An update on the CA budget: our first veto

[Craig234]

dp

 

[Craig234]

Texas 8% unemployment
California 11.7% unemployment thank god for Nevada otherwise you'd be in last place.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

BTW Texas is growing twice as fast as California (percentage wise) In fact the rate of growth in California is barely above the national average.

Anyway... we aren't talking about Texas and its balanced budget.
We are talking about California and its inability to live within its means.

Their growing fast is nice for the owners. Most minimum wage and uninsured? Not so much.

Who brought up Texas anyway? Oh ya.

Texas has a balanced budget without raising taxes...
How is it that these states can do it, but California can not?

 

[ProfJohn]

Their growing fast is nice for the owners. Most minimum wage and uninsured? Not so much.

Where is the proof of those 'facts' ???

Texas has the second largest population in the country so claiming that is has the most people at minimum wage isn't saying much. Especially when Texas is the largest state with no state minimum wage law.


BTW wouldn't having all those low paid employees make it harder to balance the budget??

 

[Lithium381]

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/files/Assembly_Staff_Salaries.pdf

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/files/Asm_Member_Salaries.pdf

 

[Craig234]

Where is the proof of those 'facts' ???

Texas has the second largest population in the country so claiming that is has the most people at minimum wage isn't saying much. Especially when Texas is the largest state with no state minimum wage law.

BTW wouldn't having all those low paid employees make it harder to balance the budget??

Read more carefully. You are making an accusation of using absolute numbers in a statistic that are meaningless.

Funny, YOU are the one who did that - your absolute budget deficit figures for California per person, with no consideration of things like cost of living.

And as I said, I did not - Texas has the highest PROPORTION of its workers at minimum wage of any state - not the highest NUMBER, which would be unfair because of population.

Oh, and here's the clip. Rick Perry story at 8:40; statistics at 10:40.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#43447838

 

[Craig234]

nm

 

[ProfJohn]

I can't get the video to search.

So... who made the statement and where are their numbers from and where can I find them on the web?

 

[ProfJohn]

Got the video to work.

The American Independent seems to be the source for most of her figure.
Can't find the exact story though.
http://tainews.org/

But here is something interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Household income in the US. Go down to income by state and sort by Cost Of Living and notice that Texas ranks 12th and Cali ranks 35th?
6th highest income in the country, but also third highest cost of living in the country.

The cost of living thing makes no sense either. Why does California with its size and great weather compare to a bunch of northern states when it comes to COL?

 

[lothar]

Oh, let's take that shining example of Texas.

24th in unemployment - and that's the good news.

#1 in workers at minimum wage or less
#1 in citizens without health insurance
Note: at the same time the Republicans are trying to take them off Medicare/Medicaid.
#4 in deficit; #5 in deficit as a percent of the budget (20.5%)
From December 2007 to April 2011, wages in TX are up 0.6%; in CA up 9.6%.

On the SAME DAY he launched a petition against taking the federal stimulus, after promising not to do so, he accepted $6.4B stimulus from the federal government.

Texas is the #1 state most dependent on the federal stimulus. The stimulus provided 97% of the funds Texas used for reducing their deficit.

(I'd link a clip with this info, but technical problems).

I would rather earn $7.25/hr minimum wage in Texas than $9/hr in California.

In other for California to equal Texas, California must have a 44%(26.4% if you adjust for Texas only getting 0.6% instead of 1%) wage increase. California completely failed in that regard and achieved only 9.6%. That's nothing to write home about.

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/savings/moving-cost-of-living-calculator.aspx
Try playing with the numbers. There are lots of CA and TX cities to choose from. Hell, some of the CA cities have a 80+% cost of living difference. Craziness. I don't see why one would want to move there. My guess is that current residents are staying put due to "Prop 13" advantages, not much people moving to(unless one happens to get a high paying "Silicon Valley" job which is rare) CA from other states, while illegals continue to increase.

Unless one already took advantage of Prop 13, If one believes that earning $9/hr in CA(assuming this is about monetary aspect alone and not other issues such as family/friends) is better than earning $7.25/hr, then that person is a moran.
Even if that $9/hr CA person was getting a 9.6% wage increase every 5 years versus the $7.25/hr TX person getting a 0.6% wage increase every 5 years, the comparison still doesn't add up.

 

[Craig234]

But here is something interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Household income in the US. Go down to income by state and sort by Cost Of Living and notice that Texas ranks 12th and Cali ranks 35th?
6th highest income in the country, but also third highest cost of living in the country.

The cost of living thing makes no sense either. Why does California with its size and great weather compare to a bunch of northern states when it comes to COL?

I don't know what you did, but you can't 'sort by cost of living' in that link; but CA has the fourth highest cost of living (132.56 index) while Texas is near the bottom (91.04).

(Which is a reminder about you trying to pull a fast one citing figures just looking at dollars with no accounting for cost of living, something you have just dodged when it's said).

CA at 4th highest isn't high enough for you? The higher costs are the very remote Alaska and Hawaii, and Washington, D. C. So, CA's is high. It's desirable.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't know what you did, but you can't 'sort by cost of living' in that link; but CA has the fourth highest cost of living (132.56 index) while Texas is near the bottom (91.04). On that chart the little hour glass looking thing sorts that column"

(Which is a reminder about you trying to pull a fast one citing figures just looking at dollars with no accounting for cost of living, something you have just dodged when it's said).

CA at 4th highest isn't high enough for you? The higher costs are the very remote Alaska and Hawaii, and Washington, D. C. So, CA's is high. It's desirable.

1. Alaska is cold as hell (lots of heating bills) and is remote so everything cost a ton.
2. Hawaii is an island with little land so land costs a ton and everyone has to come by ship so everything is expensive.
3. DC is a city and doesn't count.
4. That brings us to California. Why is California so expensive? There is land for building. It isn't remote. It has very mild weather. So why exactly is it so damn expensive?

And did you notice the bit about how the median income in California isn't nearly enough to afford the median priced house?

"Move to California where you can make a lot of money, just don't plan on buying a house."

 

[theeedude]

The free market has spoken. Living in california is worth a lot more than living in texas.

 

[ProfJohn]

The free market has spoken. Living in california is worth a lot more than living in texas.

And how do you figure that?

California is barely growing. Texas is growing twice as fast.

Seems that the market is speaking and it is choosing Texas twice as often as California.

 

[theeedude]

I figure it by looking at the market price. People are willing to pay more to live in california than in texas.

 

[ProfJohn]

I figure it by looking at the market price. People are willing to pay more to live in california than in texas.

Idiot... they aren't willing to pay more. They have no choice but to pay more.

 

[theeedude]

They have a choice of moving to texas. But they would rather pay more to live in california. If you weren't a retard, you would grasp that.

 

[Lithium381]

You sound like the sort of Californian who is not unreasonable but only somewhat informed.

You're making a big mistake voting Republican, but don't know you are.

Tell me, as you explain how you have an opinion there is NO JUSTIFICATION for any new taxes - what happened to California's General Fund Revenue from 2007-2008 to 2009-2010?

You're right about things like the gas tax (CA is second highest in the nation); I don't know where you get the 20% loss up front to income (our top rate, for over $1 million, is 10.3%).

But state revenues in the period above, to answer the question *were down 24%*.

I'd say that justifies a tax increase to pay the bills. You say you "do not see ANY justification in the increase of taxes." I doubt you knew about the plummeting income.

That's how these cycles work. In down times, the government has higher needs on it while tax revenues are down, making it hard. That's why it's important to prepare in better times, instead of letting Republicans, like Bush did in 2001-2003, go on a splurge turning a surplus into a huge deficit with borrowed tax cuts for the rich and much other spending - based on 'what to do with the surplus' and lots of anti-tax rhetoric.

To recover the economy, the government spending is an important part. Taxes are needed to do that.

The 'new' taxes are to help make up for the 24% reduction in taxes you didn't mention.

As a crude example, your taxes went from $100 to $76, and you say you see no reason for any tax increase. I see 24 reasons, if we're going to balance the budget.

The reasons are, besides the fall in income, the increased need for services - even while the Democrats have made large cuts in spending.

If that's not a need, I may have been wrong about you. I'm assuming having that one fact - there are more - inform you why some taxes are needed.

I'm willing to admit and accept that I don't know everything about politics and fiscal policies, so I wont' claim to. I also have an extreme dislike for partisanship in politics. I don't like how Brown puts all the blame on the Republicans. That sounds like the Democratic party rhetoric. That said I can't say the Republicans dont' share a fair share of the blame..... it's the fact that they don't work together.
Part of the 20% I threw out there is federal tax.

Why does California, the 6th most prosperous economy in the world and the most lucrative state have(almost) the highest taxes coupled with a high population and is still under-water?
Possible answer: We have social programs like non-other, and an above average pupulaiton of sub-poverty citizens. This means that there are more people drawing from the system than contributing.

Another possible answer: The government can't cut it's own spending in down-times to reflect a lack of funds. I'm curious to know why that is.
People often compare the government with businesses and ask why government can't properly scale back. Then there are others that say you can't compare the two. Why? Income and expense. I took accounting a few years ago and it was actually a pretty easy concept to understand....

 

[Craig234]

I'm willing to admit and accept that I don't know everything about politics and fiscal policies, so I wont' claim to.

Makes sense. These are complicated topics.

I also have an extreme dislike for partisanship in politics. I don't like how Brown puts all the blame on the Republicans. That sounds like the Democratic party rhetoric.

I understand that, but I gotta tell you, when you see a politician who's 'non-partisan', he's usually playing you. The one who sounds partisan might be being honest.

For the sake of discussion, say one party really is as bad as their opponents say - no cooperation at all, just corrupt policies.

In that case, what can their opponents say that you'll like? Sometimes partisan is correct, sometimes not.

That said I can't say the Republicans dont' share a fair share of the blame..... it's the fact that they don't work together.
Part of the 20% I threw out there is federal tax.

Why does California, the 6th most prosperous economy in the world and the most lucrative state have(almost) the highest taxes coupled with a high population and is still under-water?
Possible answer: We have social programs like non-other, and an above average pupulaiton of sub-poverty citizens. This means that there are more people drawing from the system than contributing.

Another possible answer: The government can't cut it's own spending in down-times to reflect a lack of funds. I'm curious to know why that is.
People often compare the government with businesses and ask why government can't properly scale back. Then there are others that say you can't compare the two. Why? Income and expense. I took accounting a few years ago and it was actually a pretty easy concept to understand....

Let me make a point this way.

Let's say I ask you to explain to me why to set the amount investment banks are allowed to leverage in various activities. 9 to 1? 15 to 1? 30 to 1? 50 to 1?

That's a pretty basic issue - but your 'income and expense' won't answer it. Turns out it's not so easy to answer. Now what if I ask you to say how to regulate complex derivatives?

There are tens in trillions in basically unregulated CDO's IIRC. Can you say how they should be regulated? It's not that simple.

And neither is the government budget of tens of billions for 40 million people.

Which programs are good investments? Which meet important needs? How should government cash be handled?

Fact is, if you try to use a simple approach, you find yourself crippling the economy and the government.

What business grows without debt? They have to pick how much debt and for what.

States can't be compared to businesses in some areas. They aren't about maximizing profit, they're about efficiently meeting the citizens' needs - at a loss.

They do some things that are 'investments' - let's say they fund afterschool programs that reduce crime, with a nice net savings. But maybe they also provide pre-natal classes just as a public service. These things aren't a 'business'. In fact, the state might have long term policies, while a business unfortunately might well be all about quarterly profit. There are some areas they have in common - like serving 'customers' and looking for efficiency.

I used to be more of a deficit hawk - and still am largely one in the long term - but there's more to the issue, especially in economic recovery.

The problem is less having debt, if it's well invested and spent, than it is the corruption wasting the dollars spent where they don't belong - and undertaxing powerful groups.

California has a problem that it has enough Republicans with a very opposed agenda, pretty much obstructionist, in a state with a 2/3 requirement for any tax increase (and until this year the budget) who are very unified to not give those votes without a lot of demands. I'd say take a look at the budget, who wants to do what, and see if the Republicans aren't in the wrong. Then you can be a partisan Democrat and criticize them.

 

[FuzzyBee]

States can't be compared to businesses in some areas. They aren't about maximizing profit, they're about efficiently meeting the citizens' needs - at a loss.

And this, folks, is Craig's intellect in a nutshell.

 

[Slew Foot]

Stupid liberals cant stop spending other peoples money. Bunch of fucking retards.