kelpdiver 2 #26 March 12, 2009 Quote I apologize that my opinion differs from yours... No need to apologize - just don't expect me to care about your rant when you offer nothing tangible in replacement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #27 March 13, 2009 rant...differing opinion...rant...differing opinion Billv has trained you well, young jedi!So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #28 March 13, 2009 QuoteNo intelligent person with a business mind would run the state or country this way. What would Arnold do? He's an intelligent person with a business mind charged with running a state, right?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #29 March 13, 2009 that's why i voted for him! I think it sucks he folded to the lesser officials that demand their pet projects be completed at the expense of the tax payer. There is no way all this spending needs to take place. Notice how many jobs have been cut recently? stores closing? the government needs to do the same and reset, or put some projects on hold/existing less important projects on hold until we actually have the money. If you have $100 and you want to go to a movie, dinner, and a sunset cruise for 2- but all that adds up to $150, you have to eliminate one of em. You don't hold a gun (being jail time for tax evasion) to your boss' head (the taxpayer) and demand an extra $50. Obviously taxes are necessary, but when youre collecting 20%+ from people at the state level, there has to be a way to reduce your costs, even if some short term sacrifices need to be taken. It doesnt help anyone when it is the already struggling taxpayer having to make even more sacrifices for the government. A democracy should be doing the exact opposite.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 March 13, 2009 Quotethat's why i voted for him! I think it sucks he folded to the lesser officials that demand their pet projects be completed at the expense of the tax payer. You didn't think a Republican who is married to a prominent Democrat would consider bipartisan compromise? That sounds rather naive. QuoteIf you have $100 and you want to go to a movie, dinner, and a sunset cruise for 2- but all that adds up to $150, you have to eliminate one of em. You don't hold a gun (being jail time for tax evasion) to your boss' head (the taxpayer) and demand an extra $50. No, but you can ask that boss for a raise (i.e. a tax increase), in this case via public elections or via the state legislature. QuoteA democracy should be doing the exact opposite. Living in a democracy does not imply low taxes or a free market economy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #31 March 13, 2009 Quote You didn't think a Republican who is married to a prominent Democrat would consider bipartisan compromise? That sounds rather naive. Ummmm, please tell me when i mentioned anything about being partisan or not? I'm stating what normal people do when strapped for cash vs. what the government does. Also, please realize he waited until the 11th hour to make this decision. No, but you can ask that boss for a raise (i.e. a tax increase), in this case via public elections or via the state legislature. This was not voted on, i certainly was not given the opprtunity to vote on it. the state legistlature is exactly the problem! they will not flex on their pet projects as previously stated. the 'date' example i mentioned. Living in a democracy does not imply low taxes or a free market economy. Living in the United States implies we are part of a free market economy, I happen to live in California and I am speaking of California which (not sure if you know this) just happens to be part of the United States! And you are correct, that does not imply low taxes, however, what it does imply is it is a government by the people and for the people... i don't agree with politicians that, though they may have been elected, stop acting in the interest of the people and act in the interest of the government- raising taxes on the people to balance their budget with our money rather than reducing expenditures and relieving us of that burden. So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 March 13, 2009 Quote This was not voted on, i certainly was not given the opprtunity to vote on it. the state legistlature is exactly the problem! they will not flex on their pet projects as previously stated. the 'date' example i mentioned. you are not aware that you will be voting in a special election on many of these matters? from our governor today. Cutting the deficit by spending cuts alone would've meant closing the state university system, cutting off all welfare assistance and shutting down all mental health services, he said; even firing the state's 200,000 workers "wouldn't have come close to balancing the budget". "Those who say we could have balanced the budget through spending cuts alone are guilty of political cynicism at its worst. Those are not serious people," he said, but "those who say we could balance the budget through tax increases alone reveal their total economic ignorance and lack of math skills. Their grasp of economics must come from living on a hippie commune or something like that". The six ballot measures voters will consider on 19 May are part and parcel of the deal that settled the months-long deadlock over that enormous deficit. The measures would impose a spending cap based on the previous decade's revenue while creating a rainy-day fund; alter the state's voter-approved education funding law; borrow from future lottery earnings; take money from voter-created funds for early-childhood and mental-health services; and deny pay raises to state-level elected officials when the state has a budget deficit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #33 March 13, 2009 Good to hear! I know what I will vote, but the fact remains- sales tax is going up, without the option to vote it down, in just over 2 weeks. Maybe I am cynical, but at least I'm not a hippie! ha ha! his words, not mine. I find it VERY difficult to believe with california being SUCH a populous state, with the portion of revenue the state already gains from its citizens, that they need to steal even more from us without completely slashing spending. Personally, I think it is political rhetoric because teh state reps couldn't agree on all the cutting that needs to take place. Call me any name you want, that is my belief just based on what I've seen happen in the corporate world to try to keep companies alive. Why can't the government do the same? They all have their own agendas, and wont back down in order to maintain votes to keep their elected position vs. slashing the cr*p out of the liberal spending tendencies our state has and saving the taxpayers money. Unfortunately that is where our opinions differ, I'll never convince you otherwise, and you wont convince me. We'll go on our merry ways thinking the other is a fool and we're right, or more right. Both solutions can and will work, I just find it makes more sense to leave the people alone and put (rather LEAVE) more money in their pockets vs take it from them.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #34 March 13, 2009 Quote I find it VERY difficult to believe with california being SUCH a populous state, with the portion of revenue the state already gains from its citizens, that they need to steal even more from us without completely slashing spending. Personally, I think it is political rhetoric because teh state reps couldn't agree on all the cutting that needs to take place. If you prefer to just think this, and not try to understand the cause of the problem in CA, I can't help you. The state does not have an intelligent long term budget planning strategy, so it's always been vulnerable to the down cycles when income from capital gains taxes. As he said, 42B deficits cannot be solved by cuts or taxes alone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #35 March 14, 2009 Quote from our governor today. Cutting the deficit by spending cuts alone would've meant closing the state university system, cutting off all welfare assistance and shutting down all mental health services, he said; even firing the state's 200,000 workers "wouldn't have come close to balancing the budget". Sounds like bullshit. 1999-2000 budget numbers were more than twice lower. And I believe in 1999 California still had state university system, some welfare assistance and some mental health services - and still had relatively balanced budget.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 March 14, 2009 QuoteQuote from our governor today. Cutting the deficit by spending cuts alone would've meant closing the state university system, cutting off all welfare assistance and shutting down all mental health services, he said; even firing the state's 200,000 workers "wouldn't have come close to balancing the budget". Sounds like bullshit. 1999-2000 budget numbers were more than twice lower. And I believe in 1999 California still had state university system, some welfare assistance and some mental health services - and still had relatively balanced budget. What does "budget numbers were more than twice lower?" Did you mean, was less than half what it is now? If so, you're the one with the shovel. Looks like 99-00 budget was around 80B. This year's is around 100. Factor in population growth and inflation, and that's hardly different at all. http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/Introduction.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #37 March 14, 2009 Quote What does "budget numbers were more than twice lower?" Did you mean, was less than half what it is now? You're correct, the source I used seems to not compare with Department of Finance figures. The numbers, however, still pretty close to half if you compare budget totals for 1998-1999 (75B) and 2008-2009 (136B). 1999-2000 got 84B, so the difference is less but still pretty significant, and cannot be compensated just by the population increase. http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-B.pdf* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
