Menu

Home › Forums › Other › OT: No bailout for California

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8
  • Author
    Posts
  • July 1, 2009 at 8:23 AM #423815
    GH
    Participant

    I think most on this blog recognize the State could function on a lot less money and our children would still go to school, police would still ticket speeders and fire-fighters would still put out fires, but just to appease those who believe more taxes are the answer. Say for the sake of argument we repealed Prop 13, increased sales tax to 30% and increased State income tax to 30% etc, and were able to double State Revenue.

    OK, problem solved. Schools could get all the extra money they need to provide our children with the finest possible education, police would all all over the place. Fires would almost put themselves out, Pot smokers could all be given life sentences without possibility of parole and we could provide for all the illegals who could ever want to come here.

    Don’t you think it more likely that raises and bonuses would be flinging around like never before, retirements for senior officials who would surely proliferate would increase massively, and in the end there would be no money for teachers, prisons, firemen etc?

    The fact is that there is not enough money in the universe to support the kind of Government we have today and things will have to change radically.

    July 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM #424296
    davelj
    Participant

    I think I pointed this out months back, but…

    Adjusted for population growth (including illegals!) and inflation, and using 1998 as our base year, California’s budget “should” be about $115 billion. Instead it’s about $145 billion.

    That sure looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem, to me. Furthermore, I believe CA’s revenue is slated to be about $110-$120 billion this year – even in these “troubling times.” Again, this looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    I don’t recall Californians “suffering” from a draconian budget back in the late-90s. Somehow, they managed…

    July 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM #424529
    davelj
    Participant

    I think I pointed this out months back, but…

    Adjusted for population growth (including illegals!) and inflation, and using 1998 as our base year, California’s budget “should” be about $115 billion. Instead it’s about $145 billion.

    That sure looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem, to me. Furthermore, I believe CA’s revenue is slated to be about $110-$120 billion this year – even in these “troubling times.” Again, this looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    I don’t recall Californians “suffering” from a draconian budget back in the late-90s. Somehow, they managed…

    July 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM #424810
    davelj
    Participant

    I think I pointed this out months back, but…

    Adjusted for population growth (including illegals!) and inflation, and using 1998 as our base year, California’s budget “should” be about $115 billion. Instead it’s about $145 billion.

    That sure looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem, to me. Furthermore, I believe CA’s revenue is slated to be about $110-$120 billion this year – even in these “troubling times.” Again, this looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    I don’t recall Californians “suffering” from a draconian budget back in the late-90s. Somehow, they managed…

    July 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM #424880
    davelj
    Participant

    I think I pointed this out months back, but…

    Adjusted for population growth (including illegals!) and inflation, and using 1998 as our base year, California’s budget “should” be about $115 billion. Instead it’s about $145 billion.

    That sure looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem, to me. Furthermore, I believe CA’s revenue is slated to be about $110-$120 billion this year – even in these “troubling times.” Again, this looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    I don’t recall Californians “suffering” from a draconian budget back in the late-90s. Somehow, they managed…

    July 2, 2009 at 4:49 PM #425043
    davelj
    Participant

    I think I pointed this out months back, but…

    Adjusted for population growth (including illegals!) and inflation, and using 1998 as our base year, California’s budget “should” be about $115 billion. Instead it’s about $145 billion.

    That sure looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem, to me. Furthermore, I believe CA’s revenue is slated to be about $110-$120 billion this year – even in these “troubling times.” Again, this looks like a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

    I don’t recall Californians “suffering” from a draconian budget back in the late-90s. Somehow, they managed…

    July 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM #424291
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Government is the problem:

    to live within your means is meaningless to this politician. Her number is 916-319-2007. I am sure she would like to hear from us.

    July 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM #424524
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Government is the problem:

    to live within your means is meaningless to this politician. Her number is 916-319-2007. I am sure she would like to hear from us.

    July 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM #424805
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Government is the problem:

    to live within your means is meaningless to this politician. Her number is 916-319-2007. I am sure she would like to hear from us.

    July 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM #424875
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Government is the problem:

    to live within your means is meaningless to this politician. Her number is 916-319-2007. I am sure she would like to hear from us.

    July 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM #425038
    Zeitgeist
    Participant

    Government is the problem:

    to live within your means is meaningless to this politician. Her number is 916-319-2007. I am sure she would like to hear from us.

    July 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM #424346
    patientrenter
    Participant

    The play comes in several acts. This not the final act. We have to go through small and /or temporary cuts in the most visible and painful segments of CA govt spending.

    After that builds some public sympathy for relief for CA, the feds will relent. “We had to save poor flesh and blood Californians from this horrible and unfair fate. They are practically dying for want of a few tens of billions of dollars.” A few of the most high profile spending cuts will be left in place, as a sop to federal taxpayers.

    It is possible that a condition of receiving federal funds will be an increase in California taxes. There are many who would like nothing better than to see the end of Prop 13, and this bailout would be one of the best chances in years to achieve that. A good number of Republican pols and businessmen could be turned by the bailout money.

    Give it another few months. The bailout is on its way.

    July 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM #424578
    patientrenter
    Participant

    The play comes in several acts. This not the final act. We have to go through small and /or temporary cuts in the most visible and painful segments of CA govt spending.

    After that builds some public sympathy for relief for CA, the feds will relent. “We had to save poor flesh and blood Californians from this horrible and unfair fate. They are practically dying for want of a few tens of billions of dollars.” A few of the most high profile spending cuts will be left in place, as a sop to federal taxpayers.

    It is possible that a condition of receiving federal funds will be an increase in California taxes. There are many who would like nothing better than to see the end of Prop 13, and this bailout would be one of the best chances in years to achieve that. A good number of Republican pols and businessmen could be turned by the bailout money.

    Give it another few months. The bailout is on its way.

    July 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM #424861
    patientrenter
    Participant

    The play comes in several acts. This not the final act. We have to go through small and /or temporary cuts in the most visible and painful segments of CA govt spending.

    After that builds some public sympathy for relief for CA, the feds will relent. “We had to save poor flesh and blood Californians from this horrible and unfair fate. They are practically dying for want of a few tens of billions of dollars.” A few of the most high profile spending cuts will be left in place, as a sop to federal taxpayers.

    It is possible that a condition of receiving federal funds will be an increase in California taxes. There are many who would like nothing better than to see the end of Prop 13, and this bailout would be one of the best chances in years to achieve that. A good number of Republican pols and businessmen could be turned by the bailout money.

    Give it another few months. The bailout is on its way.

    July 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM #424929
    patientrenter
    Participant

    The play comes in several acts. This not the final act. We have to go through small and /or temporary cuts in the most visible and painful segments of CA govt spending.

    After that builds some public sympathy for relief for CA, the feds will relent. “We had to save poor flesh and blood Californians from this horrible and unfair fate. They are practically dying for want of a few tens of billions of dollars.” A few of the most high profile spending cuts will be left in place, as a sop to federal taxpayers.

    It is possible that a condition of receiving federal funds will be an increase in California taxes. There are many who would like nothing better than to see the end of Prop 13, and this bailout would be one of the best chances in years to achieve that. A good number of Republican pols and businessmen could be turned by the bailout money.

    Give it another few months. The bailout is on its way.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.