California Vote on Borrowing $5 Billion from Future Lottery Profits

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Originally posted by: 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.

If my understanding is correct the neocon philosophy is to encourage this to the point that the government is so overburdened with debt that the public sector/banks will have veto power over government expenditures. This means anything except military spending will be fair game. Government will only be able to spend on things which economically make sense.

That would be wonderful.

My only fear is it could lead to a further disparity between wealth. Middle class taxed more and more until there's no point in working to become middle class, because you're just lower class anyways after all the Cali and NY style taxes.

If we could accomplish this without destroying the middle class I dare say the government would be forced to become much more lean and efficient.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux

If my understanding is correct the neocon philosophy is to encourage this to the point that the government is so overburdened with debt that the public sector/banks will have veto power over government expenditures. This means anything except military spending will be fair game. Government will only be able to spend on things which economically make sense.

That would be wonderful.

My only fear is it could lead to a further disparity between wealth. Middle class taxed more and more until there's no point in working to become middle class, because you're just lower class anyways after all the Cali and NY style taxes.

If we could accomplish this without destroying the middle class I dare say the government would be forced to become much more lean and efficient.

It's not part of the Neocon ideology, it's a far-right ideology, but there is a correlation between people who believe each.

Grover Norquist is most infamous for espousing it - with his 'government small enough to drown in a bathtub' phrase - the name for it is popularly 'starve the beast'.

The democratically elected government representing the United States citizens, of course, being 'the beast', not that they're ideologues

This policy *does not* mean as you say government can spend on things which economically make sense. It means they can't, and they can only spend on the things that benefit power. You, like most who naively fall for this sort of thing, fail to understand the role of concentrated power - as much as you have some concern about it later in your post.

Look at low-spending nations - and see the disasters. Things that help the people are the first casualties. The things that protect power - the security of the regime, the spending to enrich the wealthy - are what remain, while education, health care, infrastrucutre, the things that should not get cut, are. Your error here is a dangerous one, making you support a policy on the false assumption of what gets cut. It's after the powerful are taken care of that the purse strings open for the public, much of the time.

You are showing yourself to be deluded by equating the level of taxation that fits your description of people not having incentive, with CA and NY taxes. They're *far* lower than the rate at which that happens. That just discredits your comments to make such overblown, ranting statements.

You want the wrong spending reduced and good spendng kept. You *cannot get that* with the blunt axe to the budget. You can only get it the difficult approach of political reform.

I've made the point before, but when the big pharma industry, acting in its own and not the public interest, is the #1 donor industry for Republicans who take power in 2000, it's not a coincidence for the top domestic priority to be the passage of the big pharma tax handout in the Medicare Part D drug bill that banned the government from neegotiating prices. As long as that corrupt political situation exists - and it does for defense, for the finance industry who has been making almost half of all profit in the economy before the crash, and elsewhere - you are not going to get the cuts you want, you are going to get the cuts that hurt the public.

It's a balance of power. The fact is that the balance made them even have a pretense for the drug company handout, by hiding it in a bill with some public benefit. If the balance were even further in the favor of power, they wouldnt' have needed to give as much to the public in that bill for political cover.

*Your approach is the wrong one which will cause great harm*. Ironically, you will *gut* the well being of the public such that they can do even less against concentrated power.

I say things to you about what will help, and you sometimes are not ready for them. When I say progressive democrats, over Republicans or corporate-agenda Democrats, are the protection for the 'right' spending, the middle class, that they're the ones who won't prioritize the wealthy over the public, do you understand or do you just ignore it?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: 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.

My point to you was, as you said 'even in these hard times', to inform you that that's not a valid argument - that 'these hard times' are not the time to cut.

So I'm saying, pay attention to the government spending in recovery times - and you are free to attack *that* overspending.

For an example of what I think is a reasonable approach - read the following speech by JFK, in which he explains his economic views and why the time was right for a tax cut. Note how he lays out a number of criteria needed for a tax cut - and says he would call for a tax increase, if the situation needed, such as military conflict.

Link

But also note how little has changed in the role of Republicans' attacking Democrats inaccurately.

While Kennedy explains there were fewer federal civilian employees in 1962 than in 1952, and that the federal debt had increased 13 percent since 1946 while state and local debt was up 360 percent and private debt over 300 percent, and that without federal aid for state and local government they'd have a surplus, Ronald Reagan attacked JFK for 'big government' and literally called him Karl Marx.

As I recall, Reagan did pretty well later politically, too, using that sort of irresponsible attack on Democrats.

And oh by the way, while Karl Marx (John Kennedy) cut taxes, in Reagan's first year as an elected official, as governor of California, he talked about broad spending cuts, but approved a tax increase of $1 billion on a $6 billion budget, the largest tax increase in state history. We liberals keep trying to tell the right how they're being lied to, but the lies are still working.

See any pattern, as 'dream conservative candidate' George W. Bush went on to skyrocket spending and the deficit, 'disappointing' the right, as his father Bush 41 broke his pledge 'no new taxes' because the *political* need was to say no new taxes (and to not cut spending) while the *economic need* without those spending cuts was taxes, why President Reagan passed the biggest tax increases in history after his big tax cut, because of its harmful effects on the economy (before the current crisis, the early Reagan years were the biggest problems in 25 years).

The JFK speech I linked shows what I think is a good approach, but as with every Democrat sense, the right makes great political gain calling it Karl Marx.

But you can't tell them they're being duped. Like any people being scammed big time, they'll empty their wallets before admitting it.

The scammers understand that. As much as they're getting some blame for the crisis they've created, it's not nearly enough blame.

But note, liberals do believe the government has an important role - and defend that.
It's the dishonest Republican attacks people fall for that are the problem.

The right has now shifted, if you can't beat them, join them, to try to claim JFK for their side, and that's inaccurate. Let's contrast their 'Karl Marx' name calling with JFK:

If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad; if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
- John F. Kennedy


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.
[/quote]

See my comments above on the issue of addressing the 'corruption', the excessive power of the most wealthy people.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,969
140
106
no surprise. yet another smoke and mirrors stunt by the reckless liberal majority legislators in KOOKfornia.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Originally posted by: Craig234

<lots of usual democrats are wonderful and republicans are big liars who eat babies and club baby seals drivel snipped>

I never said anything about any party or political affiliation, yet you try to spin it that way. The point is that government spending doesn't seem to ever go down, in good times or bad, no matter which party is in power. There simply is never an incentive for those in power to really cut spending. After all, why risk angering voters when you can just keep squandering money and never be taken to task for it??

I think the federal government and every state government need to have a constitutionally mandated balanced budget every 3 years. That gives you the opportunity to overspend one or two years if needed for a particular reason, but then the next year you need to pay for it. Then, each and every tax increase needs to be part of a public referendum so the people can decide if they want a tax increase or not. If not, then the government is just going to have to live within it's means. I know, that's a shocking thought for those who believe in limitless government waste, but it needs to happen sooner or later. I'd prefer sooner. We can't just keep borrowing from future generations to satisfy our current excesses.



 

Darthvoy

Golden Member
Aug 3, 2004
1,825
1
0
Originally posted by: 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.

yeah, I think the crux of removing some of the corruption in government is to pay them such a high salary that it won't be as easy to bribe them. I think there is a country in Asia (Singapore I think) that pays its politicians a million dollars a year and at least from what I've read it has more less been very successful.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Originally posted by: Craig234

<lots of usual democrats are wonderful and republicans are big liars who eat babies and club baby seals drivel snipped>

I never said anything about any party or political affiliation, yet you try to spin it that way. The point is that government spending doesn't seem to ever go down, in good times or bad, no matter which party is in power. There simply is never an incentive for those in power to really cut spending. After all, why risk angering voters when you can just keep squandering money and never be taken to task for it??

I think the federal government and every state government need to have a constitutionally mandated balanced budget every 3 years. That gives you the opportunity to overspend one or two years if needed for a particular reason, but then the next year you need to pay for it. Then, each and every tax increase needs to be part of a public referendum so the people can decide if they want a tax increase or not. If not, then the government is just going to have to live within it's means. I know, that's a shocking thought for those who believe in limitless government waste, but it needs to happen sooner or later. I'd prefer sooner. We can't just keep borrowing from future generations to satisfy our current excesses.

You really don't deserve a reply after your rude, dishonest misrepresentation of what I said - how would you like to have yours as "I love the Nazis".

The point is we agree there are problems with spending, but IMO you have an incomplete, simplistic, and partially misguided understanding of the problems, and no interest to learn.

If you want to waste your time tilting at windmills based on part truth and part myth, that's your right, but what's the point in the message board if you are determined to do that?

You could learn a lot from my post - did you read JFK's speech I linked? You say nothing indicating you did. So, you are here to talk to yourself and not listen. Have fun. Bye.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,137
225
106
Originally posted by: Lothar
Who cares?
Only idiots play the lottery anyway.

The lottery is nothing but a tax on the stupid.

You got that right!

But... I still found it pretty damn funny that they are gonna do this. I wonder how they are going to pay it back ... But I guess that shouldn't be too hard to answer since when have they paid back of it's IOU's and if they did pay it back shouldn't it be with interest?
 

nullzero

Senior member
Jan 15, 2005
670
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

There is a moral hazard if CA gets bailed out. Other states will feel like they got shafted if they do not get their cut of the money.... Other states may be pissed and ignore a lot of federal laws to increase tax revenue... ex. legalize weed.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
So, you are here to talk to yourself and not listen. Have fun. Bye.

Holy hell if that ain't irony exemplified. Amusing as ever Craig.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Hacp
To pay the money back, just lower the chances of winning.

Errrr..chances of winning are determined by the number of people who play* + number of balls you need to pick correctly.

Unless you are referring to scratchers?

Edit: *err, number of tickets you buy. Its Monday, give me a break.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: 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.

1F caps officials' salaries but if you go read the rebuttal it shows that 1F doesn't really do THAT much. I'm still fine with it, but if you think about how even the high positions pay under $200k (exception governor), it really is not much money when compared to a Fortune 500 company where people still get fat bonus checks.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Hacp
To pay the money back, just lower the chances of winning.

Errrr..chances of winning are determined by the number of people who play* + number of balls you need to pick correctly.

Unless you are referring to scratchers?

Edit: *err, number of tickets you buy. Its Monday, give me a break.

You know those lottery tickets where you need to pick 5 numbers and a special number? Just change it to pick 6 and a number. That'll reduce payouts.
 
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Hacp
To pay the money back, just lower the chances of winning.

Errrr..chances of winning are determined by the number of people who play* + number of balls you need to pick correctly.

Unless you are referring to scratchers?

Edit: *err, number of tickets you buy. Its Monday, give me a break.

You know those lottery tickets where you need to pick 5 numbers and a special number? Just change it to pick 6 and a number. That'll reduce payouts.

Why don't we just reduce payouts period? Do you really need to win $140 million? Cut winnings by 10% would help.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,464
8
81
Simply vote "NO" on ALL props all the way down!!!


You'll actually do more for the sake of California by voting "NO" even on 'F' (which is a little floating turd by itself anyway) than you would voting all "NO"s and one "YES".


1A ---------> NO
1B ---------> NO
1C ---------> NO
1D ---------> NO
1E ---------> NO
1F ---------> NO

The ultimate goal of the 6 consecutive "NO"'s is to rush California to BANKRUPTCY so that all of these utterly unsustainable costs are addressed by the courts so that the unions no longer have control!!!

Then and ONLY then, can this stuff get fixed for REAL!!