|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote:
Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks.
It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
|
On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money.
so basically everyone else is mooching off my state...
|
On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money.
I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does.
|
I don't understand the logic that California has the most money so they should be the most balanced budget.
California has one of the biggest budgets and the most people to take care of, this means more complications, and it means its harder to balance. I think the easiest budgets to manage would be of the smallest amount of people. that's why many of us can balance our check books for ourselves at home, we just don't have that much we need too worry about.
|
On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does.
You are correct, the numbers provided have nothing explicitly to do with the state budget of California. They are instead mere indicators of federal money coming in and out of the state.
|
On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does.
Pretty much all the problems in CA budget balancing can be laid at the feet of proposition 13, which hamstrings the legislature and elected officials a lot. Direct democracy and amendments can be good, but not when they make it so that the only way to change something is more direct democracy.
|
On October 13 2012 04:11 jdsowa wrote:
Those guys stand for a radical reformation of the government and life as we know it in America. The average voter is a balding middle aged man with 2 or 3 kids, a steady job, and all he wants to do is fall asleep in front of the TV every night. He doesn't want revolution like you college kids do.
On October 13 2012 04:13 Souma wrote:
The Tea Party would like to disagree.
The Tea Party markets themselves as trying to "restore" our country. They promise that it will be a happy ride of prosperity and awesomesauce for "real Americans." Now you and I might not think that's what they're actually doing, and that they're radical, but the point is that they have sold themselves as mainstream by the True Patriot American standard, and that everybody else is extreme.
A clever group of revolutionaries would recognize that they have to win over a public that, by and large, does not actually want change.
Besides that, the Tea Party doesn't even have a particularly favorable view among the public. There's a sizeable minority which is very enthusiastic about them; the rest of the country can't stand them.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147308/negative-views-tea-party-rise-new-high.aspx
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I was using the Tea Party as an example of how more exposure can potentially sway more voters regardless of what kind of insane beliefs you hold. It's all about the media spinning your bs which uninformed and/or jaded voters eat up like candy spiked with crack.
|
On October 13 2012 04:30 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote:
Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks. It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation.
I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
|
On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does.
I can't see the two being independent. Surely it would cause budget problems if the state lost 100% of its GDP this way.
The question is -- is the effect, at the level the transfers are actually happening, large or small?
Money out of the state economy is money out of the state budget. California state taxes are something like 10%. In 2005, their state budget deficit was $10 billion, while $50 billion left the state economy due to interstate fiscal transfers. Had that $50 billion remained in state (or, had the federal government spent an additional $50b in CA), it would have been an additional $5 billion in tax revenue for the state -- and that's a conservative guess, assuming no multipliers. That alone would cut the state government's deficit in half. If we consider multipliers, it would probably boost the CA economy by more than $50 billion. (and likewise, reduce the economies of the states that money would have gone into by more than $50b. the overall effect on US GDP would probably be close to 0 since it is simply moving money from one region to another.)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:50 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:30 Souma wrote:On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote:
Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks. It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation. I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks.
People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
|
On October 13 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:50 mordek wrote:On October 13 2012 04:30 Souma wrote:On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote:
Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks. It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation. I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks. People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate.
I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 13 2012 04:54 mordek wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:52 Souma wrote:On October 13 2012 04:50 mordek wrote:On October 13 2012 04:30 Souma wrote:On October 13 2012 04:15 mordek wrote:
Reading and watching politics makes me depressed. I think I need to vent a little bit, but in a sad way.
This world is a complicated place. You can try really hard but solutions are never black and white, everyone can't be happy, and people get hurt. I really care about my fellow man and wish everyone had it good. It just doesn't seem like it's possible, the way this world is fundamentally.
I like the idea of helping the poor, the less fortunate, the down and out. I also like the idea of rewarding those who are honest, work hard, and stand for values and ethics. I mean, can anyone really disagree with that?
It just seems like the way we do government now is flawed, probably because people are flawed (voting for self interest for example), and neither of these candidates and none of their proposed changes give me hope for real change for the better. I want there to things in place to help people in need, because I care. It just burns me when friends/coworkers/acquaintances who are using food stamps and other govt assistance (daycare etc.) turn down extra hours/raises to not lose assistance and then go get manicures. Or free daycare because they're taking night classes in college (a good thing!) but bringing your sick kid to the daycare even though your husband is at home doing nothing in the middle of a month long "interview" process. All that while you're saying no to drinks with friends and going out to eat, passing on cable tv, etc. just you can you get ahead with what you've got.
It just makes me sad. Neither candidate is inspiring. I'm thankful we don't have more immediate concerns like a civil war but it's just a depressing time. /vent thanks. It is very sad what the state of our society has come to. I do not think anyone will disagree that there are a lot of people taking advantage of the system; however, the more important question to ask ourselves is why do these people dissolve into this state of apathy and self-defeat. It is not sufficient to just write them off as lazy dead-beats, but rather, it's important to understand why they are lazy dead-beats. My belief is that it is fostered by this climate of terrible education and horrid social mobility. There is no one, at some point in life, who would not prefer to lead a nice, happy, successful life. But when the odds are heavily stacked against them and the light at the end of the tunnel seems ever-so-distant, it is to no surprise that they eventually crumble into a state of impassivity. The job of the government is to make sure that future generations are not sucked into this situation for the benefit of us all. Unfortunately, America as a whole is quite short-sighted, and cannot even wait a full four years, let alone a decade, to see the fruits of pertinent legislation. I struggle seeing how legislation will change people's nature, or even if it can. I do appreciate your reply, thanks. People are not born as lazy dead-beats. There's a reason for everything. While it may be hard to change the people who have fallen through the cracks at this point in time, it's pivotal that we don't let it happen with future generations or the problem will just exacerbate. I can see the truth in that. Now the examples I gave were merely anecdotal but it just seems wrong how what's supposed to help seems to incentivize laziness. How can the government accurately assess who deserves what? It seems impossible to manage on that level. I do hope we can make changes to not allow people to fall through the cracks. I think it's going to have to look different than it does now though.
It is wrong. At no point in time should the government allow people to get away with gaming the system. What's even more wrong, however, is a society that forces people into this pitiful, pathetic state. There's an inherent social problem that needs to be addressed when people are relegated to this situation in the first place.
|
On October 13 2012 04:52 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does. I can't see the two being independent. Surely it would cause budget problems if the state lost 100% of its GDP this way. The question is -- is the effect, at the level the transfers are actually happening, large or small? Money out of the state economy is money out of the state budget. California state taxes are something like 10%. In 2005, their state budget deficit was $10 billion, while $50 billion left the state economy due to interstate fiscal transfers. Had that $50 billion remained in state (or, had the federal government spent an additional $50b in CA), it would have been an additional $5 billion in tax revenue for the state -- and that's a conservative guess, assuming no multipliers. That alone would cut the state government's deficit in half. If we consider multipliers, it would probably boost the CA economy by more than $50 billion. (and likewise, reduce the economies of the states that money would have gone into by more than $50b. the overall effect on US GDP would probably be close to 0 since it is simply moving money from one region to another.)
I see your point but its wishful thinking. States and the Federal government spend money on very different things so $ for $ comparisons can be awkward.
For example some states have a small population but lots of military bases. Other states receive a large influx of retirees. Either situation would make one state receive more in federal dollars yet would do nothing to help CA's budget if the state took care of these functions on its own.
|
On October 13 2012 04:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does. Pretty much all the problems in CA budget balancing can be laid at the feet of proposition 13, which hamstrings the legislature and elected officials a lot. Direct democracy and amendments can be good, but not when they make it so that the only way to change something is more direct democracy.
Its not all proposition 13. Budgets are so hard in Ca since you need a 2/3 supermajority to do anything, i think we are one of the few states that have that rule. I think RI is the only other state like us. Democrats are super close to having it, 1 or 2 seats under it but not quite there. So minority republican can hold the budget hostage when they dont like something. Kinda like the us senate but worse. Imagine how hard it would be to pass budgets if they need need 67 like CA.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 13 2012 05:02 Quintum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 04:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does. Pretty much all the problems in CA budget balancing can be laid at the feet of proposition 13, which hamstrings the legislature and elected officials a lot. Direct democracy and amendments can be good, but not when they make it so that the only way to change something is more direct democracy. Its not all proposition 13. Budgets are so hard in Ca since you need a 2/3 supermajority to do anything, i think we are one of the few states that have that rule. I think RI is the only other state like us. Democrats are super close to having it, 1 or 2 seats under it but not quite there. So minority republican can hold the budget hostage when they dont like something. Kinda like the us senate but worse. Imagine how hard it would be to pass budgets if they need need 67 like CA.
Prop 13 is what mandates the super majority. 
|
In other news, last night's debate performance by Biden prompted the guys over at FARK to set up a fund to buy Biden a TransAm to make this Onion article come true.
![[image loading]](http://o.onionstatic.com/images/4/4183/original/600.jpg?1407)
If they can't gift the car to the VP then they'll auction it off to charity.
|
You can't seriously discuss California's budget problems without mentioning its out of control pension system.
|
On October 13 2012 05:10 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 05:02 Quintum_ wrote:On October 13 2012 04:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does. Pretty much all the problems in CA budget balancing can be laid at the feet of proposition 13, which hamstrings the legislature and elected officials a lot. Direct democracy and amendments can be good, but not when they make it so that the only way to change something is more direct democracy. Its not all proposition 13. Budgets are so hard in Ca since you need a 2/3 supermajority to do anything, i think we are one of the few states that have that rule. I think RI is the only other state like us. Democrats are super close to having it, 1 or 2 seats under it but not quite there. So minority republican can hold the budget hostage when they dont like something. Kinda like the us senate but worse. Imagine how hard it would be to pass budgets if they need need 67 like CA. Prop 13 is what mandates the super majority.
I thought that was the one that limited housing taxes, shows what i know.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 13 2012 05:21 Quintum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 05:10 Souma wrote:On October 13 2012 05:02 Quintum_ wrote:On October 13 2012 04:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 13 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 13 2012 04:24 Signet wrote:On October 13 2012 02:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
As it stands though, California is the richest state in the country and has some of the highest taxes in the country. They should have the most balanced budget of any state in the country, and yet they are skirting bankruptcy. Clearly the problem is SPENDING if so many other states can manage to not go bankrupt with a fraction of the funding. California loses a ton of money by what the Federal government does. If it weren't for interstate fiscal transfers, they could balance their budget and cut state taxes at the same time. http://taxfoundation.org/article/federal-taxes-paid-vs-federal-spending-received-state-1981-2005I don't doubt that they could manage themselves better, and the direct democracy (ie ballot initiatives/approval) probably does make it structurally more difficult to make any tough decisions. But they are working with a net outflow of money to the federal government -- one of close to $50 billion in the final year of that study (ie, larger than their state deficit) -- while most states are working with a net inflow of federal money. I don't see how that has an impact on the state budget. If I'm not mistaken that's money in and out of the state, not the state government. A state's ability to balance its budget should be independent of what the federal government does. Pretty much all the problems in CA budget balancing can be laid at the feet of proposition 13, which hamstrings the legislature and elected officials a lot. Direct democracy and amendments can be good, but not when they make it so that the only way to change something is more direct democracy. Its not all proposition 13. Budgets are so hard in Ca since you need a 2/3 supermajority to do anything, i think we are one of the few states that have that rule. I think RI is the only other state like us. Democrats are super close to having it, 1 or 2 seats under it but not quite there. So minority republican can hold the budget hostage when they dont like something. Kinda like the us senate but worse. Imagine how hard it would be to pass budgets if they need need 67 like CA. Prop 13 is what mandates the super majority. I thought that was the one that limited housing taxes, shows what i know.
It does both! >_>
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
