CA State Budget Passed – State’s demise imminent

[afx114]

[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]

Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.

[luchabee]

Actually, the California government didn’t really cut a lot of spending in this current budget. Most of it was comprised of cuts in anticipated spending increases for current programs. So, really, there weren’t a lot of net-cuts in this budget. Don’t you listen to John and Ken?

Again, unions and teachers got what they wanted.

The government no longer serves us. We serve the government.

Like the last budget, however, they’ll be back. Business activity will slow because of these increases, bringing in less “revenue,” but the unions will be protected for a number of additional months.

For the long-term, we need a part-time legislature.

[luchabee]

Actually, the California government didn’t really cut a lot of spending in this current budget. Most of it was comprised of cuts in anticipated spending increases for current programs. So, really, there weren’t a lot of net-cuts in this budget. Don’t you listen to John and Ken?

Again, unions and teachers got what they wanted.

The government no longer serves us. We serve the government.

Like the last budget, however, they’ll be back. Business activity will slow because of these increases, bringing in less “revenue,” but the unions will be protected for a number of additional months.

For the long-term, we need a part-time legislature.

[luchabee]

Actually, the California government didn’t really cut a lot of spending in this current budget. Most of it was comprised of cuts in anticipated spending increases for current programs. So, really, there weren’t a lot of net-cuts in this budget. Don’t you listen to John and Ken?

Again, unions and teachers got what they wanted.

The government no longer serves us. We serve the government.

Like the last budget, however, they’ll be back. Business activity will slow because of these increases, bringing in less “revenue,” but the unions will be protected for a number of additional months.

For the long-term, we need a part-time legislature.

[luchabee]

Actually, the California government didn’t really cut a lot of spending in this current budget. Most of it was comprised of cuts in anticipated spending increases for current programs. So, really, there weren’t a lot of net-cuts in this budget. Don’t you listen to John and Ken?

Again, unions and teachers got what they wanted.

The government no longer serves us. We serve the government.

Like the last budget, however, they’ll be back. Business activity will slow because of these increases, bringing in less “revenue,” but the unions will be protected for a number of additional months.

For the long-term, we need a part-time legislature.

[luchabee]

Actually, the California government didn’t really cut a lot of spending in this current budget. Most of it was comprised of cuts in anticipated spending increases for current programs. So, really, there weren’t a lot of net-cuts in this budget. Don’t you listen to John and Ken?

Again, unions and teachers got what they wanted.

The government no longer serves us. We serve the government.

Like the last budget, however, they’ll be back. Business activity will slow because of these increases, bringing in less “revenue,” but the unions will be protected for a number of additional months.

For the long-term, we need a part-time legislature.

[NeetaT]

Let’s all just spend less, register our cars in other states, and do what we can to bring them to their knees. Frankly, I’m tired of being fleeced.

[NeetaT]

Let’s all just spend less, register our cars in other states, and do what we can to bring them to their knees. Frankly, I’m tired of being fleeced.

[NeetaT]

Let’s all just spend less, register our cars in other states, and do what we can to bring them to their knees. Frankly, I’m tired of being fleeced.

[NeetaT]

Let’s all just spend less, register our cars in other states, and do what we can to bring them to their knees. Frankly, I’m tired of being fleeced.

[NeetaT]

Let’s all just spend less, register our cars in other states, and do what we can to bring them to their knees. Frankly, I’m tired of being fleeced.

[cr]

[quote=afx114]Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.[/quote]

Your points are good, but like AN said, if you cut that line at 2006 Bush tax cuts look great. Blame Greenspan for the rest.

Why not incentivize businesses to come from Texas and set up here? Wouldn’t that be better for the state?

[cr]

[quote=afx114]Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.[/quote]

Your points are good, but like AN said, if you cut that line at 2006 Bush tax cuts look great. Blame Greenspan for the rest.

Why not incentivize businesses to come from Texas and set up here? Wouldn’t that be better for the state?

[cr]

[quote=afx114]Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.[/quote]

Your points are good, but like AN said, if you cut that line at 2006 Bush tax cuts look great. Blame Greenspan for the rest.

Why not incentivize businesses to come from Texas and set up here? Wouldn’t that be better for the state?

[cr]

[quote=afx114]Is it a coincidence then that Bush’s first tax cuts went into law in 2001? Were they the cause of the recession or designed to bring us out of it? I didn’t want this argument to turn into a Clinton vs Bush or Democrat vs. Republican argument, I wanted it to be about tax cuts and their effects on the overall economy.[/quote]

Your points are good, but like AN said, if you cut that line at 2006 Bush tax cuts look great. Blame Greenspan for the rest.

Why not incentivize businesses to come from Texas and set up here? Wouldn’t that be better for the state?

[Author]

Posts