California's budget still sucking wind (section 8, lawyers, home)

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by user_id

At this point, its hard to see how the US isn't going to revert to the feudal system... But hey, we'll see.

I must express my amusement that you say this, user. I agree. But when I said the same exact thing in another thread about a year ago you launched into one of your "Socratic" arguments against my opinion.

Yes, a modern version of feudalism is working its way into the fabric of our society. Enjoy.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

You do realize that there are two houses of Congress? And Pelosi was the speaker until the last election?

Umm....yeah and I'm talking about the senate. Can the house pass bills by itself? Nope.....so as for as getting bills passed the distribution of power in the senate is critical.

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Many of the states that give less than they take are blue states. They are not all redneck states.

Many? No, there are just a handful of count-examples much of which are small states. For example, Vermont and Maine.

America's fiscal union: The red and the black | The Economist

Originally Posted by hoffdano

What do you propose the feds do? Give Jerry Brown some big checks? Invest in more companies like Solyndra? Build roads? High speed rail?

I've already said, the federal government needs to make more investments in California. That could be funding research, that could be building military bases, etc.

And sure, supporting companies like Solyndra would be good too. Now, before you respond with the typical anti-government rhetoric, realize that most of the companies VC firms invest in fail as well. The successes make up for the failures....

Anyhow, this is a serious issue, entire regions of the country have been allowed to decay in the past (e.g., Rust belt). It results in mass suffering and lowers overall output, there is no reason to let it occur.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

You know if it was an "evil" oil company sitting in $100B in cash, Jerry would find a way to tax it.

Oh yeah? Chevron is headquartered in California........

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by user_id

Umm....yeah and I'm talking about the senate. Can the house pass bills by itself? Nope.....so as for as getting bills passed the distribution of power in the senate is critical.


Many? No, there are just a handful of count-examples much of which are small states. For example, Vermont and Maine.

America's fiscal union: The red and the black | The Economist


I've already said, the federal government needs to make more investments in California. That could be funding research, that could be building military bases, etc.

And sure, supporting companies like Solyndra would be good too. Now, before you respond with the typical anti-government rhetoric, realize that most of the companies VC firms invest in fail as well. The successes make up for the failures....

Anyhow, this is a serious issue, entire regions of the country have been allowed to decay in the past (e.g., Rust belt). It results in mass suffering and lowers overall output, there is no reason to let it occur.

I simply don't agree the Federal government needs to make investments in California. If the feds are a bank of sorts, using taxpayer money, they should invest in places that won't squander the money. There is no evidence that California (at least the government) knows how to manage money.

Open more military bases? I think California is hardly friendly overall to the military. Since the defense budget is under pressure, it seems highly unlikely that the feds will increase defense spending anywhere.

California is asset rich. I don't mean minerals. It has brain power. It has geography. It has ports, oceans, airports, tourist attractions, natural resources and more. There is not one good reason California should not be capable of leading the way. But it suffers from decades of prioritization of social liberalism over sound fiscal policy.

As for Solyndra, or repeats of it.....there is a huge amount of evidence that politics played a huge role in it. Venture capitalists make mistakes and poor invesments too as you pointed out. But they are cold blooded in their choices. If they choose to invest - I trust their analysis and motivation more than I trust the federal government.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I simply don't agree the Federal government needs to make investments in California. If the feds are a bank of sorts, using taxpayer money, they should invest in places that won't squander the money. There is no evidence that California (at least the government) knows how to manage money.

Like all these other places we see thriving all around us? Ummm, like ... well, er, you know, THOSE places ... the ones around us that are doing so well ... Like, I know! N. Dakota!

Originally Posted by hoffdano

California is asset rich. I don't mean minerals. It has brain power. It has geography. It has ports, oceans, airports, tourist attractions, natural resources and more. There is not one good reason California should not be capable of leading the way. But it suffers from decades of prioritization of social liberalism over sound fiscal policy.

Just what do you think the purpose of government is, if not to serve society? Government needs to be disciplined in how to gain and use its funds, but government is not a business and should never be run like one. Government and business have two completely different goals. And 'social liberalism' embodies the only purpose of life for social species.

Time for .highnlite's favorite question here: what have conservatives ever done for this country? For the country, mind you -- not for themselves and their businesses.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Like all these other places we see thriving all around us? Ummm, like ... well, er, you know, THOSE places ... the ones around us that are doing so well ... Like, I know! N. Dakota!



Just what do you think the purpose of government is, if not to serve society? Government needs to be disciplined in how to gain and use its funds, but government is not a business and should never be run like one. Government and business have two completely different goals. And 'social liberalism' embodies the only purpose of life for social species.

Time for .highnlite's favorite question here: what have conservatives ever done for this country? For the country, mind you -- not for themselves and their businesses.

So how are the people serves by public sector unions buying Democrats and getting unsustainable pensions in return? I am not saying that Republicans aren't beholden to their own special interests, but a huge part of the deficit (in California) is pension and health care costs for public employees.

So I guess the answer is to just raise taxes to cover the cost, right?

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

So how are the people serves by public sector unions buying Democrats and getting unsustainable pensions in return? I am not saying that Republicans aren't beholden to their own special interests, but a huge part of the deficit (in California) is pension and health care costs for public employees.

So I guess the answer is to just raise taxes to cover the cost, right?

There is no question that pension reform is necessary. But yes, the at least partial answer for now is probably to raise taxes to cover contractual commitments made in the past to workers who served in good faith.

Many military veterans such as myself went off to war under terms of contractual service. All served the efforts of our nation. Some of us took various damages doing so. The government promised to cover our expenses. Should I feel bad now about the expense of my medical care just because the nation is in a new fiscal crisis? Should I just suffer without my benefits? Especially when there is rampant wealth running amok in this country's financial sectors resulting in ungodly riches for a class of citizen (most of whom never have served their country in any way, just sayin'). Yes, tax the suckers! They haven't acquired their wealth without the protection and advantage of the nation's infrastructures that most of the rest of us labor to build, maintain, and protect.

The state's workers were hired and served under terms of contracts. Pay the contract, suffer the loss, and correct the problem for the future.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Like all these other places we see thriving all around us? Ummm, like ... well, er, you know, THOSE places ... the ones around us that are doing so well ... Like, I know! N. Dakota!



Just what do you think the purpose of government is, if not to serve society? Government needs to be disciplined in how to gain and use its funds, but government is not a business and should never be run like one. Government and business have two completely different goals. And 'social liberalism' embodies the only purpose of life for social species.

Time for .highnlite's favorite question here: what have conservatives ever done for this country? For the country, mind you -- not for themselves and their businesses.

You seem to think that there is a universally accepted definition of "serve society." Surely you agree that Montana's government is serving society just as California is (trying). If you think it is government's duty to educate its citizens in multiple languages then you probably are living in the right place.

I agree governments aren't businesses. But do you think governments don't need money to serve society? It seems to me you can't serve society without money to pay for these services. So the government should raise as much revenue as it needs to spend. If in some years they raise too much, they should save it. Because there most certainly will be years they raise too little.

If California residents believe the services their legislators approve are appropriate, then the residents should agree to the taxes required to pay for them.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I simply don't agree the Federal government needs to make investments in California. If the feds are a bank of sorts, using taxpayer money, they should invest in places that won't squander the money. There is no evidence that California (at least the government) knows how to manage money.

Of course you don't agree....after all if the federal government stimulated the California economy it couldn't be used to push the conservative agenda.

There is no evidence? Gee, how about the fact that California receives vastly more venture capital than any other state?

Originally Posted by hoffdano

There is not one good reason California should not be capable of leading the way. But it suffers from decades of prioritization of social liberalism over sound fiscal policy.

Yes, there is a good reason, the federal government is bleeding the state of tax dollars when its economy is doing poorly...

And there is that conservative agenda.... California's problems are its "social liberalism", never mind the fact that the state's economy was doing fine before the housing bubble collapsed. Stimulating California's economy is just sound economic policy, but we are entering the new dark ages....where sound policy has no place.

But at the end of the day, if Joe Six Pack wants to commit himself to slavery...well so be it.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

T But yes, the at least partial answer for now is probably to raise taxes to cover contractual commitments made in the past to workers who served in good faith.

This would be fine if the costs were small, but they aren't, the boomer entitlements are huge and there is no way they are going to get paid without enslaving younger generations.

Boomers are going to have to accept reduced entitlements, the longer they hold out the more damage will occur in the economy.

Also, and to note the obvious, voting in people that reduced your taxes and increased your entitlements and then years later complain that you worked in "good faith" and deserve everything.......is just highway robbery. This isn't something the government promised, this is something the boomers promised to themselves on the backs of younger generations.

Anyhow, let the war began....