It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California deficit has soared to $16 billion, Gov. Jerry Brown says

page: 10
22
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes, there is surely voter fraud, and no, neither you nor any other individual not directly involved are responsible for that.

So you admit that I may not have as much control over what is going on after all!!!!

Again, I ask, why not get mad at the rule makers then, since we are establishing that it is them that sets the rules of the game...


Originally posted by TheRedneck
First of all, corporations do not vote; all a corporation can do to influence an election is contribute funds.

Oh I'm sorry!! You know those politicians will listen to my vote way before they listen to their wallets



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Second of all, what alternatives are there to majority rule? Minority rule? Dictatorship?

That is one, of many, options. I would prefer more checks and balances to our current set up though...


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Originally posted by adigregorio
How many times have I seen republicans, or democrats REFUSE to pick a different canidate. Why? Well because of their party!...

And that is the mark of a democratic system. The population decides, on the basis of majority rule, who their leaders will be. If the population decides to elect someone who does a poor job, then the population has only themselves to blame.

So, why not get on them Republicans that are voting these folks into power? For being such a "liberal state" why don't we have gay marraige? (Rhetorical)

Again, the population doesn't have as much money as corporations. And we have shown that they corps give the dough.
Votes < Dough


Originally posted by TheRedneck
... but no one else is going to clean up Alabama except Alabamians.

And no one is going to clean up California except Californians. Are you a Californian?

That's right, no one is going to clean it up but me and my own. So why don't you get out of my hair about "how bad it is here".

If you are not going to change what you deem as "bad", then you have no right complaining about it. (Or "whining" as other posters were calling it.) I am trying to change things, and you don't hear me boo-hooing about the state of affairs. I only boo-hoo at people who seem to find it fun to tell me "Wow, you guys suck!"


The inquisition, here we go.

Not sure I understand your reference here?
I was pointing out that "good" is a moral. The Spanish Inquisition, well the Catholics thought that was good. And they were the majority rule then. So...

Again, I ask who decides "good" and who decides "bad"? (Does it make the decision either one?)


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Er, you ever hear how some folks talk about Alabama? Apparently, the difference is that you care what others think and I don't. I am happy in Alabama. Are you happy in California?

So two wrongs make rights now?

And, again, I have said nothing ill of Alabama, or any other state. And if I did, I certainly wouldn't have the arrogance to assume that the residence are anything but humans, like myself.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
That means that Californians either agree with her policies and actions, are too stupid to realize what she's doing, or have no control of their own voting process.

That's correct, due to the things I have mentioned already. People do not have control of their elections, so we will take option three in that list.

Of course there is a sprinkle of the other options as well, but due to that third one people like me can not get "real" change. We are drowned out by the jingling of the corporations moneybags! Not to mention the small percentage of wealthy folks, who also contribute.

How does one vote for someone who is not running? How does one run without massive amounts of funding? How does one get funding? What's the price of said funding? (We all know, in every other thread we all agree. But when California comes we forget how things really work here in America. And all of the sudden it's the peoples fault for not demanding change...)


Originally posted by TheRedneck
And you should understand there are a lot of people across the nation who vehemently disagree with her.

And they are going to do NOTHING ABOUT IT. So all they are doing is whining, unless they wish to help me in the ousting. But no, like I said, easier to point a finger and spew anger. And, the finger isn't even pointing at her!


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am a citizen of the United States of America, and I find the fact that my tax dollars in Alabama are quite probably going to be used to bail out a state that has more money than we do and squanders it offensive and hateful.

HOLD IT!!!

YOUR politicians are sending your taxes this way, so get mad at them.

edit on 5/17/2012 by adigregorio because: politions TO politicians




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Here's a little info:
Alabama 2010 population = 4,779,736
California 2010 population = 37,253,956
Alabama 2012 Budget = $13,467,506,257 = $2817.62/person.
California 2012 Budget = $141,899,526,000 = $3808.98/person.

California spends 35% more per person than we do, and while both states are operating in the red at the present time...

Hold one one second...

You realize what a "cost of living" is right?

How much is a studio apartment to rent, per month in Alabama?
Here? Why $800.00 a month!

How much is a one bedroom apartment to rent, per month in Alabama?
Here? Why it's $1,200 a month!

How much is a pack of cigarettes in Alabama?
Here? Why it's $5.50 a pack!

Did those budgets factor in the cost of living? I wouldn't say it is 35% higher here, but I bet it is at least 15% more costly. Really, only spending 1,000 more per person isn't that much. If you had the same numbers for population, we would not be looking at this example at all...

About the "truckers", I am going to need a source to show that they indeed solved the issue without the populace of California. If I am going to give credit, where it is due, want to make sure it is due.

About the "Electoral College", Exactly!! So if the presidency is not picked by the people, the president. You know, the biggest elected official in the whole of the USA. Well if his election is not "by the people" how can you expect me to believe that any other election is? And we already agree the corporations have their heafty ransoms in the mix, sooo.

Yeah, "we the people" don't have as much buying power as some seem to think.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
When those bailouts come, understand that there are strings attached. If I pay for it, I get to say how to fix it.

Nope, the people giving the money get to make those rules.

The same people who will take it from you to give to us, the people in power. The ones we should be mad at, but nope...



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
For the record!

I do not think we (California) should get bailed out, not at all. If hitting bottom is what causes things to change, then that is what has to happen.

Now, I don't need help being pushed off the cliff. Nor do I need people atop other cliffs, laughing at my gracefull (or lack thereof) fall. Nevermind that their cliff edges are crumbling as we type...

No, scratch that, the edges are not crumbling they are being torn asunder. People with polished pick-axes are picking away at our lives, all in the name of "morals" (As was pointed out by TheRedneck)

To think that behavior is limited to California, that is a strecth even Armstrong couldn't handle. And until it is stopped, the United States will remain a shell of its former glory. I am begining to think it will never cease, due to the sheer amount of willing participants.

"Gays get married? To heck with that! That's wrong."
"People owning guns? To heck with that! That's wrong."
"Women getting abortions? To heck with that! That's wrong."
"Toy guns that aren't orange? To heck with that! That's wrong."
"Smokers? To heck with them! They're wrong."
"Athiests? To heck with them! They're wrong."
"Another racial group? To heck with them! They're wrong."

I am not without fault:

"Moral pushing? To heck with that! That's wrong."

So I end this thought with:


They'll tell you, "You can't sleep alone in a strange place."
Then they'll tell you, "You can't sleep with somebody else
But sooner or later you'll sleep in your own space
Either way, it's okay to wake up with yourself

"My Life" -- Billy Joel



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Median Income CA, $53,770
Median Income AL, $38,473

So Californians can afford to pay 35% more taxes with 40% more income.

Average tax rate for Californians from your numbers and with the income number, 7.08%

Alabamans tax rate 7.3%



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I live in California and my income is 31k. So i am barely scratching by and i dont need to pay 40% thank you.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio

So you admit that I may not have as much control over what is going on after all!!!!

I will admit that it is not easy to have that control, but only you (as a Californian) have that ability. I cannot vote in California; you can. I cannot campaign for or against people in California; I simply live too far away. You, on the other hand, can talk to friends and neighbors and place campaign signs in your yard with little effort.

Thus, you (again, as a Californian), are the only one who can make a difference save for those you (as a Californian) placed in power. And I think we can both agree these officials have clearly shown their inability or apathy to do so.


Oh I'm sorry!! You know those politicians will listen to my vote way before they listen to their wallets

Actually, they have to listen to listen to your vote or they will get no contributions. Corporations contribute to politicians because they have a chance of winning. Without votes, all the money in the world will not keep a politician in power.

The money is used for advertising... but any businessman will tell you that the best advertising is word-of-mouth and cannot be bought. So why complain about poor advertising by your competition when you have superior advertising at your disposal? Use what you have!


I would prefer more checks and balances to our current set up though...

We have the ultimate check and balance right now: elections. No one, from the President to the local dogcatcher, can affect public policy without approval from the people. Even the Electoral College (which I agree has outlived its usefulness) only gives problems in a tight race.

What good are checks and balances if not used?


So, why not get on them Republicans that are voting these folks into power?

My use of the term 'democratic' was not in reference to the political party, but to the general system of government. And yes, I am aware our system is not purely democratic, rather a democratic republic... the difference being that even the majority cannot vote out inalienable rights of a minority.


That's right, no one is going to clean it up but me and my own. So why don't you get out of my hair about "how bad it is here".

I wasn't aware I was in your hair. People have opinions; people express opinions; opinions quite often are at odds with opinions from other areas. That's a fact of life. Another fact of life is that the opinions of others are irrelevant when it comes to you and your area. Again, Alabama is far from immune to these opinions; according to many, we are backward, unscientific, primitive, and just plain dumb. Does it bother me when I hear that? NO! Because it simply does not matter.


I was pointing out that "good" is a moral.

And I was pointing out that morals are often specific to cultural reality. Thus, it is perfectly moral for me to engage in the spiritual experience of eating bacon, while it is not moral for a fundamentalist Jew to do so (in my understanding anyway; please forgive me if I am incorrect on this aspect of Jewish culture).


So two wrongs make rights now?

No, I simply do not see any wrongs here. I see opinions, which are by definition neither right nor wrong.


How does one vote for someone who is not running?

It's called a "write-in".

How does one run without massive amounts of funding?

By speaking directly to the people.

How does one get funding?

By asking. If 10,000 people donate $100 each, that's a million dollars.

What's the price of said funding?

That depends on who is providing the funds.


And they are going to do NOTHING ABOUT IT.

OK, what do you want the rest of the nation to do about Nancy Pelosi? WE CAN'T VOTE IN YOUR ELECTIONS!

Pelosi does, however, by virtue of your elections, get to have a say on National issues. So when it comes to the Federal offices, your decisions on who to elect have some effect on everyone else. That isn't unique to California; I voice my opinion 'whine' about senators and representatives from New England, Minnesota, Colorado...


YOUR politicians are sending your taxes this way, so get mad at them.

I already am.

~continued~



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
~continued~


You realize what a "cost of living" is right?

Yes, I do. Do you realize that cost of living is in large part affected by governmental regulations? More regulations = more cost to businesses = higher costs to the public. That excuse does not fly, or in my vernacular, "That dog don't hunt".


About the "truckers", I am going to need a source to show that they indeed solved the issue without the populace of California. If I am going to give credit, where it is due, want to make sure it is due.

OOIDA's official magazine, Landline Now.

Just do a few searches for California.


Nope, the people giving the money get to make those rules.

The same people who will take it from you to give to us, the people in power. The ones we should be mad at, but nope...

Actually, I believe you might be happier with me pulling the strings than they. But no matter; had the state of California not gone so deep into the red using feel-good economic schemes, there would be no reason to bail anyone out.


For the record!

For the record from me: my main point is that, yes, you are responsible for the bed you make. No one has the power to, or the moral right to IMO, fix your problems. But your problems do carry on to the rest of the nation, be it the liberal policies being touted in DC or the economic woes which will spread out as California is bailed out. Those affect me as well as you. We are both part of the USA and as such are tied together in the final analysis. So while you are free to use your Constitutional power as a citizen or not, I have no such power. I will use what I do have: my voice. Do not try to restrict me from using that as long as you are not correcting the problem yourself.

I do not hate Californians. I hate the traffic in LA, the extreme regulations, the high cost of living, the denial of economic reality, the abuses of power, the fanaticism, and the refusal to consider the effects a collapse of California will have on everyone. I wish California no harm... I only wish the majority of Californians also meant me no harm.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

We probably do pay 3% more in taxes. So California is spending 35% more per capita and taxing 3% less.

No wonder there's a deficit!

TheRedneck



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


they get what they deserve for trying to switch to a prison economy in the late 80s



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


You don't pay anything near 40% state taxes in CA.. You probably pay a great deal less than 7%, and you would pay the same rate in AL.

With math skills like that, makes a whole lot of sense.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


CA's problem is mainly illegal immigration and excess immigration, combined with ridiculous retirement programs from a lot of well connected public unions, like the police, prison guards, judges, court clerks, and the whole criminal industry.

Regulations actually increase worker income, and thereby tax revenue and over all increased productivity, because they force businesses to do basic minimums.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

CA's problem is mainly illegal immigration and excess immigration, combined with ridiculous retirement programs from a lot of well connected public unions, like the police, prison guards, judges, court clerks, and the whole criminal industry.

Which seems to agree with those numbers.

Every one of the programs you mention add to the cost of operating the state, and the problem is clearly too much being spent and too little coming in. To achieve even a close balance would require a 35% increase in taxation or a 35% decrease in spending (or a combination of the two). I dislike taxes, so I look at cutting costs first.

Illegal immigration is clearly not a necessity for state operation. I understand there are many in CA who feel strongly about illegal immigrants, but that's beside the point. To again equate the state budget to a family budget, I feel very strongly I should own a 2012 Dodge Ran 3500 Cummings Diesel with quad-cab and a full-size bed. Strangely enough, my feeling that way does not allow me to own one. Ergo, feeling strongly about illegal immigrants does not equate to being financially capable of maintaining the degree of illegal immigration that exists at present.

Retirement is a sticky problem: the retirees have a contract with the state, right or no, and contracts require fulfillment. This is a prime example of how sloth in political awareness has long-term consequences. If the contracts are re-written, it becomes a precedent that essentially makes all state contracts open to unilateral redefinition, making them useless and worthless. That is a cost which now has to be paid (although future retirement may be re-negotiated).


Regulations actually increase worker income, and thereby tax revenue and over all increased productivity, because they force businesses to do basic minimums.

I would submit that it depends on the regulations. There are times when regulations are necessary and proper, and there are times when regulation begins to have detrimental impacts on the economy. As an example, requiring workers in areas of hazardous fumes to wear breathing protection is a helpful regulation, but regulations that raise the cost of new facilities to levels that discourage growth is not.

The appearance, at least to me, is that the budget shortfalls in CA are in part responsible for increased regulations and thus increased fees directly to government. But this is an economic fallacy. The potential income of any government is directly related to the prosperity of the constituent population, and this prosperity is related to something I term the "speed of money". One does not speed up commerce by removing the medium of exchange from the private sector; one speeds up the economy by encouraging individual spending to spur business growth, which in turn increases the number and quality of jobs available, which in turn improves the standard for living for the population, which in turn increases the available tax base.

I do believe, poet, that we finally agree on something!


TheRedneck



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Meant to reply earlier, sorry it took so long.

We are not that far apart, but we still disagree on the role of regulations.

De-regulation has been proven time and time again to destroy economic growth. Instead of the money being spent to build proper facilities, and hire trained people to deal with things like toxic fumes, the money goes into the Exec pockets, and does not stimulate the economy.

Money that goes to properly handling toxic fumes goes to create jobs, build businesses, and is spent by the people who are hired to meet those requirements, and helps to boost the local economy.

Vast numbers of jobs were lost in CA, which means vast amounts of state income tax is not being paid, so state income drops hugely.

What is negative about regulations is vastly offset by what is positive. Deregulation created this economic collapse, allowing banking crooks to destroy our economy with their crooked schemes.



posted on May, 26 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

Not a problem. I had honestly worried I had caused you have a heart attack or something by agreeing with you!


I am happy that was not the case.

On to regulation however:

De-regulation has been proven time and time again to destroy economic growth. Instead of the money being spent to build proper facilities, and hire trained people to deal with things like toxic fumes, the money goes into the Exec pockets, and does not stimulate the economy.

One of the interesting things about any economic downturn is the unquantifiable aspect of worker treatment. Labor in any given industry is as much about supply and demand as any other commodity. Thus, when the demand goes down and the supply is still high, as we have right now, workers are worth less. This equates to lower wages, worse working conditions, less benefits, and worse overall treatment. Conversely, in a growing economy where labor is in high demand, the opposite occurs.

The deregulation of the banking industry was indeed a terrible thing. That was not because regulation is always good, but because the banking industry is not a producer. Banks produce nothing material; they offer services which include high levels of financial power by their very nature. Without regulation, banking has more power than government to directly affect the lives of the citizenry.

In this case, the deregulation led to abuse of power in the name of increased profits, not a small part of which was the practice of issuing vast amounts of subprime loans and packaging them into essentially worthless instruments. That led to the economic dip, which in turn led to the problems with labor relations. But again, this is different than, say, regulating toxic fumes.

In order to regulate toxic fumes, someone has to first produce the toxic fumes. If no one is producing toxic fumes, there is no need for regulation of toxic fumes. So this regulation, instead of regulating a service industry from abusing its power, actually implements a service industry with power that can be abused. Now don't read me wrong here: I do believe we should be extremely careful about releasing raw contaminants into the atmosphere. However, if the cost of regulating these fumes becomes too high for the businesses which produce them, those businesses must either reduce costs elsewhere, raise their prices, or close their doors. That is an economic reality.

Do you really think those executives are going to decide to cut costs first out of their own pocket?

No, instead they will cut costs elsewhere... workers salaries, benefits, or even outsource some of its operations. If that outsourcing is overseas, that's jobs that are cut. Cut salaries mean workers have less money to spend on non-essentials, which causes problems with companies who produce those non-essentials. The end result is that the entire economy begins to shrink just as much as if a subprime bubble had burst. A shrinking economy then places the governments under additional financial strain, as that means less money coming in from taxes and more going out in benefits (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc.).

Where does this money come from? Debt.

So as you can see, regulation is not the problem or the solution. It can be either, depending on the regulation.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Well, there are threads where we are on the same side, we primarily only disagree on business regulation. Am of redneck stock myself.

The answer to companies moving manufacturing overseas in order to avoid meeting regulations is to raise import taxes based on how well those companies meeting environmental and worker regulations.

This has been put off because it was claimed that this would prevent emerging economies from growing, but with countries like China, its time to put those types of trade agreements in place.

Even China is looking to start creating these types of regulations. The current trade imbalance can not continue, as China's economic model at this time is lending money to the U.S. so the U.S. can buy their goods and services.

By moving those jobs overseas, to avoid regulations and for lower wages, those corporations have killed their own consumer market.

Without a consumer market, those corporations are selling out their future for short term gain.

Eliminating 50 million jobs takes on average about 2.5 Trillion from the U.S. economy. 2.5T that would have been spent on cars and homes and electronics, that pays for other people to make those things, and expands and grows the economy.

When all the money goes to the upper levels, it becomes investment money that has nothing to invest in, because the consumer markets are shrinking. When the money goes primarily to the workers, it is spent on goods and services that drive our economy.





edit on 27-5-2012 by poet1b because: Add first comment



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by adigregorio
 


From the looks of it, you're being patronized by someone from Alabama and to be quite honest, there's nothing good about that state at all.

He should certainly focus on making Alabama anything but the laughingstock of the nation.



posted on May, 27 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

I am all in favor of tariffs... it was a mistake to remove them in the first place. Tariffs both protect a vibrant economy from becoming overwhelmed by other countries and provide a source of funding to the government without imposing undue burdens on the citizenry.

I do believe we are on the same side of the majority of this issue. Now the key is getting someone with the power to actually make these changes on our side.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


Na, it's just a case of not knowing all the facts.

It's easy to sit in a chair thousands of miles away and spout "What needs to be done"

It's alot harder to actually do something...

As for me, my battles have increased ten-fold. Was about to purchase my first house! Then, my job lays me off at the last minute.

(Fire at will state, you know that's my fault too!)

So, here I am preparing to become a homeless person! (Seriously!) So I guess all you folks WILL get to hate me officially now! Since, you know, I don't try to change anything....

I swear, it's un-real...

Homeowner to Hobo in less than a day...Remember what I said, when the 9th of June hits and I must leave. I WILL take this state down, and then when it goes down. Your state is next! Cause hobos, bums, and Californians don't dissappear when the state does. Nope, they all filter to your wonderful lands.

So will our politicians! "I won't let them be in my state offices!" I bet that is what you folks are thinking. Such silly thoughts, you have no control. That's why California WILL get bailed out, and you folks will just BAWL about it. Because, as I have pointed out countless times on this thread: Action is way too hard, words are the way.

So enjoy those recliners, cause in a few years you too will be in California!



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join