Retired Cardiovascular Technologist, Vietnam Era Veteran, Past Fishing Guide
Avid Fisherman and Trap shooting oh and I am a male (((( I don't read any DMs)))
@breakerofgreggs@krassenstein And you get upset about Trumps derogatory attacks on those he doesn't like. But you call me a retard. You have just put yourself in Trumps shoes. I have never said that I like Trump. I think he is a bombastic egotist. Having a shit personality doesn't make his policies bad.
@krassenstein So maybe he is being treated for a benign rash, or allergies. Have you ever heard about HIPPA. Dr. Oz cannot divulge any information no matter how benign it may be. But as we all know you are hoping for Trumps demise. Vance is in the wings if your wishes come true.
@AnnaAulett83891@krassenstein You have any proof or like all his accusers who can't remember when said event occured or have they ever produced any witnesses or corroboration of their accusations or proof of any kind just their accusations. Just like you.
He was tge worst President in my lifetime. He didn't create jobs when recovering from Covid jobs returned from our shutdown. These were returning jobs. Not new ones. He opened the borders allowing double digit millions of un-vetted illegal immigrants to invade our country. The inflation reduction act pump so much money into our economy only to create the highest inflation in 4 decades. He oversaw tge worst military withdrawal in our history leaving hundreds if not thousands of Americans behind. He ended sanctions on Iran freeing up billions for them to build their war machine and supply their proxies to start a war against Isreal. He drained our oil reserves for political reasons leaving us at risk. His anti fossil fuel policies destroyed thousands of high paying jobs. His DEI policies left our military with the lowest recruitment volumes ever. I don't think it was him per say because Joe Biden was a different pro law enforcement anti open border senator for years he was Obama's vice president who oversaw a historic number of illegal immigrant deportations. What he was , was a cognitively impaired president that was easily manipulated by an extreme progressive element within the white house that was actually destroying our country. Unfortunately he will go down as one of tge worst presidents in our history.
@JamieMetzl Why is this a desecration? UFC fighting is an American sport which has millions of fans from all over tge world. Many events have taken place on the White House grounds from concerts to the Easter Egg Roll. It's only a desecration in your eyes because Trump is the president.
At 68% enrichment of Uranium in the hands of a regime that is willing to attack and kill its neighbors and allies and who continue to profess death to America I would beg to differ with you that this was an unnecessary war. This confrontation has been kicked down the road until we have had a president who is willing to take tge political hits and even risk loss of control to protect American lives. Unlike your beloved Democrats who resist every effort to rid our country of the thousands of un-vetted illegal criminal immigrants the previous administration allowed to walk right into our country.
What the agreement said and what actually was taking place was this. This is well documented and frustrated the inspectors.
Inspection of Miltary sites under the JCPOA.
This was one of the most contested aspects of the JCPOA. Here's a clear breakdown:
What the deal technically allowed:
The IAEA's authority to inspect military sites derived from Iran's legally binding Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement (CSA) and the Additional Protocol (AP), which Iran committed to apply as part of the JCPOA. Under the NPT framework, Iran cannot declare any site to be a sanctuary off-limits to IAEA inspectors. (FDD)
Under the Additional Protocol, which Iran accepted as part of the JCPOA, inspectors could request access to undeclared sites, including military sites. However, the agreement spelled out a series of steps to gain that access that could take as long as 24 days to complete. (NPR)
The "managed access" problem:
The suspect site provisions in the JCPOA โ the managed access and dispute resolution procedures โ are significantly weaker than the measures contained in the standard Additional Protocol. Twenty-four hour notice is replaced by a 24-day notice, and if Iran continued to object, the procedures could result in additional delays before Iran was actually confronted with the choice of permitting access or having the case referred to the Security Council. (United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations)
Iran's actual position:
Iranian military and political leaders flatly rejected the idea. Iran's defense minister stated inspectors would not be visiting military sites, and President Rouhani's spokesman emphasized that military sites were "no-go areas" for foreigners. One senior aide to Supreme Leader Khamenei said: "The Americans should take their wish to the grave that they will be allowed to inspect our military institutions under the pretext of JCPOA." (Middle East Institute)
The bottom line: The deal's legal framework theoretically permitted inspections of military sites if the IAEA suspected nuclear activity, but the 24-day notice provision gave Iran substantial time to conceal evidence, and Iran's leadership made clear it would resist such inspections in practice. This gap between the deal's text and real-world enforceability was a major criticism from skeptics.
@krassenstein Where did you get the parameters of the current negotiations. Are you involved with the peace talks or are you just blowing shit out of your ass?
There is a big difference between giving someone money to vote for a specific candidate then supporting a campaign of an individual giving donations to the campaign to help adds for a candidate, lawn signes compensation for campaign staff. It's not like politicians tacking money from lobbyist to vote for a bill that will benefit the company that they are lobbying for.
Presenting a balanced budget at the beginning of the year means very little when you end up with a huge deficit.
California requires a balanced budget, and the obligation applies to all three steps of the process.
The State Constitution (Article IV, Section 12) requires the Governor to submit a budget to the Legislature by January 10 each year. If recommended expenditures exceed estimated revenues, the Governor must recommend sources for the additional revenue needed.
In California, the governor must propose, the legislature must pass, and the governor must ultimately sign a balanced budget.
This wasn't always the full picture. Previously, the Governor was only required to propose, not enact, a balanced budget.
The governor must submit a balanced budget proposal by January 10, and ultimately sign one into law. The requirement is both constitutional and statutory.
The budget is balanced on paper, not necessarily in reality
The courts have held that the Legislature complies with the balanced budget requirement when it enacts a budget bill in which its revenue estimates exceed appropriations. The State Controller does not have authority to independently assess whether the budget is actually balanced if it relies on revenues not yet authorized in existing law. In other words, if the Legislature projects enough revenue to cover spending โ even optimistically โ it legally counts as balanced.
Common ways California "balances" a deficit budget:
Borrowing โ shifting costs between funds or fiscal years
Optimistic revenue projections โ overestimating what tax revenues will come in
One-time fixes โ drawing down reserves rather than cutting ongoing spending
Deferred payments โ pushing obligations into the next fiscal year
The structural problem
California has a constitutional requirement to project deficits or surpluses for the next four years annually, but there is no requirement to fix a "structural" or ongoing projected deficit in the current year. So lawmakers can acknowledge a long-term imbalance and still pass a technically balanced budget.
Essentially, the balanced budget mandate controls the math on paper at the moment of passage, but doesn't prevent the state from making spending commitments that outpace revenue over time.
Here is another way Newsom has spent money he doesn't have.
The pension maneuver
Newsom proposed taking money set aside to pay down CalPERS debt and instead using it to cover the following year's pension costs โ saving the state general fund $1.7 billion as part of his plan to manage the budget deficit. The legal problem with Newsom's pension plan "appears unconstitutional" because it relies on a previously scheduled debt payment required under Proposition 2. The LAO contended the proposal ran afoul of Prop. 2 by using a planned debt payment to "supplant, not supplement" what the state would otherwise have to provide CalPERS. The Newsom administration disputed that interpretation.
More recently, California Democrats were aware of a roughly $2 billion budget accounting error tied to CalPERS for months, even as the state projected a $3 billion deficit โ and did not disclose it publicly.
The bigger picture
CalPERS is only about 72% funded, meaning it has only 72 cents on the dollar to pay promised pensions โ those are among the state's obligations that must be paid first if the budget ever collapses.
Shifting and deferring pension-related payments has been one of the tools used to make the budget appear balanced.