California Vote on Borrowing $5 Billion from Future Lottery Profits

[wwswimming]

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.g...m/prop1c-title-sum.htm

they even gave it a nice name, "LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT."

i guess borrowing $5 billion from future Lottery winnings does count as modern. it wouldn't have happened in the 1930's.

talk about Desperate !

that's Prop 1 C. all the props are to help semi-balance the budget.

Prop 1 F.
ELECTED OFFICIALS? SALARIES.
PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

this Proposition has my FULL support.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.g...m/prop1c-title-sum.htm

they even gave it a nice name, "LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT."

i guess borrowing $5 billion from future Lottery winnings does count as modern. it wouldn't have happened in the 1930's.

talk about Desperate !

that's Prop 1 C. all the props are to help semi-balance the budget.

Prop 1 F.
ELECTED OFFICIALS? SALARIES.
PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

this Proposition has my FULL support.

I don't agree with the populist fury about lawmakers' salaries. I think we should pay them enough to attract good people, and remember how important their work is.

For what it's worth, I've always opposed the lottery since it was created. IMO it's nothing but a regressive tax.

 

[glenn1]

Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

Yeah, they need to, but that's never going to happen. Spending less goes against the basic philosophy of government officials. They will never really cut spending, they'll always find new (often stupid and/or irresponsible) ways of funding the ever growing thirst for wasteful spending.

 

[Craig234]

Watch for the story the state is *playing* the lottery.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

Yeah, they need to, but that's never going to happen. Spending less goes against the basic philosophy of government officials. They will never really cut spending, they'll always find new (often stupid and/or irresponsible) ways of funding the ever growing thirst for wasteful spending.

Oh, BS. Yes, there's some waste. No, it's not infinite. They make hard choices all the time.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

Or Obama will bail out California. Doesn't look good for a state to collapse.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Yeah, they need to, but that's never going to happen. Spending less goes against the basic philosophy of government officials. They will never really cut spending, they'll always find new (often stupid and/or irresponsible) ways of funding the ever growing thirst for wasteful spending.

Oh, BS. Yes, there's some waste. No, it's not infinite. They make hard choices all the time.

"Some" waste? That's like saying the sun is a slight bit warm. :laugh: Even so, no matter the degree of waste, my point stands. You say they make "hard decisions" all the time, but I'd love to see some concrete examples of a state or federal government actually significantly CUTTING spending. Not playing shell games, no moving budget numbers around, no counting a reduction in a spending increase as a 'reduction', I mean an actual serious reduction in spending. How often does that happen? Even in this horrible economy, with the state facing enormous deficits and huge problems, NY managed to actually increase their spending yet again. If this situation isn't enough to make them actually cut spending, what is? Cali is the same boat, and they too will end up actually increasing their spending, not decreasing it.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

 

[AFMatt]

Don't hate us. Even though it's been around for years with social security, it took the genius marketing skills of Bernie Maddof to make ponzi schemes the cool new 'in thing'.. Everyone is doing it! Come on, you know your state wants to do it too!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
[Even in this horrible economy, with the state facing enormous deficits and huge problems, NY managed to actually increase their spending yet again. If this situation isn't enough to make them actually cut spending, what is? Cali is the same boat, and they too will end up actually increasing their spending, not decreasing it.

One thing that may seem perverse but has logic to it is that in economic downturns, government spending is especially helpful in keeping the economy going.

The time the government should cut spending is as it recovers - you can see times the deficit, at least, has been greatly reduced, after WWII, and in the 1990's, for example.

Both of those were times of recovery.

The problem is Republicans figured out that between spending, taxing and borrowing, the public will support high borrowing to get high spending and lower taxes.

The problem is, they were right about the politics. To an extent, the American people are to blame as well for that culture, voting for 'borrow and spend' politicians.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas. The next 5 years should be interesting.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas.

No, NY.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
The next 5 years should be interesting.

You pray they will.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas.

No, NY.

Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

Texas - the result if the US and Mexico had a kid. The geographic qualities of Mexico and the cultural charm of the Ugly American, filled with rocks and oil snakes beneath them.

They gave us two Bushes and a hell of a lot of problems - as well as LBJ, who had some good qualities, but a lot of Texas flaws, who gave us Vietnam.

Unfortunately, California can't say anything having wronged the nation with Nixon and Reagan, but at least we gave it Earl Warren, too. Earl Warren is not coming from Texas.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

You forgot to add that texas weather suuuuucks and the people are simple.

 

[Newbian]

Woot... on to state bashing we go.

I say we nuke Virginia since it's to close to the naughty spot.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wreckem
Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

Texas - the result if the US and Mexico had a kid. The geographic qualities of Mexico and the cultural charm of the Ugly American, filled with rocks and oil snakes beneath them.

They gave us two Bushes and a hell of a lot of problems - as well as LBJ, who had some good qualities, but a lot of Texas flaws, who gave us Vietnam.

Unfortunately, California can't say anything having wronged the nation with Nixon and Reagan, but at least we gave it Earl Warren, too. Earl Warren is not coming from Texas.

And Texas also gave us, Esienhower, O'Conner, Kronkite, Rather, Nimitz, Audey Murphy, and Red Adair. As well as Pickens and Perot.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas.

No, NY.

Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

California vs. Texas - ugh, this is like watching retards fight.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas.

No, NY.

Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

California vs. Texas - ugh, this is like watching retards fight.

Is there ever a true winner?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Wreckem
And Texas also gave us, Esienhower, O'Conner, Kronkite, Rather, Nimitz, Audey Murphy, and Red Adair. As well as Pickens and Perot.

'Happened to be born there' is pretty pointless.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
[Even in this horrible economy, with the state facing enormous deficits and huge problems, NY managed to actually increase their spending yet again. If this situation isn't enough to make them actually cut spending, what is? Cali is the same boat, and they too will end up actually increasing their spending, not decreasing it.

One thing that may seem perverse but has logic to it is that in economic downturns, government spending is especially helpful in keeping the economy going.

The time the government should cut spending is as it recovers - you can see times the deficit, at least, has been greatly reduced, after WWII, and in the 1990's, for example.

Both of those were times of recovery.

The problem is Republicans figured out that between spending, taxing and borrowing, the public will support high borrowing to get high spending and lower taxes.

The problem is, they were right about the politics. To an extent, the American people are to blame as well for that culture, voting for 'borrow and spend' politicians.

Ok, so in times of economic downturn, the government is spending more to try and push the economy up a little. So, in great times spending goes down, correct? NO. It does not. In good economic times, the government generally increases spending at an even faster rate instead of putting away money to pay for the hard times. So you've admitted then, that my point was absolutely correct: government spending rarely if ever goes down, it only increases, increases, increases. Spend spend spend, then worry about how to pay for it (increase taxes/fees?), never worry about how to reign in spending.

Of course the people are to blame, we keep voting in idiots who want so squander and spend more and more and more. We don't vote for people who don't promise to spend lots on all sorts of stuff.

you can see times the deficit, at least, has been greatly reduced

Yeah, the deficit sometimes gets reduced, but that just mean we're still spending too much, just less so. An no point does actual spending ever get significantly reduced. That seems to be the natural path for government spending all over the world, it never gets reduced. Heck, why would it? Those who spend the money have no incentive to figure out how to spend less.

 

[Fear No Evil]

If we're going to nuke any state from orbit, I'd go with Illinois.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Evan

Originally posted by: glenn1
Tax rates were already some of the highest in the nation, and they were just raised again. CA unemployment is up to 11.2%. Now they're borrowing against the lottery. At some point the state will run out of options, and will either need to drastically cut spending or declare bankruptcy.

The state can't declare bankruptcy when it doles out more per dollar than any other state. The "crisis" in CA is overblown, we hear about it all the time every decade or so and they always pull out of it. The budget infighting is nothing but politics.

CA is and will continue to remain the lifeblood of the country financially, easily the biggest economy in the union over NY.

You mean over Texas.

No, NY.

Texas has the second largest economy in the US(for 6 out of the last 7 years).

It also is the US's #1 exporter. Is the US's #1 energy producer, #1 alternative energy producer, and #1 petrochemical producer. Also has the largest port on the "east" coast. Has the most fortune 500 companies. Has relatively low unemployment. Business friendly and very economically diversified. Having 4 of the top 20 cities for tech jobs, in addition to oil, ag, energy, aerospace, and defense. Did I mention low uneployment and business friendly? Two things CA has a massive problem with right now. Add in low cost of living and well, its only UP for TX more so since TX isnt built on or relies on debt like CA and NY.

Also, Texas is projected to gain 4 House seats after the 2010 Census. CA -1, NY -1.

Texas is looking like a great state to take a job in.