California Is Insolvent (Broke)

[MrWillys]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

Well no actually. You see, the states don't write those checks, people do. I haven't the slightest idea why people continue to parrot such nonsense. I guess pushing an agenda is a higher priority to some people than the truth. And please define prosperity. Is it having a net worth of -$127 billion like California?

No agenda, but rather simple fact. Californian's pay more in federal tax dollars than they receive vs Alabama who gets more. You can't change facts. As for a deficit of 127 billion in comparision to the US at 16 plus trillion? California's ratio is not even close. When you factor in that a state can't print money, and the fed can, California's debt to GDP is far superior to the Fed.

My dad always told me, if one seeks to find negative they will surely find it. It appears as if you've struck gold. Instead of complaining, you should consider yourself fortunate to be in one of the greatest places to live on earth.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by nslander

Understanding this is necessary for an informed analysis of states' respective fiscals conditions. California taxpayers pay more to the feds than they receive, effectively subsidizing the governments of red states and the conservative welfare queens that live there. I generally oppose cultures of dependency, and CA could use another $15,000,000,000 or so every single year to pay its own bills, but those hapless ingrates obviously have nowhere else to turn. And revenue neutral states like Texas skate by not picking up their share of the bar-tab and they're the ones who kept ordering these incompetents shots of political Everclear. The fact you can't understand this and think it's nonsense suggests you should move to one of those places.

No states are "subsidized." This is a myth that is perpetuated by those with an axe to grind for the purpose of extrapolating values of those they disagree with into an inherently baseless argument. If you're so concerned about "subsidizing" other states with lower populations, then why are you wasting time posting on a message board when you should be sending out strongly worded letters to your congressional representative as well as Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer?

Living outside of larger, metropolitan areas doesn't mean that person is being subsidized by anyone else. That's like saying the residents of Oakland subsidize the residents of Mendocino. Your argument is rubbish.

Originally Posted by MrWillys

No agenda, but rather simple fact. Californian's pay more in federal tax dollars than they receive vs Alabama who gets more. You can't change facts. As for a deficit of 127 billion in comparision to the US at 16 plus trillion? California's ratio is not even close. When you factor in that a state can't print money, and the fed can, California's debt to GDP is far superior to the Fed.

My dad always told me, if one seeks to find negative they will surely find it. It appears as if you've struck gold. Instead of complaining, you should consider yourself fortunate to be in one of the greatest places to live on earth.

No complaining here, I'm just not sticking my head in the sand.

I don't think you understand what GDP actually is, but your comparison to the federal government reeks of desperate rationalization. Personally, I perfer to hold my elected representitives accountable for their poor decisions, not excuse them for the sake of advancing a world view, but that's just me I suppose.

Again, if you don't like CA's return on tax dollars, call your congressional representative and your senators. Tell them to get rid of the progressive income tax which is the main reason this alleged subsidization occurs. But with those greater tax payments, also brings about greater deductions, namely mortgage interest. Gosh, no one seems to complain about that, eh?

Also, let's not leave out things like military bases, Homeland Security grants, interstate highways, disaster relief, and other things beyond the control of the states. Besides, it's kinda difficult to whine about not getting our share when we claim 1/3 of all the welfare recipients with 12% of the country's population. Sounds kinda greedy to me.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

No states are "subsidized." This is a myth that is perpetuated by those with an axe to grind for the purpose of extrapolating values of those they disagree with into an inherently baseless argument. If you're so concerned about "subsidizing" other states with lower populations, then why are you wasting time posting on a message board when you should be sending out strongly worded letters to your congressional representative as well as Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer?

Living outside of larger, metropolitan areas doesn't mean that person is being subsidized by anyone else. That's like saying the residents of Oakland subsidize the residents of Mendocino. Your argument is rubbish.

You can't even string together four honest words. To the extent state resources are dedicated to an area in excess of the state revenue generated from that area, yes, that area is subsidized. Difference is, the good people of Mendocino and Oakland are not pitched in a political battle over this over this arrangement, partly because Mendo and other sparsely populated counties have not stupidly coalesced into a significant voting block of bass-ackward ingrates. But thank you for unwittingly illustrating the point.