California will not accept its own IOU's

[GeezerMan]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Nowhere in the first post's blog link is there any indication that California has refused to accept its own IOUs. From the get-go they were to mature in October, unless the implication is that it won't ALSO accept IOUs from tax-payers, which is fair. The state's budget is a fvckery, as is NY's.

Given that there is a lawsuit in the CA court system, I would guess that CA is not accepting it's IOUs for sales tax payments

I do know that CA has told me that I can not send their IOU back in for income tax payments.

Ah, well if they are not accepting their own IOUs as tax payments, that's not surprising but it is funny people would try.

Sounds like the IOU is really a IscammedU .

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: monovillage
California was in deep fiscal trouble even before the housing bubble burst. You can't even lay all the blame on the politicians since California has a referendum system that's been used and abused for decades.

factor out baseline budgeting then balance occurs. as long as the reckless liberal majority can float a budget baseline above actual revenue, the problem will be ongoing. baseline budgeting assures enough is never enough.

 

[piasabird]

California is in default.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: GeezerMan

Sounds like the IOU is really a IscammedU .

Yep, Cali state gov is scamming the people of california.... again.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Nowhere in the first post's blog link is there any indication that California has refused to accept its own IOUs. From the get-go they were to mature in October, unless the implication is that it won't ALSO accept IOUs from tax-payers, which is fair. The state's budget is a fvckery, as is NY's.

Given that there is a lawsuit in the CA court system, I would guess that CA is not accepting it's IOUs for sales tax payments

I do know that CA has told me that I can not send their IOU back in for income tax payments.

Ah, well if they are not accepting their own IOUs as tax payments, that's not surprising but it is funny people would try.

People/small business are upset that CA seems to be trying to balance on their backs; keeping $$ owed to them but demanding $$ from them; some which is uncollectable from the state.

CA government should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it also.

I have turned down another job for the CA state because of this financial issue.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Huh, two states full of undocumented aliens...what do ya' know?

The voters of California passed proposition 187 which limited services provided by the government to illegal aliens. Per the court ruling on a law suite brought by the ACLU and other groups which threw the proposition out, the state cannot limit services to illegal aliens.

On a side note, the Democratic governor (Gray Davis) decided to not appeal the decision.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Huh, two states who had massive tax revenues from finance and real estate during a finance and real estate crash, what do ya' know?

So you are saying that it is smart to rely on volatile revenue sources? I would think that if you would spread out the tax base revenues wouldn't fluctuate as much.

 

[Craig234]

*Democratic* Gov. Gray Davis had a basically balanced budget. Gov. Davis was fighting the problems Enron caused.

*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

*Republicans* with their veto power because Democrats don't have 2/3 to ignore them have taken extreme positions, refused comrpomise, blocked the fixes.

*Democrats* passed budgets.

Even to the person who talked about the state not allowing gay marriage - the *Democratic* legislature passed the bill, *Republican* governor vetoed it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

Of course, responsible spending cuts don't seem to be in your lexicon, do they Craig? It must be the fault of people wanting to keep *their* money and not the fault of the government spending above and beyond its means, now could it?

You are taking partisan hackery to new heights.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Democratic* Gov. Gray Davis had a basically balanced budget. Gov. Davis was fighting the problems Enron caused.

*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

*Republicans* with their veto power because Democrats don't have 2/3 to ignore them have taken extreme positions, refused comrpomise, blocked the fixes.

*Democrats* passed budgets.

Even to the person who talked about the state not allowing gay marriage - the *Democratic* legislature passed the bill, *Republican* governor vetoed it.

I seem to remember the Democrats voting down a revenue generating measure and then expunging the vote before the (official) results were released. The next day the governor was forced to cut more as the revenue generating measure was voted down and the Democrats countered this by saying that the Republicans took all revenue generating measures off the table and then followed up with a law suite.

If this is the case, why expunge the vote?

EDIT:
Oh...ya...prop 13 (your tax cuts) was passed by the VOTERS many many many years ago.
Oh...ya...the people VOTED AGAINST raising taxes in January.....

So are taxes the problem or spending?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: Craig234

*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

Of course, responsible spending cuts don't seem to be in your lexicon, do they Craig? It must be the fault of people wanting to keep *their* money and not the fault of the government spending above and beyond its means, now could it?

You are taking partisan hackery to new heights.

Of course they are - what's missing is the truth from your posts as usual.

Democrats' plans have included "responsible spending cuts" as part of budgets with multiple elements. But you lie about that, claiming there were none.

It's the Republicans who are the radicals, insisting on *zero* tax increases, not any balance - with 'pledges' and battles against any Republican who breaks ranks.

But what are these crazy tax hikes Democrats want as part of the budget?

Back in the boom days of the dot com era, the state revenues were so high that the car licesning fee was *temporarily* suspended becaue it wasn't needed.

When the dot com crash happened and the state faced a deficit, one of the measures taken by Democratic Gov. Davis was to end the year by year temporary fee suspension.

That fee alone would have balanced the budget - but Republicans recalled him over it and instead gave the state the massive deficit.

All you post is the usual propagandastic parroting of the nonsense as if there should be no such thing as any tax, since it's 'their' money, the thieves in government steal.

The usual asinine blathering of the right-wing chidlren.

Of course spending cuts are part of the solution. You don't get that, Democrats do. They may not cut important educational and care for the needy programs like the Republicans do, but there are other cuts to be made - then again, if the Democratic Gov. Davis had stayed in office and fought for more compensation from Enron, instead of Enron friend Schwarzeneggar signing off on a friendly deal to let them off, the state would have more funds, too.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Patranus

I seem to remember the Democrats voting down a revenue generating measure and then expunging the vote before the (official) results were released.

IIRC the Republicans wanted that - I don't like the practice and called my state representative to say so.

But it's not the topic here, which is about the parties and the deficit and the OP's comments.

EDIT:
Oh...ya...prop 13 (your tax cuts) was passed by the VOTERS many many many years ago.

Yes, but it was created by the right wing, and right-wing voters led the way passing it.

So are taxes the problem or spending?

Both.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Huh, two of the most liberal states...what do ya' know?

How much of each tax revenue CA and NY sends to the feds do they recieve back in aid compared to places like Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia that get filled with pork and provide little tax revenue?

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Huh, two of the most liberal states...what do ya' know?

How much of each tax revenue CA and NY sends to the feds do they recieve back in aid compared to places like Alabama, Mississippi, and West Virginia that get filled with pork and provide little tax revenue?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

In 2003, 43.7% of the registered voters in CA were registered Democrat and 35.5% were registered Republican.

The 'Yes' vote to recall Gray Davis got 55.39% of the vote.

Of the 3 statistically viable candidates to replace him, 2 were Republicans and garnered a combined 61.99% of the vote.

You do the math.

Republicans have not had the general population votes necessary to do what you claim since at least 1999.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Of course they are - what's missing is the truth from your posts as usual.

Democrats' plans have included "responsible spending cuts" as part of budgets with multiple elements. But you lie about that, claiming there were none.

That is fascinating -- where did I lie about that? As a matter-of-fact, I didn't. I simply said that you never seem to want to introduce that into your arguments, and I stand by that claim. I never said that no one (Democrats or Republicans) in California mentioned spending cuts; I mentioned that YOU don't ever seem to consider it.

Here is what I said, word for word:

Of course, responsible spending cuts don't seem to be in your lexicon, do they Craig?

Ouch, I will let that speak for itself.

It's the Republicans who are the radicals, insisting on *zero* tax increases, not any balance - with 'pledges' and battles against any Republican who breaks ranks.

But when Democrats band together and ostracize members of their party who break rank, it is OK with you, I suppose? Weren't you one of the people here bashing the Blue Dogs?

But what are these crazy tax hikes Democrats want as part of the budget?

Back in the boom days of the dot com era, the state revenues were so high that the car licesning fee was *temporarily* suspended becaue it wasn't needed.

When the dot com crash happened and the state faced a deficit, one of the measures taken by Democratic Gov. Davis was to end the year by year temporary fee suspension.

That fee alone would have balanced the budget - but Republicans recalled him over it and instead gave the state the massive deficit.

Please link to your source, as I am interested. What I see is that he tried to TRIPLE the licensing fee. Not just "end the fee suspension" as you claim.

California vehicle license fee to triple

Not to mention this was expected to raise $4 billion, but the budget deficit was projected to be $38 billion. How exactly would "that fee alone" cover the budget deficit?

All you post is the usual propagandastic parroting of the nonsense as if there should be no such thing as any tax, since it's 'their' money, the thieves in government steal.

Link to where I said there should be no taxes, please.

The usual asinine blathering of the right-wing chidlren.

The usual toeing of the Democrat line by predictable hacks such as yourself.

Of course spending cuts are part of the solution. You don't get that, Democrats do.

I don't get it?? Excuse me, who mentioned spending cuts? ME. I DO get it. Spending cuts are absolutely essential and if you read my post, it was I who mentioned it the first time -- certainly not you.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

In 2003, 43.7% of the registered voters in CA were registered Democrat and 35.5% were registered Republican.

The 'Yes' vote to recall Gray Davis got 55.39% of the vote.

Of the 3 statistically viable candidates to replace him, 2 were Republicans and garnered a combined 61.99% of the vote.

You do the math.

Republicans have not had the general population votes necessary to do what you claim since at least 1999.

:laugh:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

In 2003, 43.7% of the registered voters in CA were registered Democrat and 35.5% were registered Republican.

The 'Yes' vote to recall Gray Davis got 55.39% of the vote.

Of the 3 statistically viable candidates to replace him, 2 were Republicans and garnered a combined 61.99% of the vote.

You do the math.

Republicans have not had the general population votes necessary to do what you claim since at least 1999.

:laugh:

Another one of Craig's silly fantasies has been thoroughly debunked.

Bravo to you, sactoking.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Democratic* Gov. Gray Davis had a basically balanced budget. Gov. Davis was fighting the problems Enron caused.

*Right-wing* voters
* voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

*Republicans* with their veto power because Democrats don't have 2/3 to ignore them have taken extreme positions, refused comrpomise, blocked the fixes.

*Democrats* passed budgets.

Even to the person who talked about the state not allowing gay marriage - the *Democratic* legislature passed the bill, *Republican* governor vetoed it.

Yes, but it goes both ways...Tax cuts, spending increases. They both did the samething in contributing to bankrupt the state.
California Republicans approved of stupid tax cuts, while California Democrats approved of stupid spending increases instead of saving for a rainy day fund. They both equally contributed in bankrupting the state.

How is requiring 2/3 to pass budgets and spending increases a problem?

Was this 2/3 requirement approved through referendum/proposition? If so, how is it that the measure was approved?
That's akin to the state of Texas approving a ban on hand guns.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Democratic* Gov. Gray Davis had a basically balanced budget. Gov. Davis was fighting the problems Enron caused.

*Right-wing* voters
* voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

*Republicans* with their veto power because Democrats don't have 2/3 to ignore them have taken extreme positions, refused comrpomise, blocked the fixes.

*Democrats* passed budgets.

Even to the person who talked about the state not allowing gay marriage - the *Democratic* legislature passed the bill, *Republican* governor vetoed it.

Yes, but it goes both ways...Tax cuts, spending increases. They both did the samething in contributing to bankrupt the state.
California Republicans approved of stupid tax cuts, while California Democrats approved of stupid spending increases instead of saving for a rainy day fund. They both equally contributed in bankrupting the state.

How is requiring 2/3 to pass budgets and spending increases a problem?

Was this 2/3 requirement approved through referendum/proposition? If so, how is it that the measure was approved?
That's akin to the state of Texas approving a ban on hand guns.

Nice post. That is the point I try to make around here -- Democrats and Republicans are equally responsible for the messes we find ourselves dealing with every day. These guys are 2 sides of the same coin.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

everyone wants to live in a fantasy world, but no one wants to pay for it

once you accept the first part will NEVER happen, the second becomes irrelevant

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Craig234
*Right-wing* voters voted in unsustainable tax cuts, voted in 2/3 requirements for budgets and tax increases, voted out Gray Davis in a recall and got Schwarzeneggar in.

In 2003, 43.7% of the registered voters in CA were registered Democrat and 35.5% were registered Republican.

The 'Yes' vote to recall Gray Davis got 55.39% of the vote.

Of the 3 statistically viable candidates to replace him, 2 were Republicans and garnered a combined 61.99% of the vote.

You do the math.

Republicans have not had the general population votes necessary to do what you claim since at least 1999.

Wrong. They need some help from some Democrats, but the majority of Democrats voted as I described, and the majority of Republicans voted as described.

You are not being honest to take something with majority Republican support, and minority Democratic support, and say Republicans don't have more and primary blame.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Yes, but it goes both ways...Tax cuts, spending increases. They both did the samething in contributing to bankrupt the state.
California Republicans approved of stupid tax cuts, while California Democrats approved of stupid spending increases instead of saving for a rainy day fund. They both equally contributed in bankrupting the state.

Democrats had the policies to spend a certain amount and pretty much pay for it.

Republics blocked their being able to pay for it - Prop 13, blocked the reinstatement of the vehicle licensing fee, extremist 'zero new taxes' position, etc.

They put Democrats in the position not just of cutting 'waste', but of choosing between cutting important spending for people and 'problem' budgets that played games.

Democrats, predictacly, chose what they viewed as the lesser of two evils.

But that's the cotext - the options were limited by the Republicans.

It's within those limitations that the criticisms of the choices they made, are made.

How is requiring 2/3 to pass budgets and spending increases a problem?

It's 2/3 to pass budgets and increase taxes - it's a problem because the Republicans are behaving in an extremist manner with their 'veto power', willing to let the state suffer greatly to get their demands, playing politics that the Democrats will 'get the blame' for the problems the lack of a budget causes.

It's a little like asking 'what's the problem if we passed an amendment that ever US budget snd tax had to have the approval of Iows' - and Iowa decided to act like political terrorists with their new power, and if the US didn't bend over backwards to give them everything they demand, then too bad for the US - enjoy the chaos. CA Republicans are exploiting their 'veto power' and the problems they're causing are the problem you ask about.

Was this 2/3 requirement approved through referendum/proposition? If so, how is it that the measure was approved?[/quote]

Yes, as I understand it, the 2/3 budget appproval rule was bundled in with the property tax cuts in the Republican-designed Proposition 13.

With the increases in real estate values, property taxes were indeed going up a lot and angering voters and the government didn't seem to take action on its own to defuse that, leaving plenty of angry voters and a lot of popular support for some reform - and the door open to these people to use the issue to get in massive *commercial* tax reduction that gutted the city/county/state budgets and gave Republcans that veto power.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Wrong. They need some help from some Democrats, but the majority of Democrats voted as I described, and the majority of Republicans voted as described.

You are not being honest to take something with majority Republican support, and minority Democratic support, and say Republicans don't have more and primary blame.

Dude, check the link. The data came from the California Secretary of State Voter Registration and Participation statistics. Are you claiming that CASOS is wrong?

In order for your claim to be true, 100% of all registered Republicans would have to vote along party lines and be joined by 100% of all registered Independents, Green Party, Libertarian, and assorted 3rd party members PLUS 100% of all people who declined to state a registration preference.

The statistics are there: the Republican party in California routinely gets about 32-38% of the registered voters and 30-36 of the counties. Neither of those numbers is enough to pass propositions or legislation by the necessary 2/3 or 50%+1.

Face it: the fate of CA has over the past decade or two been up to the Democrats to decide. In years when things are going well the majority of the Democratic voters vote party line and the Dem's get seats. When things go bad, like the CA energy crisis, the Democratic voters abandon the party and vote Republican.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Wrong. They need some help from some Democrats, but the majority of Democrats voted as I described, and the majority of Republicans voted as described.

You are not being honest to take something with majority Republican support, and minority Democratic support, and say Republicans don't have more and primary blame.

Wow, your partisan buffoonery knows no bounds. "Bu...Bu.....Republicans are EVIL!! They're to blame!!" Let's not put ANY responsibility on the Democrats for their ridiculous spending. I suppose that is the fault of Republicans too, huh? You blame EVERYTHING on Republicans and refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Democrats are equally at fault.

Still waiting for some links I requested in my previous post...

 

[Budmantom]

California is Obama's blueprint.