Slashdot Mirror


California Reaps Google Windfall

theodp writes "The SF Chronicle reports that California took in a record $11.3B in personal income tax receipts in April, $4.3B more than it collected last April, attributing a significant chunk of the surprise windfall to Google employees. Fourteen of Google's top execs and directors sold $4.4B worth of stock last year, including founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, each of whom unloaded about $1.3B."

61 comments

  1. A rising tide lifts all boats by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    California ought to take this "windfall" and invest in the hospitals in southern California. The alarming rate at which they are closing is, well, alarming.

    I'm sad to think that the government of California would be more likely to squander the cash on pet projects rather than bolstering their ability to help people unable to pay for health care.

    1. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by lbrandy · · Score: 2

      I'm sad to think that the government of California would be more likely to squander the cash on pet projects rather than bolstering their ability to help people unable to pay for health care.I'm sad to think that the government of California would be more likely to squander the cash on pet projects rather than bolstering their ability to help people unable to pay for health care.

      Yes. I am interested in hearing more. I wonder if there is anything politically going on in Southern California that makes hospitals struggle to pay their bills... there has to be something.... It's almost like... alot of people there don't have health insurance... Must be evil corporations or something...

      /tongue-in-cheek

    2. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by bazmail · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thats communist talk. They should invest it in rejuvenating Hollywood and in giving tax breaks to the rich in the next fiscal year.

    3. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not just build hospitals in Mexico and save all thse people the trouble of crossing the border illegally to go to the emergency rooms for free?

    4. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Because American citizens are having to be turned away from hospitals because they can't be kept open. Now if you also propose busing those citizens either across the border or up the coast for services, then you'd be on to something, but something tells me that would be a whole lot more unfeasible than simply giving enough money to the hospitals to stay open in the first place.

    5. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oooor, instead of throwing money out the window into a huge fire, they could do something useful with the money - like stopping the influx of illegal aliens through the southern border.

      You do realize that's why the hospitals are closing, right? They're required to provide healthcare to anyone who "needs" it - all the way from triage to birth to cancer treatment - regardless of whether or not the person can pay. Thus, illegals eat for free.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

      Closing the borders won't reopen hospitals. However, a two-pronged approach to the problem, funding hospitals and beefing up the borders, would be within the realm of feasibility.

      If a hospital is closed, no one can see the doctor. At least with the doors open, services will still be available for those who need it.

    7. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by TheGreek · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that if the illegal immigrants could get decent healthcare in Mexico, they wouldn't need to overwhelm the hospitals in Southern California, causing them to close down.

    8. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, why do the illegals go to the emergency rooms rather than the much cheaper and more efficient walk-in clinics? Is it because the clinics are not required to treat them if they can't pay? That would be both counter-productive and mean-spirited.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They'd still be coming here, because they don't only come here for health care. They also come here because even though they make minimum wage or less, they can live better than they do back home, and send money home to support their relatives. Beats subsistence farming...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by localman · · Score: 1

      Like stopping the influx of illegal aliens through the southern border

      Good luck. It'll never happen... until they pull an East Germany and put full time sniper towers every couple hundred yards with orders to shoot to kill on sight. If you think that's a good idea check how it's fared historically.

      I'd rather they make health care public (which has been shown to work well) and completely open the borders so that immigrants (which we'll have in any case) can at least get jobs and be productive members of society. We've already got a decent social structure of materialism that encourages people to work (which is why not everyone is on welfare) and it would work for people born elsewhere, too.

      It wasn't until we started closing our borders in the first part of last century that things got so ugly. Until then the US benefitted enormously from immigrants. But a minority of lazy folks got scared of actual competition and here we are today.

      Cheers.

    11. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      You do realize that's why the hospitals are closing, right? They're required to provide healthcare to anyone who "needs" it - all the way from triage to birth to cancer treatment - regardless of whether or not the person can pay.
      I get that, but I don't understand how it would be "useful" to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country instead. Unless you define "useful" in a particularly greedy and selfish manner...
      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    12. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by EvilMagnus · · Score: 1


      People walk in to the ED because it's open 24x7, and it's easy to find. Just follow the signs to 'hospital'.

      Clinics are not open 24x7 and are harder to find. Also, many many many people just don't "get" what a clinic can do for them. They know that if they have a problem, to go to the ED for 'free' treatment. They don't know (or don't care) about going to a clinic.

      --
      -EvilMagnus
    13. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A big part of the reason they can live better here than they can back home is the fact that their employers externalize the social service costs of their immigrant employees. If there were a market for visas rather than a commie waiting list you'd find out just how much the government is subsidizing immigration.

    14. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      Oooor, instead of throwing money out the window into a huge fire, they could do something useful with the money - like stopping the influx of illegal aliens through the southern border. You do realize that's why the hospitals are closing, right?
      No, actually, its not. Immigration has not taken a sharp rise in the last few years to trigger the recent wave of closures; what has risen is the proportion of the population uninsured, which is what has driven up ER costs and consequently closures. Now, one might argue that the presence of a large, poor immigrant population (legal and illegal) has made Southern California particularly vulnerable to this, and you'd be right; but the trigger for the wave of ER closures is not a spike in immigration, illegal or otherwise, but the increase in the proportion of the population without insurance. And the problem is seen, to a lesser extent, beyond Southern California, and if the trend of insurance becoming less accessible continues, you are going to see it more and more, whatever happens on the immigration front.
      They're required to provide healthcare to anyone who "needs" it - all the way from triage to birth to cancer treatment - regardless of whether or not the person can pay.
      This is false. For the most part, only emergency stablization is required to be provided without reference to ability to pay, which is why ER's are particularly impacted. Of course, you have to provide triage to everyone who presents at the ER to determine whether they need emergency service, and the fact that the ER is the only access (because of the mandate) that many of the rising number of uninsured have to healthcare increases that burden. They have to provide the services without screening for immigration status, but that does not prevent them from screening for ability to pay for non-emergency services.
    15. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by J.R.+Random · · Score: 0, Troll

      Southern California hospitals are closing because of the huge flood of illegal aliens who use the hospitals for emergency health care (which the hospitals are required to provide)and never pay the bills. Rather than use a one-time windfall of Google stock profits to pay for this, it would make much more sense to have a special tax on the businesses that hire that "cheap" labor.

    16. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by carlivar · · Score: 1
      Good luck. It'll never happen... until they pull an East Germany and put full time sniper towers every couple hundred yards with orders to shoot to kill on sight. If you think that's a good idea check how it's fared historically.


      You seem to be forgetting that the Berlin Wall was intended to keep people in not keep people out. Sort of an important part to leave out. But then again when you try to invoke fear by using words like "sniper" I don't think facts mean much to your argument.

      --
      Vote Libertarian
    17. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by localman · · Score: 1

      From a logistical perspective how does it matter whether we're keeping people in Mexico or out of the US? I wasn't saying that this is the same thing as the Berlin wall... the politics and context are totally different. I'm just saying that short of prison level security, how do we propose to keep all these immigrants out? I don't think I'm invoking fear, I'm just looking at it pragmatically. Show me how we can otherwise secure a border that size. Give me historical examples where people were kept from where they wanted to go without lethal force.

      Folowing from that, if people get in, then what? Do we treat them as criminals or citizens. Most would argue criminals, it seems. But if these people are willing to do honest work for money, how does treating them as criminals (or indentured servitude in the case of work visas) make our society better?

      Call me what you want, but I think these are legitimate concerns and questions.

      Cheers.

    18. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by carlivar · · Score: 1
      Actually I do agree that a wall alone will not completely stop people. I read an interview with Immigration and they say they are already finding 200-foot tunnels, which a wall isn't going to stop. I wanted to stress that the existence of a wall alone is not really cause for concern.

      What is preventing folks from entering the country legally? It is an honest question as I do not know the procedure to do so.

      --
      Vote Libertarian
    19. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by localman · · Score: 1

      What is preventing folks from entering the country legally?

      Government mandated quotas: The US only lets a small number of people enter from each country. The number allowed from each country varies, but for many countries it is not enough, so a person from that country would have to stay where they are or enter the US illegally.

      Cheers.

    20. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by QMO · · Score: 1
      I'd rather they make health care public (which has been shown to work well)

      Ever since I read this comment by Descalzo, I've been looking for an excuse to link to it.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid=153 27448

      Plus, I would disagree with how well socialized health care works.
      The comedians in Britain sure critisize it a lot. (I know, I know, comedians aren't exactly an unbiased scientific source, but what the comedians expect people to find humorous is telling.)

      One of the main troubles with health care now is that the patient isn't the customer, the insurance company is. The doctors only listen to the patient when it doesn't conflict with the company that is paying the bills. If health care were socialized this would get drastically worse.
      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    21. Re:A rising tide lifts all boats by localman · · Score: 1

      It's true, I don't have much trust in the government. But I don't have any more trust in corporations. I don't have a big picture solution to health care... does anyone? But it seems from looking around that socialized medicine is marginally better.

      Cheers.

  2. Yay Google! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news Washington state was heard to mutter -- "Damn, if only we had state income tax!"

    1. Re:Yay Google! by generic-man · · Score: 1

      They don't? w00t!

      (I'm moving there from Pennsylvania, where the 3.07% state income tax is in addition to Pittsburgh's 3% city income tax)

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Yay Google! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      No state income tax, (Gates woudn't have paid all that until the special dividend--he doesn't sell that much stock). They do have an 8%+county and city surcharges sales tax. Much nicer for savers.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    3. Re:Yay Google! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      What? Leave the wonderful Keystone State? The one with almost the worst roads in the nation (I think we're 49th) yet PennDOT insists the roads aren't that bad?

      Just wait and see if Swanny gets in. All that sponging off of the rest of the Commonwealth that Pittsburgh and Philadelphia do will skyrocket! He'll be funneling so much money to the two southern corners that that 3% city tax will be mandatory for the rest of us just to pay for all the swag you'll be getting.

      *Sigh* Sorry if I sound a bit cynical. I've lived in PA all my life and the more I dig the deeper it gets. Maybe, just maybe, if the voters can get their act together this time after the pay raises, general corruption and other related matters the House and Senate will have a bunch of new folks who will make an honest effort at getting things in order.

      Maybe I should just hold my breath like David Blaine did and hope for the best.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:Yay Google! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      (I'm moving there from Pennsylvania, where the 3.07% state income tax is in addition to Pittsburgh's 3% city income tax)

      I live in Suburban Pittsburgh. My job requires me to travel on long term contracts out of state. In thos contracts, I frequently pay taxes to the state I am working in. I can tell you from personal experience that Pennsylvania's state income tax compares very favorably to NY, NC, IL, SC, GA, MA, NJ, CT and MN. In fact, PA income tax compares favorably to most states (with the obvious exceptions of no-income tax states like WA, FL, TN, TX, NV, and NH -- I think those are the correct states).

      The problem with states that have no income tax is that they usually have a high-sales tax and a sales tax tends to be regressive (some states tax food and clothing and that makes sales tax very regressive). Of course, I think states like FL and NV get their income from tourists and that's a whole different ball game.

      As for Pittsburgh income taxes -- BAH!!! I used to work for the City. I moved out of the City as soon as my employment their ended. The problem with the City is that they refuse to face their biggest financial problem. And, that problem is the Public Safety Budget. It's about time the City shut down about 10 or 20 fire stations. Until they address the Public Safety Budget, I'll remain a suburbanite.

    5. Re:Yay Google! by generic-man · · Score: 1

      I'm originally from Long Island, where one prominent crackpot started hanging signs reading "GET OUT OF NEW YORK STATE BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!" I'm told that for workers in New York, especially in and around the City, the taxes are just oppressive. (And if you smoke, don't be caught without a pack in NYC or you have to pay $8+ for a pack)

      But in PA we already have a governor who's a troublemaking Eagles fan, so it only follows that the Steelers have to take their turn too. :)

      --
      For more information, click here.
    6. Re:Yay Google! by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      The problem with states that have no income tax is that they usually have a high-sales tax...

      In California we actually get an income tax and a sales tax. Maybe they'll take the windfall and lower the sales tax? Yeah, right. Sorry, I'm old enough to remember when the sales tax was only 6%.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    7. Re:Yay Google! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      In California we actually get an income tax and a sales tax. Maybe they'll take the windfall and lower the sales tax? Yeah, right. Sorry, I'm old enough to remember when the sales tax was only 6%.

      When my wife (who grew up in Florida) complains about PA Taxes, I remind her that we could always move to California. That usually shuts her right up. :)

      Actually, PA has a 3.07% flat-rate income tax and a 6% sales tax (Philly and Pittsburgh have an additional 1% in sales tax). But, no sales tax on grocery-store food or clothing. The flat tax rate does make the state income tax form rather simple. When I was growing up, the state income tax form was barely larger than a 3"x5" card. Today, the form longer, but it's not nearly as confusing as NY or IL.

    8. Re:Yay Google! by juan2074 · · Score: 1
      • In Washington, we pay sales taxes.

      • In Oregon, they pay income taxes.

      • Californians pay both income taxes and sales taxes.

      • Alaskans don't have income or sales taxes (as long as oil prices stay above $40 per barrel).
    9. Re:Yay Google! by juan2074 · · Score: 1
      The problem with states that have no income tax is that they usually have a high-sales tax and a sales tax tends to be regressive (some states tax food and clothing and that makes sales tax very regressive).

      • Which of those states tax food?
      • Which of those states do not tax clothing?

      Sales taxes might be regressive, but they do not discourage savings like income taxes do.

      I prefer paying sales taxes with no income taxes in the state of Washington. But not everyone likes that system.

      Most people in Oregon prefer not paying any sales taxes, but they do have to pay state and local income taxes on top of their federal income taxes.

      I would pay more in taxes to the state and local government if I lived and/or worked in Oregon or California.

    10. Re:Yay Google! by ksheff · · Score: 1

      add SD to your list of no income tax states. I'd rather pay sales tax than income tax.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:Yay Google! by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      * Which of those states tax food? * Which of those states do not tax clothing?

      Here is a list of states and their sales tax policies on food. Those without an asterisk tax the sales of food. As for clothing, I do know that Pennsylvania does not have a sales tax on clothing. I don't know of any other state that does not tax clothing, but I am sure that there are others.

      Sales taxes might be regressive, but they do not discourage savings like income taxes do.

      But, who can afford to create savings accounts in a high sales-tax state? Remember, regressive taxation means poor people pay a higher percentage in taxes than wealthy. If the poor are paying a higher percentage of taxes, that means they have less money to put into saving accounts. So, the wealthier will be able to save more, but the poor will still be without a savings account.

      I would pay more in taxes to the state and local government if I lived and/or worked in Oregon or California.

      The only way to really know if this is true is to keep track of your sales taxes expenditures and compare it to what you probably would pay in Oregon income taxes (I am NOT including California, because you probably would pay higher taxes there). As I understand it, the Feds now give a deduction on estimated sales tax expenditures. You could use the Feds tool to estimate your sales tax expenditures in WA, but there is a chance of error (don't forget to include OR deductions when you estimate OR taxes).

    12. Re:Yay Google! by Baddas · · Score: 1

      You forgot the big one: Oregonians pay scary property taxes. I'm unclear about the other states' property taxes

    13. Re:Yay Google! by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I've oftwondered if there are very many people who live and work in Washington (close to the border) and do the majority of their shopping in Oregon. With the nearness of Vancouver, WA and Portland I would think that a few people must get away with paying very little in state taxes.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
  3. Changing politics? by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I keep hoping that the California software industry starts outpacing the entertainment industry. That way the politicians there will start introducing legislation backed by folks like Google and not folks like the RIAA.

    Of course, a few billion dollars is chump change to the entertainment industry. There's a long way to go.

    1. Re:Changing politics? by muhgcee · · Score: 3, Funny

      If only they'd introduce legislation backed by folks like the folks.

    2. Re:Changing politics? by Plammox · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the software industry is less rotten than the entertainment industry? There will always be suits with dollar signs in their irises playing dirty for personal gain whatever it be money or power. They can't help it. Some people are just like that.

    3. Re:Changing politics? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, a few billion dollars is chump change to the entertainment industry. There's a long way to go.

      That depends. You can break it down a bit. IIRC, the music industry makes about 1-2 B$ a year in the US. It was speculated that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, when combined, have enough cash on hand to just buy the music industry.

    4. Re:Changing politics? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I've never heard what Google & Yahoo have for spare cash, but MSFT's $40+ billion should be able to buy quite a bit.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  4. Cost of living... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the cost of living there $11 billion should be enough to build at least one medium sized hospital in southern California and staff it with illegal Mexican immigrants. People in California seem to live in some other country from those of us here in the midwest. A $200,000 home in Ohio would fetch over a million dollars there. Sheesh. How the hell can you guys afford to live there? Surely you're not making 5 times the income of a person in the midwest (say $50,000 median income here).

    1. Re:Cost of living... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The banks are offering 40- to 50-year mortgages and other financial tricks (i.e., no money down and bad credit is no problem whatsoever!) to make it even feasible to think about buying a California home.

    2. Re:Cost of living... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear that noise? No, it's not an earthquake, it's the housing bubble bursting. I've noticed a lot more FOR SALE signs staying up lately and prices on units dropping 10K-15K in one week. Unfortunately for me it'll have to keep doing this for another 2-3 years before mortgages are in line with rents and incomes.

    3. Re:Cost of living... by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How the hell can you guys afford to live there?

      I own a home in San Francisco and no, I'm not making five times your median income. You can live quite nicely if you don't have to go out and buy whatever shiny new gadget is being advertised on TV. I own a car but rarely drive since public transportation gets me where I want to go. I spend roughly $20 / month on gas. In Ohio, $20 might last a week driving from one mall to another to do my shopping. You just re-prioritize your spending is all.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    4. Re:Cost of living... by JimBobJoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A $200,000 home in Ohio would fetch over a million dollars there.

      There is, incidentally, a surprisingly healthy million dollar home market in Ohio suburbs. The reason is because people who are moved by their companies from housing markets where there is a bubble, need to put the equity they have (500k+) into their next home to avoid capital gains.

      I've been wondering a lot about this lately, and I think that a certain amount of income differentials are becoming unjustifiable. There's one large company with a significant New York and Columbus presence(s) that has employees making $200k in New York who do the same thing as a $75k Columbus employee. Unless the New York employee is magically 2 1/2 times more productive, they might have to justify themselves very differently in the future.

    5. Re:Cost of living... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      I own a car but rarely drive since public transportation gets me where I want to go. I spend roughly $20 / month on gas. In Ohio, $20 might last a week driving from one mall to another to do my shopping.

      So you only spend $5/week on gas in SF instead of $20/week on gas in Ohio. But how much do you spend per week on public transportation in SF? I pay about $5+ to BART every weekday. That's $100+/month.

    6. Re:Cost of living... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      My nephew is getting nervous. He's in the loan paperwork side of the real estate business where he gets a small percentage of each one he handles. Since he's been doing 30 x $1 million loans a month for the past year after getting out of college, he bought two properties that he wants to flip in the near future. That works fine for a hot market but not a slow one.

      He would've been better off sitting on the first one for five years before buying the next one to slowly build up a rental empire. That's how a lot of Californians became rich in real estate -- one property at a time.

    7. Re:Cost of living... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the original poster, but a monthly muni pass is $45/mo or so, and muni is excellent for getting around. If you're travelling within SF, it's dirt cheap. If you have a reverse commute elsewhere, then yeah, caltrain and BART can add up.

    8. Re:Cost of living... by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      But how much do you spend per week on public transportation in SF?

      $45 per month for a FastPass, but that's a minor point. The real issue is managing your money. Factoring in my reduced tax bill from itemizing deductions for interest payments, I am actually paying less for housing now than when I was renting. People who complain that they can't afford to buy a house either can't manage their money or expect to live in Pacific Heights.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
  5. Will Arnold Claim a personal victory? by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a CA resident, this is good news. The state as a whole has been bitching about budget gaps and junk loans and a poor credit rating for the last 5 years, well since the end of the dot bomb days. This should either a) fix the problem in a big way or b) identify the real problem in an even bigger way.

    'A' will happen if the legislature and Governor use the windfall responsibly and pay off huge amounts of existing loans (there's probably 20 billion or so still outstanding) cutting them by a 3rd or more and making them manageable debt instead of out-of-control debt.

    'B' will happen if they simply add an additional 6 billion or more to the existing spending budget for next year, with the hopes that somehow this will happen again in the next year or two, essentially throwing away the opportunity to be responsible.

    I'm hoping for A obviously and hoping that Arnold is the one to do it.. he preached fiscal responsibility all through his campaign, he better stand up and enforce it or get thrown out trying to, no matter what they say about him (Arnold won't give money to education, he wants to pay off those fat-cat loan companies instead, think about the children!).

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:Will Arnold Claim a personal victory? by carlivar · · Score: 1
      he preached fiscal responsibility all through his campaign, he better stand up and enforce it

      He did try to enforce a lot of it, but California voters turned him down (wrongly, in my opinion) with the recent ballot initiatives.

      --
      Vote Libertarian
  6. Great now the state can pay it's debts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you're from B.C. you'd know that the state of California (or I should say the people of) owes B.C. just over a billon, maybe more for electricity we had sold them. Is that going to be paid back? Good luck there, we have to try and collect it from bankrupt companies. It'd be nice to see that paid back, but no, Americans are just a bunch of bums...

    1. Re:Great now the state can pay it's debts by metternich · · Score: 0

      Let me see... No. Wait wait, let me think about it some more... No. Come to think of it... No.

      That just about settles it doesn't it?

      --
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    2. Re:Great now the state can pay it's debts by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Funny

      We also stiffed the British on the bill for that tea!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    3. Re:Great now the state can pay it's debts by lga · · Score: 2, Funny

      We also stiffed the British on the bill for that tea!

      That's alright, we never paid you back our world war 1 debts.

  7. Dios mio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    [CAIMLAS wrote:] Oooor, instead of throwing money out the window into a huge fire, they could do something useful with the money - like stopping the influx of illegal aliens through the southern border.

    You do realize that's why the hospitals are closing, right? They're required to provide healthcare to anyone who "needs" it - all the way from triage to birth to cancer treatment - regardless of whether or not the person can pay. Thus, illegals eat for free.


    Another thing that illegals do is cause my health insurance to go up. As you say, the illegals "eat for free", but the hospitals still has their bills to pay, so they raise the healthcare rates for regular care for all "legal" patients. This means that people who are paying my insurance company and then need to get healthcare will be paying the raised healthcare rates, and therefore, the insurance companies have to dole out larger sums of money. So my insurance company then raises the premiums, meaning my monthly bill goes up.

    As an independent contractor, I go through Blue Cross Blue Shield. When I started I was paying $75 per month; five years later, for the exact same coverage, I'm now paying $175 per month!! I've never had an accident, broken a limb, or anything, and I don't smoke or drink alcohol, but I'm still getting slammed.

    I should ditch my U.S. citizenship, become a Mexican citizen, and then illegally sneak across the border back into the U.S. Woohoo!
  8. And see more software patents by tepples · · Score: 1

    That way the politicians there will start introducing legislation backed by folks like Google and not folks like the RIAA.

    Did you mean to say that lobbying for expansion of the scope of software patents is preferable to lobbying for expansion of the scope of copyrights?

  9. Monorail! by PretzelWagon · · Score: 1

    Mono- D'oh!

  10. What about 'em people from Redmond? by lon3st4r · · Score: 1
    In other news today; the state of Washington reported a loss of revenue - the main cause of which is reported to be the mass migration of top-level executives from Microsoft to Google!

    In another *unrelated* news; Microsoft has lobbied for a "Law Against Defection" in Washington