CA State Budget Passed – State’s demise imminent

[TheBreeze]

[quote=AN]afx114, where you draw the line really affect your argument. If Bush didn’t win in 2004, his policy would have been seen as amazing since employment was up, home ownership was up, stock was recovering, people were feeling very rich due to housing, etc. Same with Clinton, if his term end in 2001 instead of 2000, stocks would have been in the dump, employment was going down, we were in a recession, etc. So, it’s not quite as black and white as you trying to portray.[/quote]

Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.

[meadandale]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.[/quote]

And the market has been soaring in the last week in response to the Obama stimulous plan and his very own ‘heckuva job’ Geitner in Treasury.

[meadandale]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.[/quote]

And the market has been soaring in the last week in response to the Obama stimulous plan and his very own ‘heckuva job’ Geitner in Treasury.

[meadandale]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.[/quote]

And the market has been soaring in the last week in response to the Obama stimulous plan and his very own ‘heckuva job’ Geitner in Treasury.

[meadandale]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.[/quote]

And the market has been soaring in the last week in response to the Obama stimulous plan and his very own ‘heckuva job’ Geitner in Treasury.

[meadandale]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Nope, I think history will clearly show (if it hasn’t already) that Bush was a clueless moron.[/quote]

And the market has been soaring in the last week in response to the Obama stimulous plan and his very own ‘heckuva job’ Geitner in Treasury.

[DoJC]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice try.
Vermont: 9.5% starting at a whopping $357,000 in income.
Maine: 8.5% at $19,450
Maryland: 5.5% at $550,000
Virginia: 5.75% at $17,000

California: 9.55% NOW (9.3% before this new plan), starting at $44,815

Can you please post which state(s) you’re referring to, the tax rate it has, and the point at which that rate kicks in? Nobody buys a blind appeal like this as it lacks one critical factor: FACTS.

[DoJC]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice try.
Vermont: 9.5% starting at a whopping $357,000 in income.
Maine: 8.5% at $19,450
Maryland: 5.5% at $550,000
Virginia: 5.75% at $17,000

California: 9.55% NOW (9.3% before this new plan), starting at $44,815

Can you please post which state(s) you’re referring to, the tax rate it has, and the point at which that rate kicks in? Nobody buys a blind appeal like this as it lacks one critical factor: FACTS.

[DoJC]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice try.
Vermont: 9.5% starting at a whopping $357,000 in income.
Maine: 8.5% at $19,450
Maryland: 5.5% at $550,000
Virginia: 5.75% at $17,000

California: 9.55% NOW (9.3% before this new plan), starting at $44,815

Can you please post which state(s) you’re referring to, the tax rate it has, and the point at which that rate kicks in? Nobody buys a blind appeal like this as it lacks one critical factor: FACTS.

[DoJC]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice try.
Vermont: 9.5% starting at a whopping $357,000 in income.
Maine: 8.5% at $19,450
Maryland: 5.5% at $550,000
Virginia: 5.75% at $17,000

California: 9.55% NOW (9.3% before this new plan), starting at $44,815

Can you please post which state(s) you’re referring to, the tax rate it has, and the point at which that rate kicks in? Nobody buys a blind appeal like this as it lacks one critical factor: FACTS.

[DoJC]

[quote=UCGal]Despite the rumors, even with these tax increases, our taxes are lower than many New England/Mid-Atlantic states. But if you want to convince yourself we’re the highest, feel free.
[/quote]
Nice try.
Vermont: 9.5% starting at a whopping $357,000 in income.
Maine: 8.5% at $19,450
Maryland: 5.5% at $550,000
Virginia: 5.75% at $17,000

California: 9.55% NOW (9.3% before this new plan), starting at $44,815

Can you please post which state(s) you’re referring to, the tax rate it has, and the point at which that rate kicks in? Nobody buys a blind appeal like this as it lacks one critical factor: FACTS.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Isn’t moving the attempting to dispute my point by using a theoretical? You can’t pick and choose your data points after they’ve passed. That’s like saying, “Yeah, we lost the ballgame 13-5, but if we would have scored 9 runs in the 3rd the outcome would have been different.” While that may be true, that is not how things played out.

But I’ll humor AN with his example. Lets say Bush lost in 2004, would Kerry have continued with tax cuts and increased spending? Maybe. But probably not, because Kerry subscribes to a different economic philosophy. He campaigned on balancing the budget (as opposed to Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”). We probably would have seen a return to the economic policies of the 1990’s (attempt to balance the budget through increased taxes), and we would have seen a vastly different 2004-2008. Would we still have the current crisis? Probably. Would it be unfolding much differently if the US was able to attack it with a budget surplus in its arsenal? Damn right it would be.

The point is, those two time periods, 1992-2000 and 2000-2008, each represent two very different economic philosophies, with two very different outcomes. You can run theoreticals all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that one economic philosophy has shown certain results, while the other has shown the opposite.[/quote]
You’re assuming when tax cut/hike occur, it affects the economy immediately. Last I check, .com bubble was bubbling well before 1998. It just popped in 2001 instead of 2000. I give credit of both bubbles and pops to Greenspan and not the presidents.

I won’t go into hypothetical with regards to what would happen if Kerry won in 2004. All I’m trying to say is where you draw the line will paint a very different pictures. In 2004-2005, Bush approval rating was high, because everyone was supper happy, thinking they’re rich from housing. That’s why he got elected a 2nd term. If majority wasn’t happy w/ his performance the first 4 years, they would have voted him out.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Isn’t moving the attempting to dispute my point by using a theoretical? You can’t pick and choose your data points after they’ve passed. That’s like saying, “Yeah, we lost the ballgame 13-5, but if we would have scored 9 runs in the 3rd the outcome would have been different.” While that may be true, that is not how things played out.

But I’ll humor AN with his example. Lets say Bush lost in 2004, would Kerry have continued with tax cuts and increased spending? Maybe. But probably not, because Kerry subscribes to a different economic philosophy. He campaigned on balancing the budget (as opposed to Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”). We probably would have seen a return to the economic policies of the 1990’s (attempt to balance the budget through increased taxes), and we would have seen a vastly different 2004-2008. Would we still have the current crisis? Probably. Would it be unfolding much differently if the US was able to attack it with a budget surplus in its arsenal? Damn right it would be.

The point is, those two time periods, 1992-2000 and 2000-2008, each represent two very different economic philosophies, with two very different outcomes. You can run theoreticals all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that one economic philosophy has shown certain results, while the other has shown the opposite.[/quote]
You’re assuming when tax cut/hike occur, it affects the economy immediately. Last I check, .com bubble was bubbling well before 1998. It just popped in 2001 instead of 2000. I give credit of both bubbles and pops to Greenspan and not the presidents.

I won’t go into hypothetical with regards to what would happen if Kerry won in 2004. All I’m trying to say is where you draw the line will paint a very different pictures. In 2004-2005, Bush approval rating was high, because everyone was supper happy, thinking they’re rich from housing. That’s why he got elected a 2nd term. If majority wasn’t happy w/ his performance the first 4 years, they would have voted him out.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Isn’t moving the attempting to dispute my point by using a theoretical? You can’t pick and choose your data points after they’ve passed. That’s like saying, “Yeah, we lost the ballgame 13-5, but if we would have scored 9 runs in the 3rd the outcome would have been different.” While that may be true, that is not how things played out.

But I’ll humor AN with his example. Lets say Bush lost in 2004, would Kerry have continued with tax cuts and increased spending? Maybe. But probably not, because Kerry subscribes to a different economic philosophy. He campaigned on balancing the budget (as opposed to Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”). We probably would have seen a return to the economic policies of the 1990’s (attempt to balance the budget through increased taxes), and we would have seen a vastly different 2004-2008. Would we still have the current crisis? Probably. Would it be unfolding much differently if the US was able to attack it with a budget surplus in its arsenal? Damn right it would be.

The point is, those two time periods, 1992-2000 and 2000-2008, each represent two very different economic philosophies, with two very different outcomes. You can run theoreticals all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that one economic philosophy has shown certain results, while the other has shown the opposite.[/quote]
You’re assuming when tax cut/hike occur, it affects the economy immediately. Last I check, .com bubble was bubbling well before 1998. It just popped in 2001 instead of 2000. I give credit of both bubbles and pops to Greenspan and not the presidents.

I won’t go into hypothetical with regards to what would happen if Kerry won in 2004. All I’m trying to say is where you draw the line will paint a very different pictures. In 2004-2005, Bush approval rating was high, because everyone was supper happy, thinking they’re rich from housing. That’s why he got elected a 2nd term. If majority wasn’t happy w/ his performance the first 4 years, they would have voted him out.

[an]

[quote=afx114]
Isn’t moving the attempting to dispute my point by using a theoretical? You can’t pick and choose your data points after they’ve passed. That’s like saying, “Yeah, we lost the ballgame 13-5, but if we would have scored 9 runs in the 3rd the outcome would have been different.” While that may be true, that is not how things played out.

But I’ll humor AN with his example. Lets say Bush lost in 2004, would Kerry have continued with tax cuts and increased spending? Maybe. But probably not, because Kerry subscribes to a different economic philosophy. He campaigned on balancing the budget (as opposed to Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”). We probably would have seen a return to the economic policies of the 1990’s (attempt to balance the budget through increased taxes), and we would have seen a vastly different 2004-2008. Would we still have the current crisis? Probably. Would it be unfolding much differently if the US was able to attack it with a budget surplus in its arsenal? Damn right it would be.

The point is, those two time periods, 1992-2000 and 2000-2008, each represent two very different economic philosophies, with two very different outcomes. You can run theoreticals all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that one economic philosophy has shown certain results, while the other has shown the opposite.[/quote]
You’re assuming when tax cut/hike occur, it affects the economy immediately. Last I check, .com bubble was bubbling well before 1998. It just popped in 2001 instead of 2000. I give credit of both bubbles and pops to Greenspan and not the presidents.

I won’t go into hypothetical with regards to what would happen if Kerry won in 2004. All I’m trying to say is where you draw the line will paint a very different pictures. In 2004-2005, Bush approval rating was high, because everyone was supper happy, thinking they’re rich from housing. That’s why he got elected a 2nd term. If majority wasn’t happy w/ his performance the first 4 years, they would have voted him out.

[Author]

Posts