[patientrenter]

[quote=jficquette]Way past due for the time to privatize Education. Get the state completely out of it. Turn it over to private corporations. Take the $11,12,13k whatever it is now we spend per pupil and give it in vouchers to pay for private school.

[/quote]

You dream, jficquette. The feds will step in to allow most of the current overspending to continue. Since a minority (like a lot of us on this board) get upset by that, they will arrange for the extra federal spending to be disguised. They will do that in much the same way it was done for housing – get the overspending entities to borrow more money, and the feds guarantee future repayment.

So it still boils down to 3 outcomes:

1. Fed bailout

2. More CA taxes (mostly future, to help repay the extra borrowing)

3. Small spending cuts, designed to cattle-prod voters into agreeing to more spending

As for Obama apparently ruling out a federal bailout of CA, that is just preparation for the sleight of hand with loan guarantees. People were fooled by it on housing, so they will be fooled by it on state bailouts. Our leaders just have to stand together and be consistent in their story to the public about loan guarantees not being a bailout, and MSM will report it as a fact, and 90% of voters will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[patientrenter]

[quote=jficquette]Way past due for the time to privatize Education. Get the state completely out of it. Turn it over to private corporations. Take the $11,12,13k whatever it is now we spend per pupil and give it in vouchers to pay for private school.

[/quote]

You dream, jficquette. The feds will step in to allow most of the current overspending to continue. Since a minority (like a lot of us on this board) get upset by that, they will arrange for the extra federal spending to be disguised. They will do that in much the same way it was done for housing – get the overspending entities to borrow more money, and the feds guarantee future repayment.

So it still boils down to 3 outcomes:

1. Fed bailout

2. More CA taxes (mostly future, to help repay the extra borrowing)

3. Small spending cuts, designed to cattle-prod voters into agreeing to more spending

As for Obama apparently ruling out a federal bailout of CA, that is just preparation for the sleight of hand with loan guarantees. People were fooled by it on housing, so they will be fooled by it on state bailouts. Our leaders just have to stand together and be consistent in their story to the public about loan guarantees not being a bailout, and MSM will report it as a fact, and 90% of voters will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[patientrenter]

[quote=jficquette]Way past due for the time to privatize Education. Get the state completely out of it. Turn it over to private corporations. Take the $11,12,13k whatever it is now we spend per pupil and give it in vouchers to pay for private school.

[/quote]

You dream, jficquette. The feds will step in to allow most of the current overspending to continue. Since a minority (like a lot of us on this board) get upset by that, they will arrange for the extra federal spending to be disguised. They will do that in much the same way it was done for housing – get the overspending entities to borrow more money, and the feds guarantee future repayment.

So it still boils down to 3 outcomes:

1. Fed bailout

2. More CA taxes (mostly future, to help repay the extra borrowing)

3. Small spending cuts, designed to cattle-prod voters into agreeing to more spending

As for Obama apparently ruling out a federal bailout of CA, that is just preparation for the sleight of hand with loan guarantees. People were fooled by it on housing, so they will be fooled by it on state bailouts. Our leaders just have to stand together and be consistent in their story to the public about loan guarantees not being a bailout, and MSM will report it as a fact, and 90% of voters will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[patientrenter]

[quote=jficquette]Way past due for the time to privatize Education. Get the state completely out of it. Turn it over to private corporations. Take the $11,12,13k whatever it is now we spend per pupil and give it in vouchers to pay for private school.

[/quote]

You dream, jficquette. The feds will step in to allow most of the current overspending to continue. Since a minority (like a lot of us on this board) get upset by that, they will arrange for the extra federal spending to be disguised. They will do that in much the same way it was done for housing – get the overspending entities to borrow more money, and the feds guarantee future repayment.

So it still boils down to 3 outcomes:

1. Fed bailout

2. More CA taxes (mostly future, to help repay the extra borrowing)

3. Small spending cuts, designed to cattle-prod voters into agreeing to more spending

As for Obama apparently ruling out a federal bailout of CA, that is just preparation for the sleight of hand with loan guarantees. People were fooled by it on housing, so they will be fooled by it on state bailouts. Our leaders just have to stand together and be consistent in their story to the public about loan guarantees not being a bailout, and MSM will report it as a fact, and 90% of voters will swallow it hook, line and sinker.

[patientrenter]

I thought it was a good program. I watched the whole thing. And I agree with jpnpb that it highlighted a situation that should be fixed – renters evicted with virtually no notice from homes that went into foreclosure without their knowledge.

Having said that, I kept wondering why the interviewer injected a few leading questions into her interviews, implying that all the growth experienced in the US (not just LV) since the 1980’s (Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, wink, wink) was a mirage. Let’s ignore the fact that, for example, the years since the 1980’s have seen our work and home lives transformed by the PC and the internet.

I looked up the TV station (current.com) and see that it’s sponsored by Al Gore. I am sure he’s done a lot of decent things, and the station produces a lot of good programming, but I am also sure that any station sponsored by a leading light of one of our dominant political parties will have an agenda and a bias, and that came through in a few spots in this program. Otherwise, very good and very enjoyable.

[patientrenter]

I thought it was a good program. I watched the whole thing. And I agree with jpnpb that it highlighted a situation that should be fixed – renters evicted with virtually no notice from homes that went into foreclosure without their knowledge.

Having said that, I kept wondering why the interviewer injected a few leading questions into her interviews, implying that all the growth experienced in the US (not just LV) since the 1980’s (Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, wink, wink) was a mirage. Let’s ignore the fact that, for example, the years since the 1980’s have seen our work and home lives transformed by the PC and the internet.

I looked up the TV station (current.com) and see that it’s sponsored by Al Gore. I am sure he’s done a lot of decent things, and the station produces a lot of good programming, but I am also sure that any station sponsored by a leading light of one of our dominant political parties will have an agenda and a bias, and that came through in a few spots in this program. Otherwise, very good and very enjoyable.

[patientrenter]

I thought it was a good program. I watched the whole thing. And I agree with jpnpb that it highlighted a situation that should be fixed – renters evicted with virtually no notice from homes that went into foreclosure without their knowledge.

Having said that, I kept wondering why the interviewer injected a few leading questions into her interviews, implying that all the growth experienced in the US (not just LV) since the 1980’s (Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, wink, wink) was a mirage. Let’s ignore the fact that, for example, the years since the 1980’s have seen our work and home lives transformed by the PC and the internet.

I looked up the TV station (current.com) and see that it’s sponsored by Al Gore. I am sure he’s done a lot of decent things, and the station produces a lot of good programming, but I am also sure that any station sponsored by a leading light of one of our dominant political parties will have an agenda and a bias, and that came through in a few spots in this program. Otherwise, very good and very enjoyable.

[patientrenter]

I thought it was a good program. I watched the whole thing. And I agree with jpnpb that it highlighted a situation that should be fixed – renters evicted with virtually no notice from homes that went into foreclosure without their knowledge.

Having said that, I kept wondering why the interviewer injected a few leading questions into her interviews, implying that all the growth experienced in the US (not just LV) since the 1980’s (Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, wink, wink) was a mirage. Let’s ignore the fact that, for example, the years since the 1980’s have seen our work and home lives transformed by the PC and the internet.

I looked up the TV station (current.com) and see that it’s sponsored by Al Gore. I am sure he’s done a lot of decent things, and the station produces a lot of good programming, but I am also sure that any station sponsored by a leading light of one of our dominant political parties will have an agenda and a bias, and that came through in a few spots in this program. Otherwise, very good and very enjoyable.

[patientrenter]

I thought it was a good program. I watched the whole thing. And I agree with jpnpb that it highlighted a situation that should be fixed – renters evicted with virtually no notice from homes that went into foreclosure without their knowledge.

Having said that, I kept wondering why the interviewer injected a few leading questions into her interviews, implying that all the growth experienced in the US (not just LV) since the 1980’s (Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, wink, wink) was a mirage. Let’s ignore the fact that, for example, the years since the 1980’s have seen our work and home lives transformed by the PC and the internet.

I looked up the TV station (current.com) and see that it’s sponsored by Al Gore. I am sure he’s done a lot of decent things, and the station produces a lot of good programming, but I am also sure that any station sponsored by a leading light of one of our dominant political parties will have an agenda and a bias, and that came through in a few spots in this program. Otherwise, very good and very enjoyable.

[patientrenter]

partypup, a default occurs when the person who is supposed to pay does not pay, not when the person who is owed refuses to accept the payments.

If receiving future dollars becomes less interesting as a reward for exporting real goods and services to the US, then either the value of the dollar will fall, or interest rates on dollar debt will rise. If the US govt is committed to manipulating interest rates down (as they clearly are) then the outcome will be a drop in the value of the dollar. If a 20% reduction is not enough to entice foreigners to sell us stuff on credit, then it will go to 30%, and if that is not enough…

Eventually, the dollar will reach a value that satisfies our foreign trade parties. It’s not going to be zero. I just don’t see why a large devaluation has to go all the way to zero. This is not how these things work historically. The US has problems, but it does have good infrastructure, food and water supply, open space, and other basics of a good modern life. At some point that puts a floor under the value of US assets and even the dollar.

[patientrenter]

partypup, a default occurs when the person who is supposed to pay does not pay, not when the person who is owed refuses to accept the payments.

If receiving future dollars becomes less interesting as a reward for exporting real goods and services to the US, then either the value of the dollar will fall, or interest rates on dollar debt will rise. If the US govt is committed to manipulating interest rates down (as they clearly are) then the outcome will be a drop in the value of the dollar. If a 20% reduction is not enough to entice foreigners to sell us stuff on credit, then it will go to 30%, and if that is not enough…

Eventually, the dollar will reach a value that satisfies our foreign trade parties. It’s not going to be zero. I just don’t see why a large devaluation has to go all the way to zero. This is not how these things work historically. The US has problems, but it does have good infrastructure, food and water supply, open space, and other basics of a good modern life. At some point that puts a floor under the value of US assets and even the dollar.

[patientrenter]

partypup, a default occurs when the person who is supposed to pay does not pay, not when the person who is owed refuses to accept the payments.

If receiving future dollars becomes less interesting as a reward for exporting real goods and services to the US, then either the value of the dollar will fall, or interest rates on dollar debt will rise. If the US govt is committed to manipulating interest rates down (as they clearly are) then the outcome will be a drop in the value of the dollar. If a 20% reduction is not enough to entice foreigners to sell us stuff on credit, then it will go to 30%, and if that is not enough…

Eventually, the dollar will reach a value that satisfies our foreign trade parties. It’s not going to be zero. I just don’t see why a large devaluation has to go all the way to zero. This is not how these things work historically. The US has problems, but it does have good infrastructure, food and water supply, open space, and other basics of a good modern life. At some point that puts a floor under the value of US assets and even the dollar.

[patientrenter]

partypup, a default occurs when the person who is supposed to pay does not pay, not when the person who is owed refuses to accept the payments.

If receiving future dollars becomes less interesting as a reward for exporting real goods and services to the US, then either the value of the dollar will fall, or interest rates on dollar debt will rise. If the US govt is committed to manipulating interest rates down (as they clearly are) then the outcome will be a drop in the value of the dollar. If a 20% reduction is not enough to entice foreigners to sell us stuff on credit, then it will go to 30%, and if that is not enough…

Eventually, the dollar will reach a value that satisfies our foreign trade parties. It’s not going to be zero. I just don’t see why a large devaluation has to go all the way to zero. This is not how these things work historically. The US has problems, but it does have good infrastructure, food and water supply, open space, and other basics of a good modern life. At some point that puts a floor under the value of US assets and even the dollar.

[patientrenter]

partypup, a default occurs when the person who is supposed to pay does not pay, not when the person who is owed refuses to accept the payments.

If receiving future dollars becomes less interesting as a reward for exporting real goods and services to the US, then either the value of the dollar will fall, or interest rates on dollar debt will rise. If the US govt is committed to manipulating interest rates down (as they clearly are) then the outcome will be a drop in the value of the dollar. If a 20% reduction is not enough to entice foreigners to sell us stuff on credit, then it will go to 30%, and if that is not enough…

Eventually, the dollar will reach a value that satisfies our foreign trade parties. It’s not going to be zero. I just don’t see why a large devaluation has to go all the way to zero. This is not how these things work historically. The US has problems, but it does have good infrastructure, food and water supply, open space, and other basics of a good modern life. At some point that puts a floor under the value of US assets and even the dollar.

[patientrenter]

Planned outcome for California state budget:

1. Federal bail-out (both current and future, through bond repayment guarantees; and direct and indirect, through inflation)

2. Increase in CA state taxes (and fees etc) in the present and also the future, through more state borrowing

3. Small spending cuts designed to maximize public pain and scare the public into choosing more taxes instead. [Release criminals before cutting state pensions etc.]

I apologize that this is a near-repeat of an earlier post I made, but the question never dies, even though we know the answer, and it never changes.

The latest proposal from the governor is obviously just one more note in the carefully orchestrated campaign to limit spending cuts. No one in govt really wants to cut govt spending by a large amount, like 25-40%.

[Author]

Posts