Your legislature is dominated by egoistical lobbies who are obsessed with their own petty projects and don't care about fiscal responsibility.Originally Posted by gunnut
Maybe you're not aware of this but California's population has grown nearly twofold since this proposition has been enforced. Means more roads, more schools, more public transport, the need of a bigger police force, even more lobbies etc....With the same tax limitation system since the 70's in place.OK, 3 things you mentioned, roads, police, and schools. How much do you think these are worth? Give me a number.
I completely agree with you. We need to get rid of lobbyists in California legislature. Let's see, we can start with the public employees unions.
1. So California's population has nearly doubled in 30 years. What was the state budget in 1978 when Prop 13 passed?
2. You are evading the question for the 2nd time. What do you think the correct budget for California is and how much do you think the government services are worth?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Your Population is some 38 Million. If you were a country, you would be a member of the G-8. Your GDP is higher than Brazil & Russia. You've got 3 big ass cities with associated problems... How can anyone answer that Question? 42% of it is white, 37% of it is Latino, 13% of it is Asian, and 7% is Black, each with their own expectations of government that in themselves differ between poles in communities?
Trying to get a concensus of direction in such a big & diverse environment with multiple manufacturing sectors, primary production, immigration sectors would have to be a nightmare!
This statement sums it well. Its simple maths. Californians simply have to decided what has to go to make do with their level of income revenue. Or they simply increase revenues ie taxes, simple.They clearly want more in services than they're willing to pay for in taxes," said Ethan Rarick, director of the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at UC Berkeley.
Agreed. Along with the taxpayers' lobbies and other supporters of this proposition 13. So that the legislature can raise taxes.
Why am I supposed to know the amount of the budget of the state of California anno 1978? Strawman?What was the state budget in 1978 when Prop 13 passed?
Well, your own legislature has no idea of what is the "correct budget" and they are paid to know that, so don't expect me to give you the answer.2. You are evading the question for the 2nd time. What do you think the correct budget for California is and how much do you think the government services are worth?
Will Obama's jobs summit really help?
Obama jobs summit: real help for unemployed, or PR move?
President Obama will host a jobs summit in December to consider strategies for shrinking ranks of the unemployed. What are some options?
12 Nov [CSMonitor] New York. President Obama plans to host a forum on jobs and economic growth next month at the White House, but what, really, can Washington do to accelerate hiring to pull the nation out of the deepest unemployment abyss in a generation?
The president said Thursday he will invite CEOs, small-business owners, economists, and labor unions to take part in the summit. It’s a recognition that, though the economy appears to be growing again, the recession won’t really be over for Americans until the unemployment rate, currently at a generational high of 10.2 percent, retreats.
Some economists doubt that Washington can do much to improve the job climate – and suggest the effort may be more public-relations gesture than action. ...
But Andrew Stettner of the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in New York argues that the summit a good sign that the president is focused on jobs, not just healthcare reform and foreign policy. ...
The US has moved into higher end manufacturing and out of lower end manufacturing. We may not be able to make the GI Joe with the kung fu grip anymore, but we make things that are more productive and revenue producing these days.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
Initial jobless claims fall to lowest level since January -- latimes.com
WASHINGTON - Fewer Americans than anticipated filed claims for jobless benefits last week, signaling the worst employment slump in the post- World War II era is easing as the economy expands.
Initial unemployment claims fell by 12,000 to 502,000 in the week ended Nov. 7, the lowest level since January, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The number of people receiving jobless benefits dropped, as did those getting extended payments.
Layoffs may slow, as the loss of 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007 probably means many companies have already cut staff to bare minimums. Even so, the jobless rate will probably keep climbing after reaching a 26-year high in October as the shortest workweek on record gives employers room to increase hours before taking on staff.
"Claims are still elevated but they're steadily declining, which suggests that the labor market is improving," Michelle Meyer, an economist at Barclays Capital in New York, said before the report. "Right now it's pretty slow-moving but it's heading in the right direction."
Economists forecast claims would fall to 510,000, according to the median of 44 projections in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 495,000 to 525,000. The government revised the prior week's claims up to 514,000 from a previously reported 512,000.
The four-week moving average of claims, a less volatile measure, decreased to 519,750, the lowest level in almost a year, from 524,250.
Continuing claims dropped by 139,000 to 5.63 million in the week ended Oct. 31, from 5.77 million the prior week.
The continuing-claims figure does not include the number of Americans receiving extended benefits under federal programs. The number of people who have used up their traditional benefits and are now collecting extended payments fell by about 6,000 to 4.04 million in the week ended Oct. 24, today's report showed.
President Obama last week signed into law a plan to expand a tax credit for first-time homebuyers, extend jobless benefits and provide tax refunds to money-losing companies. The measure gives jobless people as many as 20 additional weeks of unemployment assistance.
The unemployment rate among people eligible for benefits, which tends to track the jobless rate, decreased to 4.3% in the week ended Oct. 31 from 4.4% a week earlier. Twenty-seven states and territories reported a decrease in claims, while 26 showed an increase.
The U.S. lost 190,000 jobs in October and the unemployment rate jumped to 10.2%, according to government data released last week. While the pace of job losses has slowed from earlier this year, the U.S. has lost 7.3 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, and economists expect the unemployment rate to exceed 10% through the first half of 2010.
Economists at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York last week said payrolls may soon stop dropping. Their research showed that jobless claims at around 500,000 are consistent with stable payrolls with the unemployment rate around the current level.
"The economy is approaching the point at which employment stabilizes and then begins to grow," Chief Economist Bruce Kasman and colleague Abiel Reinhart wrote in a Nov. 6 note to clients.
Applied Materials Inc., the world's biggest maker of chip equipment, is among companies still reducing costs on concern the economic recovery will be slow to develop. The Santa Clara, Calif.-based company yesterday said it plans to cut as many as 1,500 jobs.
The economy is likely to experience a "less-than-robust" recovery and remains vulnerable to shocks, as households rebuild savings and unemployment possibly remains high for "several years to come," Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco President Janet Yellen said during a speech Nov. 10.
After their meeting last week, Fed policy makers reiterated a pledge to keep the interest rate target low "for an extended period," and said unemployment was one of the variables they'll watch to determine when to change course.
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3
and it's warm year round!
Or not...Agreed. Along with the taxpayers' lobbies and other supporters of this proposition 13. So that the legislature can raise taxes.
No, not strawman. I'm trying to show you that California budget is increasing exponentially beyond the increase in population.
So you criticize, but will not engage in a discussion? No logic to back up your reasoning? Just "tax them more." Typical socialist.
I could make some French jokes, but that would be uncalled for.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
California isnt even in the top ten for spending per capita
gunnut,
what the military produces is stability and security. actually, the primary job of the military is to deter.If you closely examine it, what does military produce? Military doesn't produce anything. It destroys. The value of the military is that it can destroy our opponents' stuff faster than they do ours.
I've said many times, national defense is one of the few things we need the government for and is specified in the Constitution.
the point is that there are public goods which are not well managed in a private system. this is a well known economic theory-- the tragedy of the commons. furthermore, there are cases where "hidden" information, one of the drivers of the free-market systems, are dangerous to citizens' lives.Of course this cannot be done by the private sector. Underwriter's Lab is completely useless and the function should be transferred to the government. Without the FDA, I would not bother to find out if our food is OK to eat. I would willingly eat crap.
We used to have volunteer firefighters. What happened?
Cops? Not a big fan. The job can be done by the private sector. But I suppose you can say the Constitution authorized it along with the court system.
Parks can be better managed by the private sector. Notice that most of the land burnt during the wild fire season in California is government land. Why is that?
all of these require oversight. "useful value" can be defined here as ensuring stability, reducing dangers (natural or otherwise), and keeping a competitive playing field. all of these are necessary for the free market to exist.
hell, even the existence of some form of welfare is necessary for the free market to exist-- because much like a successful company may begin to monopolize without some form of government intervention, temporary economic success by a group of people in one generation may translate into economic stratification (ie feudalism)...which leads to the rise of populist/communist governments.
not quite, as the collapse of the financial investment system should have told you. it was so efficient, it wiped out almost a decade of growth in a year, which is something even the government hasn't equaledIn fact, it's the opposite. It moves resources from wasteful and useless areas to places where jobs are created and things are produced.
not at all. both failed states demonstrate the utility and useful value created by government. in short, wealth transfer does NOT necessarily translate to less economic inefficiency. low taxes (and low government expenditure) is only ONE contributing factor to economic growth, and it is not necessarily the decisive one.Is that red herring or strawman? I keep getting confused.
The human mind cannot grasp the causes of phenomena in the aggregate. But the need to find these causes is inherent in man’s soul. And the human intellect, without investigating the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions of phenomena, any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, snatches at the first, the most intelligible approximation to a cause, and says: “This is the cause!"
-Leo Tolstoy
War and Peace
Stop being obtuse Gunnut, you know of what I'm talking about. California was a model of efficient government and balanced budget in the 50's and 60's. They had the best health care system, education, public roads, etc...You know why? Because they had high taxes.
Now you complain about the current situation of your crappy, half bankrupt state, but in the same breath you don't understand how you should be paying taxes. Its not a socialist plot if California is like that, thats because you get what you pay for.
You're just confused, that's all I have to say.
Well, I don't really care. But if you like to make a fool of yourself, please go ahead.I could make some French jokes, but that would be uncalled for.
1. Reduce government spending.
Which means reducing welfare. I wonder if with the absence of welfare-related services (e.g., food stamps, Supplemental Security Income from Social Security), the American people will be encouraged to save up money and take charge of their own futures - even though the lack of a social safety net can be and is daunting for many.
Also, public health care should also be streamlined and a ceiling imposed on coverage - except for congenital diseases. In the Eastern Europe of the Iron Curtain, public health care was so-so - which persuaded the people to take good care of their own health. Of course that does not mean the Warsaw Pact countries invariably had better doctors than Western ones, but the relatively high degree of institutional unreliability forced the citizenry to take charge of their own health.
I do not think the American public is ready for even a sizeable reduction in welfare and other such public services - let alone the abolition thereof - but in any case the government should encourage the citizenry to take responsibility for their own welfare! It would be nice for employers to not have to put in so much money into medical benefit packages - but at the same time work hours must be reduced to allow employees to get adequate exercise. Or to do what the Japanese do. Have 30 minutes of vigorous exercise every morning before work. (I believe this is one secret to their once-notorious productivity.)
2. Encourage private enterprise and enforce corporate accountability.
The US government should not invertene too much in the US economy and let the American people keep more money in their pockets. (Also, it might be time to resurrect the old property-equals-eligibility law; only those 21 or older with their own property should be allowed to run for office.) This way, there is more money available for entrepeneurial activities and retail purchases, among other things. As well, the government should punish any fraudulent/unlawful actions on part of any corporate official or corporation without fail - or at least encourage large corporations to exercise some self-restraint and refrain from using lobbyists to shape government policy in their own favor and at the expense of everyone else.
Finally, under US law corporations should be treated as entities made up of multiple persons, rather than be treated as a single "person".
Until the US government can show that it has the cojones to enforce business regulations and for impartiality's sake resist influence from even the largest corporations, the US economy will take a while longer to recover and foreign investors may be a bit shy about setting up shop in the US. At least I would consider it a point of pride & honor to be impartial - probably even to the point of refusing political campaign contributions with the condition of influencing government officials to favor X corporation or other entity - and persuading them to pass the corresponding regulation.
3. Reduce military spending.
The geopolitical balance of the world is changing, so sooner or later the US will have to change from its Cold War set-up. Instead of more fancy machines, the US military should get more people and emphasize HUMINT. This will allow greater strategic and operational flexibility. Machines do have their place, but wars are won by those who use their brains (and use their brains with their hearts).
Also, US military installations in the States and outside should be reduced in scale. This will free up money for more important things - even if it means that having a Mikky D's on the base will be difficult. (Soldiers should be taught to grow their own food for whenever they go on long tours of duty, as well as the skills they already learn.)
On the side, I do not know why the Humvee was made so heavy. If the designers at GM would've just made it a few dozen pounds lighter, it would save fuel - and by extension be lighter on Uncle Sam's pocketbook.
In this day and age, America's enemies are using their brains more and more - despite not having sophisticated machinery. Why shouldn't Americans be using their brains as well? And whenever America goes to war, the people on the home front should be doing everything to help the guys on the front lines. (Why didn't Bush II tell his fellow Americans to contribute to the war effort in Afghanistan instead of telling them to go shopping? Beats me.) Every US citizen should be encouraged to participate substantially in the war effort in any way they can, even if they are not fit for the front lines.
*****************
In short, if the US government can cut spending in the above three areas - and let the American people keep more of their money in their own pockets and use it judiciously, the US economy will experience a stable recovery. I do not advocate wholesale reduction of government spending. Rather, I advocate that the Americans should be encouraged to take charge of their own destinies, instead of relying on the government to give them everything they want.
As former President Gerald R. Ford once said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Thomas Jefferson once said something similar in meaning. "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
Show me how high this tax was for California in the 1950s and 1960s.
I'm not confused. I don't want these crappy services and I don't want to pay for them. How simple is that?
I don't know...how can anyone make a fool of himself by insulting the French?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: