Dems in California want to borrow 9 Billion to save welfare.

[EagleKeeper]

Everyone except W. He had 8 years with a supporting Congress and didn't do nothing. Oh wait, W didn't do nothing because the businessmen who want el cheapo labor from Jose and Pepe told W not to do anything.

You are not thinking, son.

CA had laws on the books for illegals - they have chosen to not enforce them.
The Feds just followed CA's lead

 

[EagleKeeper]

Borrow for this year - then what about next year?

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, yeah ..... blame Bush for California being fiscally irresponsible ...... yeah, that's the ticket. It's all his fault ..... yeah.

You're right, Bush has nothing to do with California fiscal problems. However, "liberals" are not really the problem either. We haven't even increased our state budget much in real dollars in the past 13 years (there was one big bump in 1997 during the dot com boom). The trouble right now is that our state revenues are more recession sensitive than many other states because of our low property taxes. So this happens every time we enter a recession. The notion that "liberal" state policies are at work is based on a stereotype of California. It's an assumption made by conservatives who know nothing about the actual situation. The truth is that we have a liberal state legislature and perpetually republican govenors, and our fiscal behavior is a product of compromize between the two, and there are constitutional limits on their ability to raise taxes. Anyone who actually examines the California state budget and adjusts dollars for regional value will have a hard time concluding that we are out of the mainstream on social welfare programs, education, etc. Our penal budget is in fact the only thing that is extraordinary.

These California threads are pretty much all the same. Some piece of California related political or economic news is posted, and the usual out of state conservative crowd pipes in with the same, predictable "those liberals..." comments. You guys and your moronic over-simplification of complex issues crack me up.

- wolf

 

[drebo]

You're not really this stupid, are you?

So you blame companies trying to keep costs down as the cause of a welfare state?

You're not really this stupid, are you?

Entitlement-America is the problem. Someone who sticks pegs in holes isn't worth the $8.50/hr that California tells me I'm supposed to pay them. Why would I pay someone here to do that when I can pay someone else $4/hr, effectively chopping the cost of my goods in half?

If Americans weren't so entitlement-minded, they might actually want to take the jobs at rates reasonable for the required skill of the job. The problem is that liberals have spend the last 60 years telling everyone that they're worth millions and billions of dollars and that if they just apply themselves they can do or earn anything, and have implemented the laws and regulations that almost make that true...without the people having to actually DO anything.

News to you: not everyone is equal. Not everyone is worth a $100K/yr salary. Not everyone is CEO-of-a-F500 material. All this IS true despite what liberals have been spewing for 60 years.

America can't "fix" its outsourcing and jobs problems until two things happen: (1) people get over themselves and realize that work at a lower wage is better than no work at all (China figured this out and their economy is in a LOT better shape than ours), and (2) unions are abolished. No matter how much money the government pours in to "stimulus" and "jobs bills" or how much "protectionist" bullshit laws they pass, these two things MUST happen before domestic labor will be truly viable.

 

[MotF Bane]

Borrow for this year - then what about next year?

Don't think about the next. Pay attention only to the present, to maintaining the voting base. The future is somebody else's problem.

 

[JeepinEd]

You're right, Bush has nothing to do with California fiscal problems. However, "liberals" are not really the problem either. /B We haven't even increased our state budget much in real dollars in the past 13 years (there was one big bump in 1997 during the dot com boom)\B. The trouble right now is that our state revenues are more recession sensitive than many other states because of our low property taxes. So this happens every time we enter a recession. The notion that "liberal" state policies are at work is based on a stereotype of California. It's an assumption made by conservatives who know nothing about the actual situation. The truth is that we have a liberal state legislature and perpetually republican govenors, and our fiscal behavior is a product of compromize between the two, and there are constitutional limits on their ability to raise taxes. Anyone who actually examines the California state budget and adjusts dollars for regional value will have a hard time concluding that we are out of the mainstream on social welfare programs, education, etc. Our penal budget is in fact the only thing that is extraordinary.

These California threads are pretty much all the same. Some piece of California related political or economic news is posted, and the usual out of state conservative crowd pipes in with the same, predictable "those liberals..." comments. You guys and your moronic over-simplification of complex issues crack me up.

- wolf

You must be joking when you say California's budget has not increased. From that little "Bump" in 1997 to 2009, California's budget has gone from $61.5 Billion to $144.5 Billion. Are you saying that's just inflation?

http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf

Edit: It actually peaked in 2008 at $146.5B before the economy went to hell. The 2010 budget is "down" to $119.2B

 

[drebo]

You're right, Bush has nothing to do with California fiscal problems. However, "liberals" are not really the problem either. We haven't even increased our state budget much in real dollars in the past 13 years (there was one big bump in 1997 during the dot com boom). The trouble right now is that our state revenues are more recession sensitive than many other states because of our low property taxes. So this happens every time we enter a recession. The notion that "liberal" state policies are at work is based on a stereotype of California. It's an assumption made by conservatives who know nothing about the actual situation. The truth is that we have a liberal state legislature and perpetually republican govenors, and our fiscal behavior is a product of compromize between the two, and there are constitutional limits on their ability to raise taxes. Anyone who actually examines the California state budget and adjusts dollars for regional value will have a hard time concluding that we are out of the mainstream on social welfare programs, education, etc. Our penal budget is in fact the only thing that is extraordinary.

These California threads are pretty much all the same. Some piece of California related political or economic news is posted, and the usual out of state conservative crowd pipes in with the same, predictable "those liberals..." comments. You guys and your moronic over-simplification of complex issues crack me up.

- wolf

When revenues go down, what is spending supposed to do as well? Oh, right...GO DOWN.

California (and, incidentally, the US) has not done this. Policy makers refuse to spend less money, despite the fact that they have less money to spend. If that's not the work of liberal (whether Democrat or Republican) lawmakers, I don't know what is.

 

[Slew Foot]

because of our low property taxes.

- wolf

Earth to dumbshit, when your average house is 5 times as expensive as the same house everywhere else in the country, a lower tax rate will get you a while lot more dollars.

Of course, if you're considering prop 13 and some grandma who bought their house for pennies a billion years ago, then yeah, that needs to go out the door.

 

[JeepinEd]

Earth to dumbshit, when your average house is 5 times as expensive as the same house everywhere else in the country, a lower tax rate will get you a while lot more dollars.

Of course, if you're considering prop 13 and some grandma who bought their house for pennies a billion years ago, then yeah, that needs to go out the door.

Not to mention that property taxes were already at 3%, which by now would be WAY higher. The median cost of a CA home is currently at around $304K. That means people would be paying over $9000 a year in property taxes (provided the tax miraculously stayed at 3%).
It's no wonder people were losing their homes due to property taxes, prior to prop 13.

Edit: I can almost guarantee that we would still be in the same fiscal mess, only the budget numbers would be higher.

 

[1prophet]

So you blame companies trying to keep costs down as the cause of a welfare state?

You're not really this stupid, are you?

Entitlement-America is the problem. Someone who sticks pegs in holes isn't worth the $8.50/hr that California tells me I'm supposed to pay them. Why would I pay someone here to do that when I can pay someone else $4/hr, effectively chopping the cost of my goods in half?

If Americans weren't so entitlement-minded, they might actually want to take the jobs at rates reasonable for the required skill of the job. The problem is that liberals have spend the last 60 years telling everyone that they're worth millions and billions of dollars and that if they just apply themselves they can do or earn anything, and have implemented the laws and regulations that almost make that true...without the people having to actually DO anything.

News to you: not everyone is equal. Not everyone is worth a $100K/yr salary. Not everyone is CEO-of-a-F500 material. All this IS true despite what liberals have been spewing for 60 years.

America can't "fix" its outsourcing and jobs problems until two things happen: (1) people get over themselves and realize that work at a lower wage is better than no work at all (China figured this out and their economy is in a LOT better shape than ours), and (2) unions are abolished. No matter how much money the government pours in to "stimulus" and "jobs bills" or how much "protectionist" bullshit laws they pass, these two things MUST happen before domestic labor will be truly viable.

It's the corporations that promote this entitlement mentality (keep up with Jones's) in the American consumer in order to continue buying their goods and services and until recently giving away cheap and easy access to credit since most didn't have cash.

If Americans got paid what you think they are worth and lived within their means( cash only no credit) where then would these corporations that depend on free spending overpaid Americans be today?

And let's not start on the entitlement mentality of CEO's and the respective members of their boards that believes in rewarding themselves even with the company failing.

 

[CitizenKain]

So you blame companies trying to keep costs down as the cause of a welfare state?

You're not really this stupid, are you?

Entitlement-America is the problem. Someone who sticks pegs in holes isn't worth the $8.50/hr that California tells me I'm supposed to pay them. Why would I pay someone here to do that when I can pay someone else $4/hr, effectively chopping the cost of my goods in half?

If Americans weren't so entitlement-minded, they might actually want to take the jobs at rates reasonable for the required skill of the job. The problem is that liberals have spend the last 60 years telling everyone that they're worth millions and billions of dollars and that if they just apply themselves they can do or earn anything, and have implemented the laws and regulations that almost make that true...without the people having to actually DO anything.

News to you: not everyone is equal. Not everyone is worth a $100K/yr salary. Not everyone is CEO-of-a-F500 material. All this IS true despite what liberals have been spewing for 60 years.

America can't "fix" its outsourcing and jobs problems until two things happen: (1) people get over themselves and realize that work at a lower wage is better than no work at all (China figured this out and their economy is in a LOT better shape than ours), and (2) unions are abolished. No matter how much money the government pours in to "stimulus" and "jobs bills" or how much "protectionist" bullshit laws they pass, these two things MUST happen before domestic labor will be truly viable.

Yes, people should work for less wages because the executive staff and management deserve that money, because they sit on their ass and go to meetings. What a fucking joke. Unions aren't going anywhere as long as corporations exist, because of people who would exploit the workers in a second.
How exactly do you expect people to live on $4 an hour? This may amaze you, but the cost of living in the US is higher then China. Are you planning on bringing back company housing? Or where do you expect people to live.

 

[Attic]

Shit ain't easy. Too many motherfuckers in the state that need services and California has done a stand up job at getting rid of a lot of the lucrative taxable entities through its liberal policy.

When you enact policy where you reward the lazy and punish the hard worker eventually you will reap what you sow. Case in point is a 9 billion dollar loan to bolster welfare. Whose gonna pay the shit back when you implicity undermine the motivation to produce?

 

[umbrella39]

Everyone except W. He had 8 years with a supporting Congress and didn't do nothing. Oh wait, W didn't do nothing because the businessmen who want el cheapo labor from Jose and Pepe told W not to do anything.

You are not thinking, son.

Everyone knows this except the transparent righties. The illegals in the US are all the dems fault and stopped all GOP attempts to do something about it during their last 8 year run...

 

[child of wonder]

So long as inflation stays down the government is going to feel like it can create all the money out of thin air it wants.

However, soon we'll start seeing incredibly high inflation rates and then shit will really hit the fan.

 

[soulcougher73]

Since everyone likes to play the blame game i am going to blame AT P&N for this mess we are in.

 

[woolfe9999]

Earth to dumbshit, when your average house is 5 times as expensive as the same house everywhere else in the country, a lower tax rate will get you a while lot more dollars.

Of course, if you're considering prop 13 and some grandma who bought their house for pennies a billion years ago, then yeah, that needs to go out the door.

Yeah, that's what I'm considering, and yes, it does need to go out the door. People tend to not sell their houses around here, and when they do, they keep it in their family either by sale or by inheritence. We have people paying 1% of $100,000 on houses valued at over a million here (that's one-tenth of one percent), and it isn't a few isolated cases. It's common. The problem is not the 1% property tax *rate*. We should have a low rate because of higher property values. The problem is that it's locked in forever. And BTW, it foolishly applies to commerical property as well. If a business operates on a property and wants to sell out, the buyer will take over the business entity and the property with it so that there is no change in ownership. It's ludicrous.

The trouble is our tax structure. We are a little high-average on sales and income taxes, and very low on property taxes. In a typical recession, sales and income tax revenues go to hell, but property taxes will tend to remain more stable. That's why our state budget gets creamed in recessions even though we hardly have increased it in 13 years.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

When revenues go down, what is spending supposed to do as well? Oh, right...GO DOWN.

California (and, incidentally, the US) has not done this. Policy makers refuse to spend less money, despite the fact that they have less money to spend. If that's not the work of liberal (whether Democrat or Republican) lawmakers, I don't know what is.

We haven't cut our spending here, eh?

We'll talk again when you have your facts straight.

- wolf

 

[JeepinEd]

Yeah, that's what I'm considering, and yes, it does need to go out the door. People tend to not sell their houses around here, and when they do, they keep it in their family either by sale or by inheritence. We have people paying 1% of $100,000 on houses valued at over a million here (that's one-tenth of one percent), and it isn't a few isolated cases. It's common. The problem is not the 1% property tax *rate*. We should have a low rate because of higher property values. The problem is that it's locked in forever. And BTW, it foolishly applies to commerical property as well. If a business operates on a property and wants to sell out, the buyer will take over the business entity and the property with it so that there is no change in ownership. It's ludicrous.

The trouble is our tax structure. We are a little high-average on sales and income taxes, and very low on property taxes. In a typical recession, sales and income tax revenues go to hell, but property taxes will tend to remain more stable. That's why our state budget gets creamed in recessions even though we hardly have increased it in 13 years.

- wolf

You keep saying we have hardly increased our budget in 13 years. Did you not see my previous post? It has doubled! Has inflation doubled too?

 

[woolfe9999]

You must be joking when you say California's budget has not increased. From that little "Bump" in 1997 to 2009, California's budget has gone from $61.5 Billion to $144.5 Billion. Are you saying that's just inflation?

http://www.sen.ca.gov/budget/budgethistory.pdf

Edit: It actually peaked in 2008 at $146.5B before the economy went to hell. The 2010 budget is "down" to $119.2B

Wake me up when you understand the difference between discretionary and non-discretionary spending. For example, when you have an entitlement program that has been in place for decades, and it pays out more due to increases in population, or due to a slowing down of the economy, that is non-discretionary spending. It has nothing to do with "liberal legislators" voting for new or increased spending. That's why we break budgets down into discretionary and non-discretionary and talk about "general fund" spending. Recessions kill budgets both by decreasing tax revenues and by automatically increasing non-discretionary spending. A failure to understand this, either on the state or federal level, seems to be the source of a lot of nonsense about who or what is responsible for expanding deficits.

Once again, you are oversimplying a complex problem.

- wolf

 

[EagleKeeper]

We haven't even increased our state budget much in real dollars in the past 13 years (there was one big bump in 1997 during the dot com boom).

<snip>

- wolf

So you are stating that your state budget should match the inflation with the exception of 1997.

Look at your budget #s from '87

Inflation has averaged in that time frame about 3%/year. Has the budgets gone up 3% each year or more.

 

[Michael]

"entitlement programs" are discretionary. At some point they were put into place they can be removed if wanted.

I do agree that Prop 13 was a good idea that has had increasing issues over time. Now it probably is not such a great idea. Sort of like "entitlement programs". I'm sure many sounded good and it seemed like they were affordable. Now they're not affordable.

Michael

 

[theeedude]

I don't like it, they should just repeal prop 13.

 

[woolfe9999]

"entitlement programs" are discretionary. At some point they were put into place they can be removed if wanted.

I do agree that Prop 13 was a good idea that has had increasing issues over time. Now it probably is not such a great idea. Sort of like "entitlement programs". I'm sure many sounded good and it seemed like they were affordable. Now they're not affordable.

Michael

While that's true in a sense, when you're talking about entitlement programs which have been in place for decades, you need to look at who enacted the entitlement programs and when, how do those programs compare to similar programs in other states, etc. And when you add a recession into the mix, which recession is rooted in national issues that aren't specific to the state, and understand how it impacts revenues and spending, and how making cuts will affect the local economy, then throw something like prop 13 into the mix, the questions become very complex. My main point here is that the usual suspects always seem to pop in with the "those liberal big spenders" talk every time there is a thread about budget problems in California, and the issues are far more complex than that. I do understand that ideologues don't like complex problems; they prefer simple equations which afix blame on their ideological opponents. But it just isn't reality.

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

Californians are so fucking stupid its unbelievable.

I fixed it for you!

not all of us, just most of us. tbh i blame everyone else for moving here.

 

[allthatisman]

I work in state government, and spend a good deal of time in and around the Capitol. Like immigration reform, like tax reform, and even legislative reform (i.e. Part time legislature) the current lot of politicians want nothing to do with sticking their nose out there for anything that may actually help California. Instead I have to go and listen to some junior assemblyman tout off about his new bill to mandate farmers markets in low income neighborhoods, specifcally, Compton. That is just one example of how fucked up these people are... The city of Sacramento, in all it's wisdom just had a town hall meeting about boycotting Arizona, despite having it's own $20 million deficit... The word these guys know all to well is "deflection"...