The Social Contract
-
@meric@nwom@n
Re: The Social Contract
Actually I suspect I would be fine without you and that mouse in your pocket.
Re: The Social Contract
Gee, it's a good thing I ain't the sort of feller who likes to say "I told you so".....Really you aren't about facts though are you, you are about spewing hate.
-
@meric@nwom@n
Re: The Social Contract
Hey Jim, it's not just him and it's sure as hell ain't just liberals who are guilty of this. The liberals guilty of this just happen to be closer at hand.
Re: The Social Contract
I certainly wouldn't disagree with that....it's sure as hell ain't just liberals who are guilty of this
There are haters on both sides who play fast and lose with statistics and who more interested in devotion to the demands and spin points of their ideology than they are to facts, or to accomplishing anything positive.
Re: The Social Contract
@meric@nwom@n wrote:Actually I suspect I would be fine without you and that mouse in your pocket.
Actually, what he was saying was;
rubato wrote:Pure crap it is.
We[California] don't actually need you[United States].
You need us. [The United States needs California.]
yrs,
rubato
Re: The Social Contract
Gob wrote:What would be the advantage to the USA of California going bankrupt?
There is none if the federal government pays their bills. But if the state should disappear and the people and territory that presently compose what we call California were part of another state, the people that were once California would get a new start. The only loser would be the creditors. The scenery of San Francisco bay would not change just because it was part of Oregon. Of course the default could effect government bond around the world.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: The Social Contract
errorliberty wrote:Gob wrote:What would be the advantage to the USA of California going bankrupt?
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: The Social Contract
NY is right behind Ca in it's fiscal "uncertainty". They are lookng at a $9Billion defecit next year (and that's the conservative estimate, I have no doubt it will be much higher) Much more money flows out than what comes back. And Long Island (and NY city area) sends much more money to Albany than what comes back.
Seems whatever happens in Ca, a few years later it happens in NY. I am not optomistic.
Seems whatever happens in Ca, a few years later it happens in NY. I am not optomistic.
-
Sue U
- Posts: 8905
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: The Social Contract
Also, on a dollars-per-capita basis NJ is consistently #2 (behind Connecticut) in how much we send to the federal government.rubato wrote: ***
New Jersey $0.61....................................... 50 DONOR STATE
Look, I don't mind sharing what we have to improve conditions for the less fortunate, but aparently the entire country (with the possible exeption of Connecticut) is less fortunate than NJ. Given the level of poverty and reduction of services I see here in NJ, I can only conclude that if we are paying our "fair share" of federal taxes, then those states on the net-recipient ("red") list must be complete shitholes.
GAH!
Re: The Social Contract
Scenario raised this morning in another forum:
California, at wits end, pleads with Barry to save it. Barry, who saw fit to save General Fucking Motors(!) cannot refuse. Republican H.R. refuses to allocate billions, so Barry cooks up a "risky scheme" with the Fed to - I don't know - sell some War Bonds or something to infuse CA with some Billions to keep it afloat.
After CA, who next? NY? NJ? Michigan? Who can be refused?
And this disaster is the one that pounds the last nail in the coffin of the O'Bama Presidency.
Ya know, in one sense this fiscal crisis in California (and other states) is a huge melodrama with no meat behind it. Corporations have weathered much worse storms than the states are facing now. They have sold off assets, contracted out services, gone to reduced work weeks, even gone through "managed" bankruptcies and were fine within a reasonable period. The legislatures are keeping off the table scores of measures that would be painful TO THEM and THEIR TEAT-SUCKING constituents, but would be minimal inconveniences to the public at large, particularly productive citizens. Sell off some parks and museums. Toll some roads and bridges. Privatize the liquor control boards. Eliminate departments and agencies that ARE DUPLICATES OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Bring the education mafia under control. California's famous efforts to reduce class sizes and make college affordable to everyone (even morons) have been colossal failures. I had 40 students in my classes from 1st grade (never went to K-G) through 12th, and it was never an issue.
The biggest budget-killer of all, Public Employee Pensions is one that is solvable but the politicians lack the balls to do what is right. Place all existing retirement funds in trust for the vested employees and retirees, and allow their representatives to work their way through it. Let THEM decide whether they can "afford" to continue with defined-benefit plans, 401k-type plans, or some combination of the two. Hell, maybe they can come up with some hybrid that works for them. But be clear and definite, no state bailout if the trust fund goes bankrupt. The idea that the taxpayers of California (and the U.S.) are simply STUCK with this liability is baloney! The state politicians made these promises, let them resolve them. And from here on out, the State pays some percentage of payroll into the fund and that's it. Spend it wisely.
Despite all the bullshit, CA has done very little to get its house in order. It's all wailing and gnashing of teeth and no substantive action. Like G.M., they simply ASSUME that SOMEBODY is going to bail them out.
OTOH, if California wants to secede from the U.S., they have my vote. There is nothing in the COnstitution to prevent them from seceding. Have at it.
California, at wits end, pleads with Barry to save it. Barry, who saw fit to save General Fucking Motors(!) cannot refuse. Republican H.R. refuses to allocate billions, so Barry cooks up a "risky scheme" with the Fed to - I don't know - sell some War Bonds or something to infuse CA with some Billions to keep it afloat.
After CA, who next? NY? NJ? Michigan? Who can be refused?
And this disaster is the one that pounds the last nail in the coffin of the O'Bama Presidency.
Ya know, in one sense this fiscal crisis in California (and other states) is a huge melodrama with no meat behind it. Corporations have weathered much worse storms than the states are facing now. They have sold off assets, contracted out services, gone to reduced work weeks, even gone through "managed" bankruptcies and were fine within a reasonable period. The legislatures are keeping off the table scores of measures that would be painful TO THEM and THEIR TEAT-SUCKING constituents, but would be minimal inconveniences to the public at large, particularly productive citizens. Sell off some parks and museums. Toll some roads and bridges. Privatize the liquor control boards. Eliminate departments and agencies that ARE DUPLICATES OF DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Bring the education mafia under control. California's famous efforts to reduce class sizes and make college affordable to everyone (even morons) have been colossal failures. I had 40 students in my classes from 1st grade (never went to K-G) through 12th, and it was never an issue.
The biggest budget-killer of all, Public Employee Pensions is one that is solvable but the politicians lack the balls to do what is right. Place all existing retirement funds in trust for the vested employees and retirees, and allow their representatives to work their way through it. Let THEM decide whether they can "afford" to continue with defined-benefit plans, 401k-type plans, or some combination of the two. Hell, maybe they can come up with some hybrid that works for them. But be clear and definite, no state bailout if the trust fund goes bankrupt. The idea that the taxpayers of California (and the U.S.) are simply STUCK with this liability is baloney! The state politicians made these promises, let them resolve them. And from here on out, the State pays some percentage of payroll into the fund and that's it. Spend it wisely.
Despite all the bullshit, CA has done very little to get its house in order. It's all wailing and gnashing of teeth and no substantive action. Like G.M., they simply ASSUME that SOMEBODY is going to bail them out.
OTOH, if California wants to secede from the U.S., they have my vote. There is nothing in the COnstitution to prevent them from seceding. Have at it.
Re: The Social Contract
And I forgot to mention: 20% pay cut for all State employees except police, firefighters and EMS. Get serious.
Re: The Social Contract
The state budget 'crisis' is caused overall by the national economic calamity brought on by 8 years of failed Republican policies combined with the fact that we are carrying your asses.
If we didn't subsidise the rest of the country we would be $20,000,000,000 to the good each year.
yrs,
rubato
If we didn't subsidise the rest of the country we would be $20,000,000,000 to the good each year.
yrs,
rubato
-
Mr. Duality
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 3:15 pm
- Location: The High Plains of Wyoming
Re: The Social Contract
I personally know a guy who moved from Bakersfield to Las Vegas because of the tax situation. Of course it's spelled "Bakersfield" but is pronounced "festering wasteland"...rubato wrote: If you want the future to be better than the past then a little suffering to pay for higher levels of education is a good thing. As someone who knows from experience, paying higher taxes for those those in the $300,000 + bracket is not a hardship and will not make us leave for some nasty ignorant shithole like Nevada or Mississippi.
yrs,
rubato
Re: The Social Contract
I would be in much better condition financially if I didn't have to pay all this money to the federal government. The benefit I personally get back is measurable, but its value is only a small fraction of what I have paid in over 45 or so years of gainful employment.
The money that I and my employers pay into Social Security has a current cash value of exactly zero. Had I been able to invest that combined amount I could have retired long ago. I would gladly forego collecting SS for my retirement in exchange for the nestegg that I would have sitting there right now.
Which proves...
exactly nothing.
Just like rube's blathering on about California carrying the rest of the U.S. It is attitudes just like his that have fostered the decades of promiscuous, unrealistic promises that have brought the state to its economic knees. Make every decision as though God (whom, by the way you don't believe in) had decreed that the Good Times will roll on forever. Then look for a bailout when things inevitably turn south.
We all know people who personally manage their finances in the same way that California has managed its finances. Borrow as much as any damn-fool bank is willing to lend you for a big house, take out second mortgages to send the kids to private schools, lease the biggest car you can find, take vacations on credit card financing - all on the assumption that your fucking house will keep increasing in value by 12 or 15% a year to cover all your profligate decisions.
We call these people, "idiots," and give them no sympathy whatsoever when the whole house of cards comes crashing down around them.
And when a state does it...
The money that I and my employers pay into Social Security has a current cash value of exactly zero. Had I been able to invest that combined amount I could have retired long ago. I would gladly forego collecting SS for my retirement in exchange for the nestegg that I would have sitting there right now.
Which proves...
exactly nothing.
Just like rube's blathering on about California carrying the rest of the U.S. It is attitudes just like his that have fostered the decades of promiscuous, unrealistic promises that have brought the state to its economic knees. Make every decision as though God (whom, by the way you don't believe in) had decreed that the Good Times will roll on forever. Then look for a bailout when things inevitably turn south.
We all know people who personally manage their finances in the same way that California has managed its finances. Borrow as much as any damn-fool bank is willing to lend you for a big house, take out second mortgages to send the kids to private schools, lease the biggest car you can find, take vacations on credit card financing - all on the assumption that your fucking house will keep increasing in value by 12 or 15% a year to cover all your profligate decisions.
We call these people, "idiots," and give them no sympathy whatsoever when the whole house of cards comes crashing down around them.
And when a state does it...
Re: The Social Contract
It seems inconsistent that someone in favor of progressive income taxes can argue that California's problems are the result of it having too many people who pay too much in taxes. Those high end taxpayers still have plenty leftover to pay California's high income taxes, substantial sales taxes, and when they buy a new property or improve an old one, they pay a lot in real property taxes.
The main factors in determining whether a state is a net contributor or recipient are:
number of higher income earners (most significant factor according to the taxpayer foundation);
number of Social Security recipients versus payers;
amount of federal land that requires federal dollars;
amount of native Americans;
whether Katrina relief dollars or other major temporary programs are being spent;
where the military bases are;
whether your state was represented by Robert Byrd.
The main factors in determining whether a state is a net contributor or recipient are:
number of higher income earners (most significant factor according to the taxpayer foundation);
number of Social Security recipients versus payers;
amount of federal land that requires federal dollars;
amount of native Americans;
whether Katrina relief dollars or other major temporary programs are being spent;
where the military bases are;
whether your state was represented by Robert Byrd.
Re: The Social Contract
I am well aware that the benefits of a federal compact are measured in things other than dollars, but it gets REALLY old to keep hearing people from states that literally could not survive without huge and continuous federal largess, lecturing other states about living within their means.
Re: The Social Contract
Scooter wrote:I am well aware that the benefits of a federal compact are measured in things other than dollars, but it gets REALLY old to keep hearing people from states that literally could not survive without huge and continuous federal largess, lecturing other states about living within their means.
As a federation we have a responsibility to help other states in our nation but that does not mean that we should encourage irresponsible behavior. Any individual or collective, even sovereign collections such as the states and the federal government, can only do so much. They can not continue to spend more than they take in without a day reckoning in the future.
Sure the states can cancel their debts and the federal government can print money, but those actions also have consequences.
Say what you want about Louisiana, but our government still has a rainy day fund.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: The Social Contract
liberty wrote:Scooter wrote:I am well aware that the benefits of a federal compact are measured in things other than dollars, but it gets REALLY old to keep hearing people from states that literally could not survive without huge and continuous federal largess, lecturing other states about living within their means.
As a federation we have a responsibility to help other states in our nation but that does not mean that we should encourage irresponsible behavior. Any individual or collective, even sovereign collections such as the states and the nation, can only do so much. They can not continue to spend more than they take in without a day reckoning in the future.
Sure the states can cancel their debts and the federal government can print money, but those actions also have consequences.
Say what you want about Louisiana, but our government still has a rainy day fund.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: The Social Contract
Yeah, that sounds exactly like your attitude towards other states in trouble that you have illustrated in this threadliberty wrote:As a federation we have a responsibility to help other states in our nation
Newsflash - California came into the Union making the rest of the country rich, and it continues to make the rest of the country rich. One way it has done this is by being willing to take in the dregs from the rest of the states, including yours, and giving them the opportunity to make a living. Perhaps Californians should have said years ago, to those who couldn't manage it, here's a one way bus ticket, get back to your dirt patch in the backswamps of the bayou, because I would bet my home that the California welfare rolls are filled with the names of people who are at most one generation removed from some of the finest families of the Deep South (aka useless, no-account, barely literate trash), who would now be bankrupting their native states if they hadn't found such a warm welcome in California.
I suppose that didn't occur to you, as you take swipes at California while sitting barefoot on the bank of your fishpond having a chaw.
Accumulated using the tax money collected in...let's see that list again...oh yeah:Say what you want about Louisiana, but our government still has a rainy day fund.
What would California have been able to do, I wonder, with the 22 cents on the dollar which it overcontributes to the federal purse? What would Louisiana do if it no longer had the 78 cents of every dollar which it sucks out of the lifeblood of other states?Florida
Texas
Oregon
Michigan
Washington
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Colorado
New York
California
Delaware
Illinois
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Nevada
New Jersey
Perhaps when Lousiana was in trouble after Katrina, or more recently after the oil spill, the federal gov't should have said "sorry, if you can't take care of yourselves, you can revert to a territory and we will sell you to Venezuela to help pay off the debt we have accumulated bailing your sorry asses out of one crisis after another."
Re: The Social Contract
It is a lame excuse to say that Calif. CT. and NJ have more high-earners thus they pay more in taxes (and get less back).
The real question is: 'how is it that the Conservative states of the Old South have been on welfare for 60 years and STILL have the lowest levels of achievement'?
Conservatives refuse to pay for education. They refused to sacrifice for their own children and they hated blacks so much they ruined what little public education they had after Brown vs Board of Education just to spite them.
California has a minor and temporary problem with the state budget. Just as we had a minor and temporary problem with electricity rates (thanks to Bush-Man's pimp Ken Kay). The conservative states will be nasty cesspits for another 100 years sucking the life blood out of productive states until they start to sacrifice on behalf of their own future and invest in education.
yrs,
rubato
The real question is: 'how is it that the Conservative states of the Old South have been on welfare for 60 years and STILL have the lowest levels of achievement'?
Conservatives refuse to pay for education. They refused to sacrifice for their own children and they hated blacks so much they ruined what little public education they had after Brown vs Board of Education just to spite them.
California has a minor and temporary problem with the state budget. Just as we had a minor and temporary problem with electricity rates (thanks to Bush-Man's pimp Ken Kay). The conservative states will be nasty cesspits for another 100 years sucking the life blood out of productive states until they start to sacrifice on behalf of their own future and invest in education.
yrs,
rubato