"Water problems in CA. "

[1bad65]

You do know Cali is broke right?

Yeah the 30 billion dollar train that lead to 100 billion so far?

Another valid point.

Because lets be real, if this program comes to fruition it will no doubt cost more once all is said and done than those *****eting it tell us it will cost when they give their projections.

That's all but inevitable when dealing with the government.

[1bad65]

It's not my fault that you somehow think that building new housing units of going to, somehow, lead to a massive influx of new cars on the roads, lol.

That is generally how it works.

Everywhere I've lived when you see new housing getting built the traffic gets worse as the housing gets filled.

Unless a bunch of hermits and shut-ins move into the new housing, they are going to be bringing in cars to run their errands, go to work, travel, etc.

On another note, you're being awfully smug for someone trying to argue against how the world works.

[man down]

That is generally how it works.

Everywhere I've lived when you see new housing getting built the traffic gets worse as the housing gets filled.

Unless a bunch of hermits and shut-ins move into the new housing, they are going to be bringing in cars to run their errands, go to work, travel, etc.

On another note, you're being awfully smug for someone trying to argue against how the world works.

Not to mention they say 20 years to finish that train lol.

[Don Pichardo]

You fix the housing problem, and you basically solve most of the homelessness problem and most of the affordability problem.

It's not rocket science

Your wrong. Stupid azz people will keep having kids. There are already over 40 million people in the state. How long is it going to take to get to 50 mil. I’d say by 2025. So all these house are built to no avail. We need to go China on these damn rats and limit people to one kid if that. I say ban kids altogether until population is sufficiently controlled.

That’s the real answer. But. No politician will get elected running on that platform. Women would vote against it.

[Scipio2009]

That's alot of words, but no answer.

Again, you already rank #1 in State debt, irregardless of how big your economy is.

You can't keep piling on more and more debt with more new government gimme programs. Its unsustainable.

It's not about what you bring in, its about what you spend. You gotta spend less than you bring in.

You're already spending more than you bring in, and now you propose to add a new government goodie giveaway program.

So again, how do you pay for this new giveaway?

California has been in surplus, with a fully allocated rainy day fund, for at least the last 2 legislative sessions.

Please try and know the facts before saying anything; with $15b already in the rainy day fund, plus another $14.5b budget surplus projected for the next legislative session, what are you even talking about?

[Scipio2009]

That is generally how it works.

Everywhere I've lived when you see new housing getting built the traffic gets worse as the housing gets filled.

Unless a bunch of hermits and shut-ins move into the new housing, they are going to be bringing in cars to run their errands, go to work, travel, etc.

On another note, you're being awfully smug for someone trying to argue against how the world works.

Homeless people getting housing isn't going to lead to a massive influx of homeless folks now buying cards.

Having far more homes available on the market will allow renters to be more secure in managing their finances/family finances. That may lead to some folks buying cars, but it's far more likely to lead to families eating out every other month or even saving some money.

Not that hard

[Scipio2009]

Your wrong. Stupid azz people will keep having kids. There are already over 40 million people in the state. How long is it going to take to get to 50 mil. I’d say by 2025. So all these house are built to no avail. We need to go China on these damn rats and limit people to one kid if that. I say ban kids altogether until population is sufficiently controlled.

That’s the real answer. But. No politician will get elected running on that platform. Women would vote against it.

Families will develop as they develop; following China's policy is stupid.

At the population growth pattern that's basically set in over the last 2-3 decades, you're basically looking at 25-30 years before California's population goes from 40m to 50m people, lol.

2050, at the earliest, lol.

[1bad65]

California has been in surplus, with a fully allocated rainy day fund, for at least the last 2 legislative sessions.

Completely false.

Your 'surplus' is nothing more than accounting gimmicks that would get a private sector CEO thrown in jail.

Its primarily achieved via the use of "unfunded liabilities", which is the government's way of saying they neglected to pay certain bills, and thus they now have a 'surplus'

Fyi, that's not how it works.

Btw, one way to tell you really dont have a true surplus is that your State's debt is still climbing. With a true surplus, debt starts to fall.

You fell for the DNC talking points and accounting tricks, but now you've been told the truth.

Please try and know the facts before saying anything; with $15b already in the rainy day fund, plus another $14.5b budget surplus projected for the next legislative session, what are you even talking about?

Speak for yourself on that facts part, as you've just had to be told some basic facts you as a Californian should already know. A Texan shouldn't be having to fill you in on your State's fiscal reality.

Now you may claim to have a Rainy Day Fund, but since it totals much less than your State's existing debt, its money de facto already spent.

So the question is still on the table...

How do you propose to pay for this new Santa Claus program?


Can I please get an answer sometime this year?

[1bad65]

Homeless people getting housing isn't going to lead to a massive influx of homeless folks now buying cards.

No one said it will.

That wasnt my point.

Address my point. Dont make a strawman argument.

Thx, and try again.

Having far more homes available on the market will allow renters to be more secure in managing their finances/family finances.

Normally, yes.

But this is government housing, not housing that came about via free market forces.

So we will have to see.

That may lead to some folks buying cars, but it's far more likely to lead to families eating out every other month or even saving some money.

Not that hard

Again, unless they are people who dont ever leave the house, they need cars.

Like I said, these people have to get to work, for starters.

Unless of course you're saying they never have to work, because they get 'free' housing.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

You fix the housing problem, and you basically solve most of the homelessness problem and most of the affordability problem.

It's not rocket science

Yes, because the drug addicts crapping in the streets have jobs and will pay rent on time.


Wishful thinking sweetie