The Economist-California is like Greece (Sacramento, Brea: how much, homes, bankruptcy)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

The rest:
California's budget crisis: Greece is the word | The Economist

LOL...not even close.

"It's wacky," said municipal debt analyst Jeffrey Cleveland at Payden & Rygel. "Just look at the ratio of debt to state gross domestic product. It's 10 percent for California and somewhere between 104 percent and 150 percent for Greece."

California's economy, at $1.845 trillion, dwarfs Greece's and on a stand-alone basis and would be the world's eighth-largest. It is the biggest borrower in the U.S. municipal market, which states and local governments use to fund roads, sewers and other infrastructure.

Big borrower California won't slip like Greece | Reuters

Furthermore,
California's state government is not bankrupt(as you have falsely claimed in the California Forum).

Furthermore,
I, as a Californian will NOT stand by and allow that idiot Governor to cut aid to sick people and old people. Maybe some states could give a rat's @ss about its elderly and sick, but California is NOT one of them.

We have to find another way(and there are plenty of ways to increase revenue), but if going into debt in the meantime is what we have to do now in order to help the needy, then so be it.

The situation in California is not nearly as bad as haters would like to think.

Furthermore,
It seems now that the world is finally(and slowly) becoming aware at how shady and underhanded banks have been just to make a buck. That is revelant in the context of this conversation because of government bonds and the banks that sold them to investors were also the same banks that bet on those bonds failing.

Its all quite immoral and so evil.

[Happy Cells]

Khaliphornya uber alles.....

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

I was going to make the same point. Welfare states (mostly Southern and Midwestern states) steal from California and other productive states

It's just as much Western states as Midwestern states:
The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

You're right about the South, though.

That snapshot is just from 2005, but back to your point about California - as you can see from these charts for each state which span 1981 to 2005, the trend is consistent from year to year - see where from 1992 to 2005 California annually received between $0.66 and $0.70 in expenditures for every $1.00 sent into the federal coffers.
The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005

[maximus1]

Originally Posted by JakeDog

I was going to make the same point. Welfare states (mostly Southern and Midwestern states) steal from California and other productive states to pay for their lazy redneck lifestyle. .

Do you have a source on that stat or are you making it up?

[Oakland Uptown]

Originally Posted by maximus1

Do you have a source on that stat or are you making it up?

Your existence is plenty proof, now start ranting about how you hate Blacks like you usually do before you get banned.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by RenaudFR

The rest:
California's budget crisis: Greece is the word | The Economist

Sounds a bit harsh.

[Voyageur]

Originally Posted by maximus1

The only flaw is it was not mostly southern red states getting the money.

Not one said it was "mostly Southern states". (Another poster claimed it was mostly Southern and Midwestern states, but I pointed out that there are as many Western states in the list of debtor states as there are Midwestern states)

Nonetheless, it remains true that a disproportionate number of Southern states are in the debtor group - 11 of the 13 states of the Confederacy, for example.

By far the area that receives the MOST money is DC at about 6 X what they contributed.

Yes. As you apparently noticed, the District of Columbia is not a state. Further, it is the seat of the federal government. I'm guessing you've noticed this as well. Given that most federal agencies, departments and such are located in the district, it stands to reason that a disproportionate amount of money flows to operate the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Labor, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Treasury, and so on, not to mention the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the federal government. Similarly, if you look at most any state, you'll find disproportionate financial expenditures ending up in cities like Sacramento and Austin and Tallahassee and Albany. To be expected - any other result would be utterly unexpected (well, to anyone paying attention, anyway).

The state that received the most money EVERY year was New Mexico. Not exactly a southern state. Hawaii was up there too.

So what part of the word "mostly" confuses you?

California was not ranked last either. Their rank was about the middle.

Only if you're clueless enough to think 43rd out of 50 is "about the middle".

[JordanJP]

I'm sorry my state "steals" from "great" California. Never mind that New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the union and doesn't really have the amount of residents necessary to make life up to a better standard..

If anything it's better to support another state in the union than say, support a random country elsewhere.

[maximus1]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Only if you're clueless enough to think 43rd out of 50 is "about the middle".

How about 20?

The number changed every year. It went from 20-43.

[pvande55]

Originally Posted by maximus1

Don't forget all the illegals. I guess you don't want to talk about them and their drain on the economy.

I am aware of the drain on the economy due to illegals. But I also don't think it is the whole problem.