The Right Side of the News

Surplus means the government has more than enough money to fulfill all its obligations. It is a very rare condition in the modern United States.

Then go ahead and read the rest of my Message 668 and answer my questions.Here's another one. Trump switched to claiming that Mexico was still going to pay for his wall through the new trade agreement and through the tariffs he's imposing. Did your conservative programs report that? I'm sure they did. Did your sources agree with what Trump said, that Mexico will be paying those tariffs? I'm sure they did. Did they ever explain how tariffs actually work? I'm sure they didn't. Did they ever mention that, because of the way that tariffs actually work, no country in the world, including Mexico and US, never pays any tariffs imposed against them? I'm sure they didn't. Did they ever mention who actually pays those tariffs? I'm sure that they didn't mention that it's the companies importing those goods and materials who pay those tariffs and must then pass that cost on to its customers and on down the line to us.Faith, there is a very good reason why you are so divorced from reality. Faith, why do we have to tell you this over and over again? That person you see in the mirror is not us. It's you!Edited by dwise1, : quote and response

You mean Marxists and communists? The people should own the means of production and all that? Seems more like the far left. The question was still ill-phrased and implied things that are not true. Capitalism and socialism are not at opposite ends of some spectrum. They coexist just fine. You're defining "the left" in a very broad sense and then insisting that it can only be used in that sense. That's not at all true. In the context of that poll question and of this thread's backdrop of the current political debate between Democrats and Republicans in Washington, "the left" refers to those in favor of things like affordable healthcare for all, a fiscally healthy social security system, a social safety net, regulations supporting a clean environment and action on climate change, etc. I suppose that to varying degrees these can be interpreted as a move toward socialism, but not as a move away from capitalism.There will always be a legitimate debate about where to draw the line of responsibility between government and the private sector. For example, does being for or against having the government run our prisons mean one wants more or less capitalism? Of course not. Those in favor of private sector prisons might give greater weight to the efficiencies of competition in the marketplace providing prisons at lower cost, while those opposed might give greater weight to the social and legal risks presented by an industry motivated to lobby Washington in favor of policies that result in more people being locked up for longer periods of time.--Percy

Is this the flicker of a light bulb going on?--Percy

Are you implying that the state of California is lying that they have $21.4 billion dollar surplus?
About That Giant California Budget Surplus - capradio.org

I tend to think people just get things wrong rather than that they are lying. But here's an article that seems to support what I've been hearing: The Top Four Reasons California is Unsustainabl3ePension liability is something I heard about a while ago from a relative in California who is worried about his state pension going poof before he gets old enough to start receiving it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The amendment was written for a specific purpose involving freed slaves. The question has to do with its original intent.

It's clear what it means. The many court decisions based on it are clear.ABE legislative intent doesn't trump the clear meaning of the Words. Wikipedia:

quote:

---

In law, the legislative intent of the legislature in enacting legislation may sometimes be considered by the judiciary when interpreting the law (see judicial interpretation). The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error.

​

The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute

---

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

The state's power to tax means that your relative's pension will not go "poof", but increased contribution requirements being made on state, city and town employers are putting a strain on their ability to provide services and education. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposes a big down payment on California pensions that will reduce this strain, and it seems reasonable to expect that the state will have to make additional contributions over the next few years. Fortunately the surplus makes it possible to address a problem that has been decades in the making, see The Pension Fund That Ate California.The origins of the California pension fund crisis go back to the 1960's. The pensions (CalPERS and CalSTRS) have been mismanaged for years under both Democratic and Republican administrations, but the state legislature has been mostly under the control of Democrats since 1970.--Percy

This is a chart from Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration. See the article for the interactive version, this is a static image: --Percy

Or, colors inverted:

Thanks for making the chart visible for me.As usual it's all just normal contacts with foreign representatives that all politicians engage in, except that Trump also had business dealings in the mix, nothing sinister there either.

A happy conclusion to a dangerous fake news event. NBC News

Let's say that that's true, that it's just normal contacts. Then why did Trump constantly deny any contacts with Russia? Let's say that that's true, that's there's nothing sinister about trying to make business deals in Russia. Then why did Trump constantly claim he had no dealings with Russia?Now let's examine whether, according to the chart, these were all "just normal contacts" with "nothing sinister":

• Around October of 2015, Michael Cohen spoke with a Russian national who offered the campaign "political synergy" and repeatedly proposed a meeting between Trump and Putin.
  ​
• Around January of 2016, an intermediary extended an offer to Donald Trump Jr. to get Russia's leading social media network to promote Trump's candidacy, and shortly after received email from a Russian social media executive to set up a page for the Trump campaign. Dan Scavino (the Trump campaign's director of social media) received the same email.
  ​
• Around March of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. passed along a letter to his father from a former Russian business associate offering his support.
  ​
• Around March of 2016, George Papadopoulos (member of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisory panel) met with a London professor who claimed to have ties to the Russian government. Shortly after Papadopoulos met with someone purporting to be Putin's niece (she wasn't), and sent email describing his Russian contacts to Sam Clovis (the Trump campaign's national co-chair). Held a meeting attended by Jeff Sessions (Senator from Alabama and early Trump supporter) and Stephen Miller (the Trump campaign's senior advisor for policy) claiming to have contacts who could arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin.
  ​
• Around April of 2016, Carter Page (a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser) was invited to deliver a speech in Moscow.
  ​
• Around April of 2016, George Papadopoulos had numerous contacts with Russians about such things as establishing more contacts with Russians, scheduling a trip for Trump to Russia, and obtaining dirt on Clinton. He told Stephen Miller that Putin wanted to meet with Trump, sent Miller an email about his work on establishing Russian contacts, and sent a similar email to Corey Lewandowski (at the time the Trump campaign chairman).
  ​
• Around April of 2016, Paul Manafort (at the time gather commitments from convention delegates, but later the Trump campaign chairman) contacted a business associate with ties to Russian intelligence.
  ​
• Around May of 2016, Paul Manafort met with his longtime business associate with ties to Russian intelligence, and later sent a proposal to Rick Dearborn (member of Jeff Sessions' staff) for setting up a backchannel meeting with the Russians. Later around June Manafort called it "absurd" to think there were any ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, and offered to give a Russian oligarch private briefings about the Trump campaign.
  ​
• Around June of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. set up a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower to gather dirt on Clinton, then held that meeting. It was also attended by Paul Manafort (by then the Trump campaign chairman) and Jared Kushner (Trump's son-in-law and a Trump campaign digital media strategist).
  ​
• Around June of 2016, Dan Scavino was contacted about the Russia social media site.
  ​
• Around June of 2016, George Papadopoulos worked on establishing contact with the Russian Foreign Ministry.
  ​
• Around June of 2016, Jeff Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador. Sessions later denial of meeting with Russians was the basis of his recusal in leading the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and led directly to the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller. Sessions met with the Russian ambassador again around August.
  ​
• Around June of 2016, Carter Page spoke with a Russian energy executive and later with the Russian ambassador.
  ​
• Around July of 2016, Paul Manafort met with his business associate the Russian intelligence ties.
  ​
• Beginning around July of 2016, Roger Stone (Trump campaign advisor) gathered information about hacked emails possessed by Wikileaks, exchanged emails with Guccifer 2.0 (a pseudonym of Russian intelligence), and announced the times when Wikileaks would be posting the hacked emails.
  ​
• Around August and September of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. exchanged emails with Wikileaks.
  ​
• Around November of 2016, Donald Trump Jr. received email from a Russian social media executive.
  ​
• Around November of 2016, Dan Scavino was contacted again about the Russia social media site.

There's more, but that's enough for now. And we don't even have the Mueller report yet, and Mueller undoubtedly knows much more than is publicly known. Wanna bet that the Trump campaign had far more contact with Russia than with, say, Canada, Great Britain or France?--Percy

All that has been discussed on the conservative talk shows and dismissed as much ado about nothing. And since none of it has implicated Trump in any kind of Russian collusion it's all a big waste of time. And it's all innuendo and personal opinion at this point. I understand that you think it means something but you aren't qualified to judge it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.