSox? Enron? Wow, you are drawing at straws. Conservatism has NOTHING to do with betting on games or stock.

AmVet

May 28th, 2009
6:50 pm

Mr. Wooten,

Kudos for attracting such a classy clientele.

I’ve never understood why a tiny few people insist on getting on a public forum for the express reason of looking like a mean drunk on a very bad day.

But the spectacle is certainly entertaining…

Leon

May 28th, 2009
7:08 pm

Again we should all take a page from Paul A’s book. No reason why we all can’t express our opinions and put forth substantive arguments to validate our theorem without the acerbic vitriol. Or maybe the world needs officious gasbags like Che. Nah.

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
7:40 pm

AmVet, you wrote: I’ve never understood why a tiny few people insist on getting on a public forum for the express reason of looking like a mean drunk on a very bad day.

Yourself included? I mean, I have noticed some of your rants against certain conservatives over on Bookmans blog. Hypocrite.

Leon,
Oh yeah, point me out while ignoring idiots like Copyleft, Muncher and EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP. But wait, only libs ignore racist rants from their own kind.

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 28th, 2009
7:41 pm

Leon, you, like several others on this blog, choose to use me as a scapegoat while pretending to be a saint. You speak of vitriol yet you called me a name. You too are a liberal hack hypocrite. Piss off!

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP

May 28th, 2009
9:02 pm

CHE DUBLIN GEORGIA IS HAVING REDNECK MUD SLOP EVENTS THIS WEEKEND HOW BOUT YOU GO DROWN YOURSELF IN THE MUDD!

Leon

May 28th, 2009
10:04 pm

Che. I never claimed to be a saint, nor pretended to be one. Furthermore I feel quite certain Copyleft, munch et al fancy themselves to be quite the gasbags, just not officious ones. You and the Turd Burgler are the worst kind of trolls, offering nothing of substance, only mindless detritus meant to offend rather than enlighten. So nanny-nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

N.J.

May 28th, 2009
11:00 pm

Republicans and conservatives like Wooten are good at rewriting history, postdiction (predicting things after the fact) and so on.

The Republican hero, Ronald Reagan and the model for all Republicans these days was rather a big government conservative, as all of the neo-cons are. There is no way of accomplishing the neo-conservative agenda of power projection of the U.S. influence around the world, making certain that all other nations act in the American interest rather than some form of “mutual interest”, engaging in the latest Republican international policy of “Co-ercive Democracy” without spending huge sums of money on a Defense budget which is 10 percent related to defense, and 90 percentr related to maintaining an offensive posture to make sure that other nations allow American corporations to suck out 80 percent of the wealth from them. This was the relationship of Great Britain to Iran between 1899 and 1950 and when the Iranians decided to not renew the 51 year contract the nation had with the Brits, the United States stepped in and assisted the British overthrow the democratically elected government and put the Shah back on the throne. The same was repeated in Guatemala when the moderate and democratically elected Arbenz decided to take over its nations agricultural assets rather than allow United Fruit to control the best land in the nation, virtually enslave the peasants, all so United Fruit could provide Americans with cheap fruit, an American corporation could make huge profits, and the Guatemalans could starve to death and die at an average age of 35. Of course this occured in almost every nation that had resources America needed.

It would really make little difference to Americans whether they purchased their oil and tropical fruit and other items DIRECTLY from these nations, or through the intermediary of an American corporation. The corporations did not create many jobs in the United States, and other jobs created in America such as gas stations, and fruit stands and supermarkets would have been created anyway, regardless of who the original products were purchased from.

This is the difference. Allowing Iran to nationalize its petroleum and sell it directly to the United States and creating the diplomatic ties to allow it is a case of two nations working together in mutual interest. Overthrowing the government so American corporations can extract the oil and keep 80 percent of the profits, mostly offshore in foreign banks so it cannot be taxed looking after the American interests, which does not mean the interests of ALL Americans, but the interest of a small and wealthy elite. The American taxpayer gets to pick up the tab for the military that is required to protect the economic interests of those American corporations that end up not paying enough taxes, if any, to pay for the forces that look after their economic interests.

Our current world economy, the internet, modern satellite communications all allows these people to keep these profits offshore, but accessible to them at all times, and to not create a single job in America, to avoid paying for employee benefit for American workers, and on and on and on.

The main job of conservative commetators and news outlets is to provide Americans with simplistic solutions to complex problems and to make certain that Americans never actually KNOW what is ACTUALLY being done in other countries in their name, with their tax dollars.

And the result of 50 years of this insulation from what was happening on the other side of two oceans, and on the other side of the equator was 9/11. There was no reason for this to have happened at all except for the fact that American taxpayers are picking up the tab for things that they would probably never have approved of if they were aware of exactly how their tax dollars were being used in ways that really were not in their own interests, but the interests of a small, select few.

After the Vietnam War and Watergate, the wealth of America realized how dangerous a free press was to their interests, the fairness doctrine was repealed, vested interests bought up the media, and what they reported was slanted in their own interests, and what was not in their interests was kept from the American public

N.J.

May 29th, 2009
12:44 am

Perhaps my favorite conservative economic cherry picking has been out of Adam Smiths “Wealth of Nations” and Friedmans “supply side economics”

Of course Smith recommended that employers keep profits as low as possible, wages high, to not privatize government functions, and to not allow wealth and property to be concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few. Anyone who has completely read “The Wealth of Nations” in context would be well aware of this. Smith liked capitalism, didnt like many of his capitalist acquaintences, who violated the above principals right and left.

Then of course Milton Friedmans economics. The Laffer Curve states that very high taxes can lower government revenues. But taxes below certain levels can do so just as effectively. Theoretically the optimum tax rate on the Laffer curve is fifty percent. That is half of the total amount of income in the nation should be taxed to gain the optimum rate of revenue.

The two points at which government revenues go down to zero are obvious. When the tax rate is zero, the government collects zero revenues, and when the income tax rate is 100 percent, the government collects no revenues because no one has any income to tax in rather short order.

The best rate can be anywhere between 0 and 100 percent, depending on what the government needs to spend. All that is necessary is for the tax revenues that are coming in to be able to pay for all of the money that the government has going out. Simple. Almost stupidly simply.

Of course one has to look at different revenue streams. Payroll taxes collect more than the outgoing payments for the programs that these dedicated taxes were designed to pay for. However the government spending that does not generate revenues, does not effectively stimulate large sectors of the economy, make up the largest amount of “non discretionary spending. The Defense Department is non discretionary but income taxes and corporate taxes and the other odd tariffs and sales taxes that the federal government levies dont even quite manage to pay for current Defense Department obligations and past obligation (Veterans benefits, etc) put together. So the answer to this is to have the government borrow the difference simply to cover defense spending. About 89 percent of the national debt is the combined cost of borrowing to cover defense spending over the last 30 years, as well as the interest on that debt. About HALF of the national debt is owed back to the most efficient government program ever designed. Social Security.
Social Security has a balance sheet that is the envy of every corporation on the Fortune 500 list. Or would be if its creditors would pay back what it owes it. And of course, its creditor is the United States government. Basically the government has borrowed the huge surpluses that Social Security and Medicare taxes have generated since 1984. And usually U.S. Treasury notes are considered good investment by those who buy them. Certainly China thinks so. Thats how we borrow our money from China, we sell them the same kind of bonds that we sell Social Security. With a hitch. The American public, Social Security, does not get to cash in those bonds at anytime. It can only cash them in when it needs the money.

The Republican method of running the economy is basically a huge ponzi scheme. When Reagan and Congress raised the Social Security payroll tax back in 1984, the intent was to create a surplus and put it aside for the retirement of the Baby Boomers starting in about 2013. Before this, there was no such thing as a Social Security Surplus. The original law simply had the tax rate go up as MORE people started collecting and go down when less people were collecting. This meant that in 2013, the payroll tax would have to go up to 13 percent from the employee, and 13 percent from the employer. Reagan just didnt like that idea, so the suggestion to slightly raise the tax a few decades earlier and then save the surplus was created. Reagan also asserted that his “supply side tax cuts” would generate more than enough money to generate huge government revenues, enough to run the government as well as pay back the amount borrowed from the trust funds with interest on those loans.

It simply didnt work, so Clinton decided that he was going to stop BORROWING from the trust fund, at least partially, and pay for the rest of government by a small increase to the top marginal rates on taxes. Worked like a charm. All that was necessary was for the government to NOT borrow from the trust funds, and over ten years, there would be a 2.2 trillion dollar surplus generated in ten years.

George Bush went back to supply side, and said, if we give that 2.2 trillion dollars away as tax cuts, it will create a massive stimulation of the economy, and the government will collect more taxes on that additional revenue and be able to pay back the money borrowed with interest. Guess what. Didnt work this time either.

This is what Republicans have been raving about. Everytime they took trust fund money to give income tax cuts, they asserted these tax cuts would pay for themselve and even more. Didnt work in the 1980’s. Didnt work between 2000 and 2008.

[...] The harsh lessons of California | Thinking Right with Jim Wooten [...]

Copyleft

May 29th, 2009
7:43 am

Ehh, the Maniac just wants attention because he needs to feel important SOMEWHERE in life. It’s classic blog-troll behavior.

Just let him rave. As others have pointed out, he’s only damaging his own cause.

Turd Fergusen

May 29th, 2009
8:12 am

@ Jackie…I would venture to guess most any major city would be a hellhole much like Atlanta…Im speaking of course Downtown where Shirlty and her like kind trash be hangin.

@ Evil Rep…Ive heard your diatribe so often its like second nature. Is that all you have little man? Go check out the Clayton County pages and at least brush up your rhetoric. Maybe even learn something new if your brain can focus on something more than bitches, cadillacs, pontiacs, ho’s, malt liquor and white women…

EVIL REPUBLICANS TIME IS UP

May 29th, 2009
8:54 am

TURD REMEMBER BLACK PEOPLE GET THE PIMPING BITCHES CADILLACS HO`S MALT LIQUOR FROM WHITE FOLKS,NOW IF THIS IS BLACK PEOPLE.

THEN WHO WORSHIPS SATAN? WHITES FOLKS

WHO LISTENS TO DEVILWORSHIPPING MUSIC AND LET THEIR KIDS LISTEN TO DEVIL WORSHIP MUSIC?WHITE PEOPLE.

WHO DROWNS THEIR OWN CHILDREN AND BLAMES IT ON BLACKMEN? WHITEWOMEN

WHO ARE THE SERIAL KILLERS?WHITEFOLKS

IN THE SOUTH WHO MOLEST THEIR OWN KIDS?WHITEFOLKS

WHO HAVE REDNECK MUDD SLOPPY EVENTS? NASTY REDNECK WHITES

WHO ARE THE WEAKEST MEN IN THE WORLD? REDNECK DIXIE WHITES.

SO TURD WHEN DEVIL WORSHIPPING WHITES POINT THE FINGER AT BLACKS REMEMBER YOU GOT 10 FINGERS POINTING BACK AT YOU.

Turd Fergusen

May 29th, 2009
9:08 am

First of all Evil…most of your incoherent babblings are just that.
Couldnt agree with whites being satan worshipers…I know none of them that do such, however, you folks rail on and on about “I love Jesus” and all that crap then show up in some tax write-off AME church Sunday morning all hungover from a night of malt liquor drinking.

Devil worship music for whitey is the exception NOT the rule.
Rap, which is short for CRAP, is listened to by all black folks and its nothing but trash. Just pure garbage.

I will address the remainder of your stupidity no further due to and extreme persistence of same.

PS…the saying goes “if you point the finger at a person you have NINE fingers pointing back at yourself”. You are so stupid ya can even get the easy one correct.

PSS…*POOT* *FLUSH*

Turd Fergusen

May 29th, 2009
9:15 am

Evil…LOL…that about the silliest bunch of nothing Ive heard in quite awhile. I will give you the devil worship thing…it does occur but it occurs with whites and blacks. Then again whites dont run themselves ragged attempting to be obtain the latest rap, which is short for crap, CD. Tribal mentality my friend, tribal mentality.

There usually arent many black serial killers because black killers are so stupid they get caught after the 1st or 2nd murder.

As far as mud sloppy and all that…well seems you know more of this than I so I will leave you to your ignorance.

The remainder of your diatribe is laced with much stupidity and I will not even attempt to address due to lack of space.

PS…the saying is “if you point at someone remember you have NINE fingers pointing back at yourself.” You are so stupid and illiterate ya cant even get the easy ones correct. Its Friday…why dont ya go sell some nickel bags, getcha a couple “foetys” and perhaps get lucky with the street corner transvetite, if “she” will have your sorry kind.

PSS…*POOT* in ya face!!

stinger

May 29th, 2009
9:38 am

Hey Jackay, business is good. You’re a retard!

Che was a homicidal maniac

May 29th, 2009
12:35 pm

Copyleft, how many babies have you aborted today?

R Honaker

May 30th, 2009
6:03 pm

.
Had the people of California not put in Prop 13 THEY WOULD BE THE ONES
TOTALLY BROKE. California would have spent all those EXTRA Tax’s and MORE.
Declare Bankruptcy — void all those outlandish Salaries, Pensions and Benefits.
Do what is never done in Government — REORGANIZE

alfred

July 20th, 2009
6:31 am

Hi pals,

we are the best ESD and Cleanroom Protection suppliers for customers because we are the easiest, simplest, and most efficient place to find and buy industrial supply products. We have almost every product in stock. All our products has online presence. Since more than 25 years we have served many customers in entire Europe as well as some parts of the world.
Our ESD and Cleanroom Protection category has Wrist Bands and Heelstraps, Grounding Accessories, Matting, Signs and Labels,Footwear, Storage Boxes, Garments, Cleaning Solutions, PCB Racks, Packaging, ESD Test and Monitoring, Refuse Bins and Bags, Stationary, Ionisation, Cleanroom Disposables, Cleanroom Wipes and Swabs, Cleanroom Dispensers and Accessories, Cleanroom Tacky Mats, Cleanroom Cleaning.

Grounding Accessories, Floor Matting, Bench Matting, Cleanroom protection Shoes