World Politics

[Alpe d'Huez]

One more time:.

Yeah, saw that Scott. I just want to know why? (other than the obvious, corruption). The California legislation seems to be filled with money-grubbing pork serving nihilist crooks. I mean, Governor Schwarzenegger is about as non-partisan as it gets, and very accommodating, and even he is having a heck of a time even getting small, modest bills through. Why?

 

[Anonymous]

Lessee... I can only assume you are talking about property values and taxes generated from real estate. One problem, property tax revenue is paid to county govt not state so it don't apply in the calculation of state revenue.

You are a smart guy yet you just gloss over the facts (in favor of insults);

Since former Gov. George Deukmejian's final budget in Fiscal Year 1990-91, California's spending has skyrocketed 181 percent. Spending nearly tripled from $51.4 billion in FY 1990-91 to $144.5 billion in FY 2008-09.

Politicians often blame falling revenues for California's budget woes, but state revenues jumped 167 percent between 1990 and 2008.

If California had simply limited its spending increases to the 4.38 percent average increase in the state's consumer price index and population growth each year since FY 1990-91, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus right now."

And for the best/smartest move;

"From 2006 to 2008 the state of California added about 40,000 new employees..."

Brilliant move.


Thank God for Prop 13 and the super majority requirement for the budget. If not for those two things California would be a ghost town right now. Even with them this State is in horrendous trouble and GUESS WHAT?? It's not from a lack of revenue (sound familiar??).

Hey man, Raise Taxes To The Moon. It's clearly the only solution because God know the govt can't do with one penny less.

Uh, lessee...when one sells a property that one did not live in for a profit (and in the boom market there, there was a lot of profit taking of just that sort. In fact, there were TV shows about it that followed California investors who were doing it.) is that profit taxable?

Again, you avoid the reality that the increase in revenue came from somewhere if there were no percentage tax increases, and that when that source of revenue stops streaming in (and in your case, it was almost like someone turned off a faucet), you gotta make up the difference. Problem is that in your facts and figures, you completely ignore the fact that revenue NOW is not up, its down. As I said, you need to cut spending AND raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but because of single issue shortsightedness, you can't raise taxes because Republicans enacted a 2/3rds law. This budget crisis is your fault, and will remain so because you chose personal goals over reality.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, saw that Scott. I just want to know why? (other than the obvious, corruption). The California legislation seems to be filled with money-grubbing pork serving nihilist crooks. I mean, Governor Schwarzenegger is about as non-partisan as it gets, and very accommodating, and even he is having a heck of a time even getting small, modest bills through. Why?

I think it's pretty much the same reason the US congress won't do what's necessary. There is no political will to face big problems head on and the politicians are surrounded by (financial) enablers.

Schwarzenegger had a slew of ballot measures a couple of years ago that attempted at least in part to deal with some of these issues and he was just crucified by nurses/teachers/public employee unions and many other private industry special interest groups and the measures were soundly defeated. He's been unwilling/unable to be even remotely effective since then.

But I must say, the State has been controlled by the left (assembly and senate) for at least a generation. I think one can look at 'progressive policies' right here and see how they play out. TFF thinks the major problem in Cali is that voters have passed a law requiring a super majority to pass the annual budget and any income tax increases. Now, Californian's pay among the highest state income tax in the nation, not to mention some of the highest property taxes in the nation, not to mention state sales taxes that in some areas are as high as 10%, not to mention quasi-governmental regulatory agencies (that are above the law, no joke) such as the California Air Resources Board (google: carb AB32) and South Coast Air Quality Management District. CARB alone has put at least 30,000 construction workers out of work and has bankrupted countless business's in this State. The State is essentially a microcosm of what's going on nationally only perhaps a few years ahead.

With all of that, had there been even a modicum of spending restraint the State would be in at least decent shape. Remember, this state is either the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world (depending on which report one reads) and we are essentially bankrupt.

Hey look, the new jobless number are out and are higher than expected. Oh and inflation is up to 4.5% (base rate). Yippee.

 

[Anonymous]

Uh, lessee...when one sells a property that one did not live in for a profit (and in the boom market there, there was a lot of profit taking of just that sort. In fact, there were TV shows about it that followed California investors who were doing it.) is that profit taxable?

Again, you avoid the reality that the increase in revenue came from somewhere if there were no percentage tax increases, and that when that source of revenue stops streaming in (and in your case, it was almost like someone turned off a faucet), you gotta make up the difference. Problem is that in your facts and figures, you completely ignore the fact that revenue NOW is not up, its down. As I said, you need to cut spending AND raise taxes to cover the shortfall, but because of single issue shortsightedness, you can't raise taxes because Republicans enacted a 2/3rds law. This budget crisis is your fault, and will remain so because you chose personal goals over reality.

Cap gains are (were) a revenue source but pales in comparison to sales tax and income tax. These taxes are generated in higher volumes with INCREASED economic activity. Guess what happens when you raise taxes? This economy is hardly my fault as the morons that pass legislation in this state didn't receive a vote from me AND I pay my taxes. All of them.

BTW, I don't just have a single issue, but a THRIVING economy is important, right? BTW#2, the super-majority was a ballot measure voted on by Californians as was Proposition 13. Try as you might you can't spin this to say the economic train wreck that is California today is a result of the big bad repubs. Sorry.

 

[ravens]

From the 'net.

Oh, wait, I can't trust any of your sources and you can't trust any of mine, but let's discuss ideas....


Former vice-president Dan Quayle, who formerly represented the Hoosier State in the Senate, notes that Bayh “tried to run for president, was passed over by Obama as a vice-presidential candidate, and he’s not in the Democratic Senate leadership . . . . “ In other words, the party of Barack Obama and Harry Reid doesn’t have room for Evan Bayh. Oddly enough, the party of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner does have room for Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

More important than the usual ejection of moderates from the Democratic party, though, is the political havoc Obama has wreaked on his own party members.

 

[Anonymous]

Cap gains are (were) a revenue source but pales in comparison to sales tax and income tax. These taxes are generated in higher volumes with INCREASED economic activity. Guess what happens when you raise taxes? This economy is hardly my fault as the morons that pass legislation in this state didn't receive a vote from me AND I pay my taxes. All of them.

BTW, I don't just have a single issue, but a THRIVING economy is important, right? BTW#2, the super-majority was a ballot measure voted on by Californians as was Proposition 13. Try as you might you can't spin this to say the economic train wreck that is California today is a result of the big bad repubs. Sorry.

I never said "is a result," I said that you are currently hamstrung because you cannot increase taxes, and that you need to do that and lower expenses. That is how you balance a budget. When all you have is cutting spending, then, like it or not, people begin to see a decline in things they always just took for granted. Sometimes (not necessarily you) I believe that many of the "just cut taxes" crowd think that the things provided by government just magically appear.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

In other words, the party of Barack Obama and Harry Reid doesn’t have room for Evan Bayh. Oddly enough, the party of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner does have room for Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.

More important than the usual ejection of moderates from the Democratic party, though, is the political havoc Obama has wreaked on his own party members.

Yes and no. Yes in that the Dems have become everything they complained the Repubs were just two short years ago, and are half the problem in the Senate (actually, 60% of the problem!).

What's stunning and upsetting to me though is that when in the Senate, Obama was actually closer to Bayh and the moderates on many issues, and even disagreed with Reid (remember Reid killing lobby reform?). As President, Obama hasn't really been that "liberal" in what he's proposed. The problem stems from him turning most of the reins over to Reid & Pelosi who have been in the front seat of the car driving towards a cliff, and continue to put their foot on the gas pedal. Their brand of "liberalism" is actually much more than Obama in my eyes, because it's so laden with pork and cronyism (Yucca mountain anyone?). Obama's guilt his is lack of oversight with them. He can't purge them out of Congress, no, but when he took office he could have laid down the law on them, and the first time they tried to run amok reminded them it was he who was elected President and who is in charge, and elected on a mantra of change.

People like to rail against Bush, and I think he made some terrible decisions as President, but whether they turned out to be wise decisions or not, he was very capable of getting much of what he wanted through Congress, and the only people he ideologically capitulated to in a sense were the neoconservatives in his cabinet and enablers (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, Rove, Norquist, etc.).

 

[ravens]

Yes and no. Yes in that the Dems have become everything they complained the Repubs were just two short years ago, and are half the problem in the Senate (actually, 60% of the problem!).

I just want to be clear that those paragraphs in the post were not my words. They were from the article.

.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Well, I think Quayle had a point he wanted to make I guess.

I'm personally more upset with Bayh. Unless he truly speaks his mind in the months to come and opens up about how bipartisan f'd and corrupt things are, he's just a quitter.

Meanwhile, Obama has announced a bipartisan group to look at deficit reduction. We may not get a Graham-Rudmun-Hollins package, or Penny-Kasich pork rescission bill(s), but we can hope. Here's a cut-and-paste from AP:

President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday unilaterally creating a bipartisan commission to rein in unruly deficits after Congress rejected a similar body with considerably more enforcement power.

In making the announcement, Obama said that unless lawmakers put aside partisan differences, the continuing red-ink trend could "hobble our economy."
Full Article Here.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, I think Quayle had a point he wanted to make I guess.

I'm personally more upset with Bayh. Unless he truly speaks his mind in the months to come and opens up about how bipartisan f'd and corrupt things are, he's just a quitter.

Meanwhile, Obama has announced a bipartisan group to look at deficit reduction. We may not get a Graham-Rudmun-Hollins package, or Penny-Kasich pork rescission bill(s), but we can hope. Here's a cut-and-paste from AP:

President Barack Obama signed an order Thursday unilaterally creating a bipartisan commission to rein in unruly deficits after Congress rejected a similar body with considerably more enforcement power.

In making the announcement, Obama said that unless lawmakers put aside partisan differences, the continuing red-ink trend could "hobble our economy."
Full Article Here.

This is Obama being a coward. He campaigned on a middle-class tax cut. He clearly will not even slow down the rate of spending. He can read the electorate and knows he's on a very short leash with regard to the national debt.

So what does he do? Commission a blue ribbon panel that will undoubtedly recommend monumental tax increases and Obama will thus have political cover by blaming the panel for having to gut everybody. This is political trickery, Chicago style. It's just more evidence that our situation is nothing more than a game to the political elites and no matter what they say, they (all of them) don't care a wit about people but care very much about winning.

If Obama wanted to tackle this problem he could. But he won't. But he should.

Here's a speech a few days ago from sombody prepared to make some decisions;

http://www.njn.net/news/coverage/2010/budgetspeech.html

 

[ravens]

This is Obama being a coward. He campaigned on a middle-class tax cut. He clearly will not even slow down the rate of spending. He can read the electorate and knows he's on a very short leash with regard to the national debt.

So waht does he do? Commission a blue ribbon panel that will undoubtedly recommend monumental tax increases and Obama will thus have political cover by blaming the panel for having to gut everybody. This is political trickery, Chicago style. It's just more evidence that our situation is nothing more than a game to the political elites and no matter what they say, they (all of them) don't care a wit about people but care very much about winning.

I again refer everyone to my (brilliant!! haha) post of a few days ago. He's trying to kick the can down the road. But he is the most insulated politician (insulated from the political mood of the country) I have ever seen.

He has his ideology and he is going to stick to it come hell or high water. He is ramming it down our throats and still thinks he is going to get away with it.

If he continues along this path, and then top it off with an unspent-stimulus-money-dump-on-vulnerable-congressional-and-senate seats in the late summer and fall, the cynicism of that kind of move is not going to be lost on voters. After losing races in Solid Blue strongholds like MA and NJ, they still are denying to themselves what the message is. This is really going to make 1994 look like it was just a foreshadowing. I still can envision him pulling his cookies out of the fire, but nothing he's done so far makes me think it's going to happen. It's mind boggling. No matter what or how loudly the message is, the country is being driven by a madman towards a brick wall. He just keeps the accelerator to the floor.

 

[ravens]

This is Obama being a coward. He campaigned on a middle-class tax cut. He clearly will not even slow down the rate of spending. He can read the electorate and knows he's on a very short leash with regard to the national debt.

So waht does he do? Commission a blue ribbon panel that will undoubtedly recommend monumental tax increases and Obama will thus have political cover by blaming the panel for having to gut everybody. This is political trickery, Chicago style. It's just more evidence that our situation is nothing more than a game to the political elites and no matter what they say, they (all of them) don't care a wit about people but care very much about winning.

I again refer everyone to my (brilliant!! haha) post of a few days ago. He's trying to kick the can down the road. But he is the most insulated politician (insulated from the political mood of the country) I have ever seen.

He has his ideology and he is going to stick to it come hell or high water. He is ramming it down our throats and still thinks he is going to get away with it.

If he continues along this path, and then top it off with an unspent-stimulus-money-dump-on-vulnerable-congressional-and-senate seats in the late summer and fall, the cynicism of that kind of move is not going to be lost on voters. After losing races in Solid Blue strongholds like MA and NJ, they still are denying to themselves what the message is. This is really going to make 1994 look like it was just a foreshadowing. I still can envision him pulling his cookies out of the fire, but nothing he's done so far makes me think it's going to happen. It's mind boggling. No matter what or how loudly the message is, the country is being driven by a madman towards a brick wall. He just keeps the accelerator to the floor.

[EDIT:It's post 3099 I think.]

 

[ihavenolimbs]

Nuclear power (fission) is only a mid-term solution (20-50 years) due to some of those limitations. Good call on liquid and breeder reactors, and on fusion. A study well worth research funding, along with superconductivity.
...
Thoughts anyone?

The ITER fusion reactor project has funding of about 10 billion euro, over 30 years. This is only like 1 euro per person, per year, in the EU for each of the 30 years!

Imagine if the Chinese, Japanese, Americans, ... all had competing, and well-funded, projects.

We'd have fusion pretty damn soon. It'd even help the conservative agenda, Al Gore would have a hard time selling his carbon offsets.

But it's a disruptive tech, and a gamble, so not a good investment for private investors. Even if a successful fusion reactor isn't produced, there will be lots of spin-off tech though. This is another example where govts can succeed where markets fail.

 

[buckwheat]

Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill.

As a CEO, "I never made an investment decision based on the tax code," and "good business people don't do things" on the basis of tax code inducements.

 

[ravens]

Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill.

As a CEO, "I never made an investment decision based on the tax code," and "good business people don't do things" on the basis of tax code inducements.

And yet there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of accountants and bookkeepers who specialize in reducing the tax burden.....weeeiiiirdddd !!!

 

[Anonymous]

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson;

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

 

[buckwheat]

And yet there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of accountants and bookkeepers who specialize in reducing the tax burden.....weeeiiiirdddd !!!

Why are you always missing the point?

Taxes stem from profits which stem from running a business properly.

You make business decisons because you want to maximize profits.

You want to minimize taxes? One sure way is to not make money.

The accountants and lawyers reduce taxes AFTER income or profits are realized. Got it?

You can always argue with O'Neill.

 

[buckwheat]

One of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson;

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Who said that's why anyone is being taxed? The income tax is articulated in the 16th Amendment. It's not constitutional to promote the General Welfare or provide for the Common defence?

Who said any taxation is done arbitrarily? When taxes are raised or lowered aren't justifications given?

Nice try! Work on the comprehension. Words and their meanings matter!

 

[Anonymous]

Who said that's why anyone is being taxed. The income tax is articulated in the 16th Amendment. It's not constitutional to promote the General Welfare or provide for the Common defence?

Who said any taxation is done arbitrarily. When taxes are raised or lowered aren't justifications given?

Nice try! Work on the comprehension. Words and their meanings matter!

You arguing with Tom Jefferson? Bold.

 

[Anonymous]

Thomas Jefferson-

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

Pretty insightful given these words were penned 230 (or so) years ago.

Here's another one...

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Or,

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Or,

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."


What do you think Tom would say about our govt today? I'm thinking you guys would call him every name in the book.

 

[Anonymous]

Thomas Jefferson-

"I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious."

Pretty insightful given these words were penned 230 (or so) years ago.

Here's another one...

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Or,

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Or,

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government."

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."


What do you think Tom would say about our govt today? I'm thinking you guys would call him every name in the book.

First, Jefferson wouldn't toe the line with your insane fundamentalist wing so I doubt he would be the Republican from Virginia today. Secondly, Jefferson would have changed his mind if he had seen the excesses of capitalism in the late 19th century. Again, there is a reason all industrialized nations moved away from unfettered capitalism...because it was more corrupt and oppressive than anything you can point to today in terms of government. They didn't call them "robber barons" for nothing. Also note that the regulation of said industry is a facet of every major industrialized nation in the world, so based on some of the things you have said, you wouldn't agree to the letter with anything you just quoted.

 

[Anonymous]

First, Jefferson wouldn't toe the line with your insane fundamentalist wing so I doubt he would be the Republican from Virginia today. Secondly, Jefferson would have changed his mind if he had seen the excesses of capitalism in the late 19th century. Again, there is a reason all industrialized nations moved away from unfettered capitalism...because it was more corrupt and oppressive than anything you can point to today in terms of government. They didn't call them "robber barons" for nothing. Also note that the regulation of said industry is a facet of every major industrialized nation in the world, so based on some of the things you have said, you wouldn't agree to the letter with anything you just quoted.

Perhaps. I find it interesting that the struggles were the same then as they are now.

You say he'd have a change of heart with the excesses of Capitalism of the late 19th century (and 20th too). This might be true. My guess is he would be way more concerned with the excess and largess of the Federal govt during that same period of time. Rightly or wrongly he appears to have trusted industry to a significantly higher degree than any govt, including ours.

 

[Anonymous]

Perhaps. I find it interesting that the struggles were the same then as they are now.

You say he'd have a change of heart with the excesses of Capitalism of the late 19th century (and 20th too). This might be true. My guess is he would be way more concerned with the excess and largess of the Federal govt during that same period of time. Rightly or wrongly he appears to have trusted industry to a significantly higher degree than any govt, including ours.

The struggles may share the same character, but the specifics are much different. I am fairly certain that CDO's would cause anyone to say "you know, maybe unregulated investment tools need some regulation."

Also, he may have trusted industry at that time, but the industry he undertook, and what formed during the industrial revolution and later are markedly different in character.

Also note that Jefferson, like the men of his time, believed that voting and governing were the province of land owning white men only.

 

[buckwheat]

You arguing with Tom Jefferson? Bold.

Me and ole Tommy boy are going to be hostin' a few a them Negro ladies up at the big house! You know what they say, once you go black you never go back!

I'm all straight up and $hit except when I be hittin on the colored ladies and then writing stuff down about all men being created equal.

What's a colored lady, 2/3rds of a human, 1/2? I can't remember.

How much you have to pay for one a dem colored folks anyway?

It was pretty funny how a couple of years ago Jerry Krause reminded Michael Jordan how "they owned him."

You're right, things don't change.

 

[buckwheat]

Also note that Jefferson, like the men of his time, believed that voting and governing were the province of land owning white men only.

What's wrong with that?

Sincerely,

Thomas Jefferson.


Psych! I'm being bold!

Scott is busy kissing up to old TJ who's been dead about 200 years. I'm more worried about the poor kid in the ghetto with no prospects or someone going bankrupt because somebody in the insurance company denied them benefits. Differing priorities, call me crazy.