California now faces budget cuts ?beyond draconian?

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Besides laying off staff, the effect to local economies will be even worse. Studies show that for every dollar spent at a state park, $2.35 is generated for the state?s general fund through the ripple effect at nearby stores, attractions such as ferries, restaurants, souvenir stores, and other amenities.

doesn't that mean they should keep the state parks open?

Of course it does but the state parks aren't being closed to save money they are being closed for purely political reasons.

 

[JeepinEd]

66% should be required to pass new spending. 66% to pass new taxes to pay for the spending.
Recipe for success.

This is it right here.
All the people who think the new tax requirement should be lowered to 50% are just fools. We would be in the exact same situation, only with MUCH higher taxes.

California's problem is not just in the amount of services it provides, it's also the amount of money it pays all state workers, which in many cases is WAY above average.

 

[Baked]

I just wanna know how I can kick this current dbag governor outta office so we can find somebody with balls and actual knowledge of how to run a state.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Baked
I just wanna know how I can kick this current dbag governor outta office so we can find somebody with balls and actual knowledge of how to run a state.

Like Gray Davis. There was almost a recall effort against Schwarzeneggar, but you probably just have to wait for his term to end.

 

[wwswimming]

Originally posted by: ericlp
http://features.csmonitor.com/...cuts-beyond-draconian/

Sheesh, christian science monitor. Oh well.......

Anyway...

What the hell, why close 300 parks that bring in 2.3 dollars?

Besides laying off staff, the effect to local economies will be even worse. Studies show that for every dollar spent at a state park, $2.35 is generated for the state?s general fund through the ripple effect at nearby stores, attractions such as ferries, restaurants, souvenir stores, and other amenities. Closing the parks also creates law enforcement challenges and the further deterioration of buildings, restrooms, trails, and roads.

?Closing parks costs a lot of money. We already have $1.2 billion in deferred maintenance,? says Mr. Emory, ?and that figure will balloon way beyond that while this closure is in effect.?



I guess California is in worse shape then a thought. They are on a suicide mission! Hopefully this isn't the future of even more states going down this path. I still don't get why they are cutting a program that actually makes money.

it's going to be wierd. or, should i say, more wierd.

lots of homeless people + all that beautiful land = big encampments ?

maybe China would like to buy some of the state parks.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

66% should be required to pass new spending. 66% to pass new taxes to pay for the spending.
Recipe for success.

This is it right here.
All the people who think the new tax requirement should be lowered to 50% are just fools. We would be in the exact same situation, only with MUCH higher taxes.

California's problem is not just in the amount of services it provides, it's also the amount of money it pays all state workers, which in many cases is WAY above average.

That would only be true if you thought the disparity between the requirements to pass new spending and the requirements to pass new taxation had nothing to do with California's current troubles... which would be pretty wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: eleison

Oh yea, you're right. 'Nanny states" spending money on social services that a state cannot afford doesn't have to do anything with a balanced budget Hows that spending on illegal immigrates in California going? Oh, hang on, your telling me that California, unlike Texas, is under water? You don't say.. I'm shocked.. Shocked I tell you... hahaha losers.

Hey, it's not my fault you don't know the definitions of words. Indulge in your ignorance all you want.

Hey, it's not our fault that you're ignorant and won't admit it. Perhaps you should know the definition of words before you jump on your soapbox and make a total fool of yourself. It used to be funny, but now it happens all the time. It's no longer funny...just sad.

nanny state

?noun
a government perceived as authoritarian, interfering, or overprotective.

nanny state
n. Informal
A government perceived as having excessive interest in or control over the welfare of its citizens, especially in the enforcement of extensive public health and safety regulations.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nanny%20state

Hence, eleison was correct, and you were wrong.

Posted this definition again to make sure the complete ownage of you was very thorough. Of course, you will still claim that we didn't "provide any details" or some such nonsense.

:laugh::roll:

Quoted for self ownage.

I said that the definition of 'nanny state' had nothing to do with a balanced budget, so to 'own' me you quoted a definition of nanny state that had nothing to do with a balanced budget. Classic.

Here's a link to the other thread that you claim you 'owned' me in as well.

About your other silly post, now you're attempting to retreat to the difference between California and Texas to being if one is a 'nanny state' or not, when earlier you clearly said California was 'socialist'. That's what I called you out on in this thread. That was an excellent job furiously attempting to disprove a point I never tried to make though. If you're not tired out from all this owning of me that you've been doing, feel free to answer the original question that you ran away from.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

66% should be required to pass new spending. 66% to pass new taxes to pay for the spending.
Recipe for success.

This is it right here.
All the people who think the new tax requirement should be lowered to 50% are just fools. We would be in the exact same situation, only with MUCH higher taxes.

California's problem is not just in the amount of services it provides, it's also the amount of money it pays all state workers, which in many cases is WAY above average.

That would only be true if you thought the disparity between the requirements to pass new spending and the requirements to pass new taxation had nothing to do with California's current troubles... which would be pretty wrong.

Hence my agreeing that there should be a 66% requirement to both pass new spending bills as well as raising taxes.

Lowering the threshold to raise taxes to a simple majority, would make it far too easy for the loons in the legislature to raise taxes. Something which has a significant impact on the lives of all the people in California.

I'm trying to find the article, but I remember hearing one the legislators say something along the lines of - we don't know how high we can raise people's taxes, but we intend to find out- This was about a year ago. If I find the text, I'll link it.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BudAshes
The worst part of it all are all these fast track elections they keep holding. Each one costs tax payers 10's of millions of dollars just for the paper to send out the polling guide. Not to mention the ridiculous early election that got arnold elected in the first place. CA is too big and it needs to be broken up. There is no way around it.

The recall of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzeneggar were failures of democracy, not the size of California.

Factors combined to cause this including the ignorance of the public, the ideology of the public against paying the bills (wanting lower taxes than the spending they want costs), the poor media coverage, the money poured in (this was a Republican power grab and an Enron operation in part, as they wanted to oust Davis who refused to sign the sweetheard deal they wanted to get out of paying for their wrongs (Schwarzeneggar, their ally, signed it), and the inappropriate role of celebrity in the political system (again the public's fault)).

It was a crazy election with 135 candidates for governor, where the vote was widely split - there's a reason we have primaries - so the well-funded celebrity stood out.

the only word that works is traveshamockery.

The worst part is i dont think anyone learned anything.