Moved to new thread due to topic drift (a good topic drift, though).

Jody:

^...and why I asked ER a couple of days ago....you can't get blood from a stone. Something has to change. A more Socialistic approach is what Democrats think is the answer. I do not. However as far as moi touting any alternatives, alas, I can not. I can only offer *from that which I hold dear*, and that is CHOICE. I feel threatened by a more Socialistic approach. I feel out of control. I have a sense of I can survive anything as long as I have the freedom to choose. I may have to compromise, again and again and again, but it does not change my fundamental integrity. I will just have to gut it up if we proceed down this path but I won't go quietly. I will try to understand...but I would enjoy the same consideration. I see things from a rugged individualistic point of view.

We all want our future to be secure. However the word *secure* is up for interpretation.^

It's easy to get distracted, especially on long, winding threads. The fiscal problems we are in are not about destroying "the workers," failure to "redistribute sacrifice," or any of those things. When a politician uses the term "sacrifice" it simply means "I want to take more of your stuff and give it to my supporters."

Some people cannot get past the idea that if we just raised taxes, crushed the private sector a little bit more, it would all work. Here in California we had a major tax increase that was supposed to be temporary, and supposed to fix everything. It didn't. Spending shot past it, just like it has every time before. Right now the Democrats here are telling us we have to "extend" those increases or go broke. But they will spend that, and more.

I went over an entire thread on why our problems are NOT the result of insufficient taxation. I showed numbers and graphs. You saw how that ended up. The myth is more attractive than the truth.

As far as public employee benefits are concerned, it's also easily to get distracted. The fight over the public unions is not because of reducing benefit levels. The public unions are a major support system for one, single political party: the Democrats. Millions in donations and millions in manpower, all dedicated to making sure Democrats get in power and stay there. Becoming, incidentally, the ones the public unions "negotiate" with for more benefits. Nice setup, huh? Especially when only one party gets the benefit of laundered tax money from the general public. Public campaign financing? You're already soaking in it.

Harry Reid was saved by the Nevada unions. Go look it up. Arnold Schwarzenegger's first attempts to reform government were destroyed by the unions - along with Arnold himself in my opinion - and right now the public unions are mobilizing in defense of their father, Jerry Brown. The ads are already starting to saturate the radio. More "sacrifice" is needed by the rest of us, and if the budgets are cut, the teachers will all die and the children will suffer.

Ever notice that no government ever threatens to cut school administrators? Despite the fact that most of the education spending increases have ended up at levels above the teachers? Think about it.

Over 16,000 public employees in California have pensions greater than $100,000. The top guy on the list cracks the half-million mark. This is a racket. To be fair, I don't know what percentage of those employees are union members.