So, now that Californians have firmly expressed a desire to continue to have something for nothing, there's talk of giving California's government twenty billion in federal aid.
Anybody seriously think this won't happen?
Sure the Federal Government can use its massive budget surplus.
Quote from: Valmy on May 22, 2009, 08:56:02 AM
Sure the Federal Government can use its massive budget surplus.
Oh, I see what you did there.
What kind of faggot runs California anyway?
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
What kind of faggot runs California anyway?
Hasta la vista, baby. :mad:
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
What kind of faggot runs California anyway?
A non native born faggit.
This is why we can't have nice things.
I have no idea what will happen, but any federal funds should come with rather harsh consequences.
I posted a while back an analysis seeming to show that California's debt problems are not that bad compared to other states--on a per capita basis California seems to be about middle of the pack. The problem is they imposed on themselves a legislative process that makes it almost impossible to cut spending or raise taxes, and a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. I don't think the state is insolvent so much as it passed a bunch of silly constitutional amendments that tied its hands, and now can't write checks even though the money is there to do so.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
I have no idea what will happen, but any federal funds should come with rather harsh consequences.
The problem is that I can't see how you force the harsh consequences.
"We won't give you the money unless you pass a constitutional amendment..."
Hrm.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 22, 2009, 09:13:37 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
I have no idea what will happen, but any federal funds should come with rather harsh consequences.
The problem is that I can't see how you force the harsh consequences.
"We won't give you the money unless you pass a constitutional amendment..."
Hrm.
Isn't half of the money of most state budgets from the feds? Why not just take their road funding and use it for their debt service (or some similar type of arrangement)?
This is what happens when you let economic girly-men get in the way of fiscal orthodoxy.
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
This is what happens when you let economic girly-men get in the way of fiscal orthodoxy.
This is what happens when we let naturalized citizens have power.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2009, 09:46:29 AM
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
This is what happens when you let economic girly-men get in the way of fiscal orthodoxy.
This is what happens when we let naturalized citizens have power.
What power?
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 09:47:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2009, 09:46:29 AM
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2009, 09:45:37 AM
This is what happens when you let economic girly-men get in the way of fiscal orthodoxy.
This is what happens when we let naturalized citizens have power.
What power?
Power to Vote. Damn Mexicans!
:P
California is too big to fail!
Maybe Obama can buy it, "reorganize" and then give it to the state employees union.
Quote from: Faeelin on May 22, 2009, 09:13:37 AM
The problem is that I can't see how you force the harsh consequences.
We could knee-cap Jaron & grabon.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2009, 08:59:32 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2009, 08:58:16 AM
What kind of faggot runs California anyway?
A non native born faggit.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Actually, the problem is the Californians themselves. California would be governable if only non-natives had a say in things.
Why would a state of garbons and Jarons be ungovernable?
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 10:06:37 AM
California is too big to fail!
Maybe Obama can buy it, "reorganize" and then give it to the state employees union.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2009, 11:21:01 AM
Why would a state of garbons and Jarons be ungovernable?
they are only governable if you ban them. repeatedly. this is why you failed as a mod, and why you would make a bad governorator.
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
Yes, of course. What were those propositions, BTW?
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 09:04:01 AM
I have no idea what will happen, but any federal funds should come with rather harsh consequences.
I posted a while back an analysis seeming to show that California's debt problems are not that bad compared to other states--on a per capita basis California seems to be about middle of the pack. The problem is they imposed on themselves a legislative process that makes it almost impossible to cut spending or raise taxes, and a constitutional requirement to balance the budget. I don't think the state is insolvent so much as it passed a bunch of silly constitutional amendments that tied its hands, and now can't write checks even though the money is there to do so.
AFAIK the only limitation on the revenue side is prop 13.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.
Is that ever a proposition on the ballot? I don't know honestly know since I recently started voting.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:38:21 PM
Is that ever a proposition on the ballot? I don't know honestly know since I recently started voting.
No. Go grab a clipboard and get some signatures.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:39:28 PM
No. Go grab a clipboard and get some signatures.
I'm stuck at work. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:41:54 PM
Later then.
I'd certainly be in favor. Voting is exhausting here! Which is why so few probably turned out last Tuesday.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:35:52 PM
AFAIK the only limitation on the revenue side is prop 13.
I'm not very knowledgeable on California propositions, but my understanding is that a supermajority is needed to pass tax increases in the legislature.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 12:51:33 PM
I'm not very knowledgeable on California propositions, but my understanding is that a supermajority is needed to pass tax increases in the legislature.
Ah, OK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.
I've heard you can have a lot of luck offering propositions to California girls.
ok. now that sounds like a good proposition.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 12:53:30 PM
I've heard you can have a lot of luck offering propositions to California girls.
I've heard that San Francisco women are so hard up they'll grab your package and try to rape you in the produce aisle.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 12:53:30 PM
I've heard you can have a lot of luck offering propositions to California girls.
Greatly depends on part of the state. :(
When California starts to sink, I don't think bailing will help.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:41:54 PM
Later then.
I'd certainly be in favor. Voting is exhausting here! Which is why so few probably turned out last Tuesday.
If you guys vote on almost anything, what do your elected representatives do?
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
If you guys vote on almost anything, what do your elected representatives do?
Until recently, they voted on whether or not they deserved raises.
Quote
Just 24% Favor Federal Bailout for California
Friday, May 22, 2009
Twenty-four percent (24%) of voters nationwide favor federal bailout funds for states like California that are encountering "serious financial problems." The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 59% are opposed to such bailouts.
As for California specifically, again just 24% believe the federal government should guarantee the state's loans. Sixty-six percent (66%) of voters nationwide oppose federal guarantees. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the state may request such guarantees.
Even given the most extreme example of bankruptcy, voters oppose federal subsidies to keep the state government going.
Forty-eight percent (48%) say it would be better for the economy to let California go bankrupt rather than provide federal bailouts. Just 38% said it would be better to provide federal subsidies so the state can continue to pay its bills and provide services.
Earlier this week, California voters overwhelmingly rejected a series of tax increases placed on the ballot by Schwarzenegger and the state legislature. This rejection came despite the fact that those campaigning for the tax hikes heavily outspent the opposition.
The only ballot measure that passed was one preventing pay raises for the legislators if they don't balance the budget.
Rasmussen Reports state polling found that voters want to go even further and require significant pay cuts for their elected politicians. The state's voters are in no mood for further tax hikes and quite supportive of spending cuts. They place the blame for the state's fiscal problem on the unwillingness of elected officials to control government spending.
The national survey sample included 112 respondents from California. A majority of California voters favor federal loan guarantees for state borrowing and also believe additional subsidies would be better than bankruptcy. California, the nation's largest state, accounts for nearly 12% of the U.S. population.
Voters from outside the Golden State oppose federal loan guarantees by a 69% to 20% margin.
Among voters nationwide, loan guarantees for California are opposed by 84% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats and 68% of those not affiliated with either major political party.
Most Republicans (67%) and unaffiliated voters (51%) say it is better to let the state go bankrupt than to provide federal subsidies. Democrats, by a 58% to 30% margin, hold the opposite view.
As on many issues, the difference in opinion between the Political Class and the rest of the nation is larger than the gap between the political parties. By an 84% to seven percent (7%) margin, the Political Class prefers federal subsidies over bankruptcy. By a 67% to 21% margin, those in the Political Class favor federal loan guarantees to help California raise money (see more on the Political Class).
Voters have consistently opposed federal bailout funds for the auto industry, the banking industry and insurance companies. Looking back on the bailouts that were provided, most continue to believe they were a bad idea.
Quote from: Syt on May 22, 2009, 01:35:21 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:45:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:41:54 PM
Later then.
I'd certainly be in favor. Voting is exhausting here! Which is why so few probably turned out last Tuesday.
If you guys vote on almost anything, what do your elected representatives do?
go to work, sit on committees and do the actual work of writing the legislation that the referendums' require.
the boring ass government stuff that's rarely on TV but consumes 80% of pols' time.
OK I made up 80%. but it's huge.
BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up? New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up? New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.
Powerful public employee unions?
greater demand for actual services?
it's sometimes said that New Hampshire has no debt, no taxes ... and no sidewalks.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up? New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.
Powerful public employee unions?
But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?
IIRC state and local public employee unions only started in the 1970s (?).
Jaron have been behaving lately, haven't he?
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 02:07:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up? New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.
Powerful public employee unions?
But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?
In California's case it is easy to answer--the state is absolutely beautiful. If the pilgrims landed on the west coast, New England would still be wilderness.
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?
Well one part is that California had a great boom with all the .com stuff which increased the amount we were willing to spend. Unfortunately, we lost that money and then didn't want to make cuts in expenditure.
I think really we just always operate so close to the edge that in downturns it is easy for us to spiral into the abyss.
Quote from: alfred russel on May 22, 2009, 02:23:01 PM
In California's case it is easy to answer--the state is absolutely beautiful. If the pilgrims landed on the west coast, New England would still be wilderness.
:wub:
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:03:17 PM
BTW, how is it that some of the richest states in the country are also the most fucked up? New Jersey, New York, and California all rank pretty high, and yet they're all ungovernable and one recession away from financial abyss.
They're the richest because they've driven all the poor people off to other places where they can afford to live.
Btw, only an utterly ridiculous person would think that New Jersey should be mentioned in the same breath as New York and California. The same kind of person who might view Massachusetts and California as rivals.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 02:48:26 PM
Btw, only an utterly ridiculous person would think that New Jersey should be mentioned in the same breath as New York and California. The same kind of person who might view Massachusetts and California as rivals.
Your California schtick makes Neil seem fresh and new.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.
I'm curious though. Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system. California has direct democracy and, well, California happens. What makes the results so different?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 22, 2009, 03:00:42 PM
I'm curious though. Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system. California has direct democracy and, well, California happens. What makes the results so different?
What's the Swiss procedure to get a proposal on the ballot?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 03:01:58 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 22, 2009, 03:00:42 PM
I'm curious though. Switzerland has direct democracy, from that they get generally sensible polices (such as support for nuclear power for environmental reasons), the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system. California has direct democracy and, well, California happens. What makes the results so different?
What's the Swiss procedure to get a proposal on the ballot?
That explains it:
Quote* The Swiss constitution defines in some detail all areas subject to federal legislation. Anything not explicitly mentioned is left to the legislation of the cantons (federal states).
Therefore it is necessary to update the constitution from time to time to take account of changes in society and technology that demand for standardised solutions throughout the country.
The Swiss constitution may be changed only if an overall majority of the electorate agrees in a referendum and if the electorate of a majority of the cantons agrees, too. The latter is sometimes just a little more difficult because it means that the rather conservative electorate of smaller rural cantons must be convinced as well.
Nevertheless, minor changes to the Swiss constitution are quite frequent without affecting the basic ideas nor the stability of Switzerland's Political System. To the contrary: Direct Democracy is the key to Switzerland's famous political stability.
* All federal laws are subject to a three to four step process:
1) A first draft is prepared by experts in the federal administration.
2) This draft is presented to a large number of people in a formalized kind of opinion poll: Cantonal governments, political parties as well as many non-governmental organisations and associations of the civil society may comment on the draft and propose changes.
3) The result is presented to dedicated parliamentary commissions of both chambers of the federal parliament, discussed in detail behind closed doors and finally debated in public sessions of both chambers of parliament. Members of parliament do take into account the results of step 2, because if the fail to do so, step 4 will be inevitable.
4) The electorate has a veto-right on laws: If anybody is able to find 50,000 citizens signing a form demanding for a referendum within 3 months, a referendum must be held. Laws do only need to find a majority of the national electorate to pass a referendum, not a majority of cantons. Referendums on more than a dozen laws per year are not unusual in Switzerland.
* Frequent referendums on minor changes to the federal or cantonal constitutions, new or changed laws, budgets etc,
- referendums on constitutional changes are mandatory
- referendums on laws are "facultative" (only if 50,000 citizens, i.e. roughly 1.2% of the electorate, demand for it)
Learn more about Referendums in Switzerland
* Corresponding rules apply for referendums on cantonal and communal level. While referendums concerning budgets are not possible on federal level they are common on communal level. It depends on the 26 cantonal constitutions whether they are mandatory, facultative or possible at all.
The number of citizens that may demand for a cantonal or communal referendum depends on the size of the corresponding electorate, as a rule of thumb, about 1% are usual.
* Popular Initiative: 100,000 citizens (roughly 2.5% of the electorate) may demand for a change of the constitution by signing a form. The federal parliament is obliged to discuss the initiative, it may decide to recommend or to reject the initiative or it may propose an alternative. Whatever they choose to do, all citizens will finally decide in a referendum whether to accept the initiative, the alternate proposal or stay without change.
So, national laws have a consultation referendum and you then need 50 000 signatures to have a full referendum (except for constitutional change which always requires a referendum) and the rest is done by Canton.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 02:23:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 22, 2009, 02:15:24 PM
But how did the states get so rich while saddled with such graft?
Well one part is that California had a great boom with all the .com stuff which increased the amount we were willing to spend. Unfortunately, we lost that money and then didn't want to make cuts in expenditure.
I think really we just always operate so close to the edge that in downturns it is easy for us to spiral into the abyss.
And New York is going through the same thing with Wall Street.
Of course, the fundamental problem is the fundamental problem of all welfare state politics - you can increase spending during the good times, but nobody has the political power to survive cutting spending FOR THE CHILDREN during the down times.
It is like a ratchet - the spending only ever goes in one direction when you subscribe to that political philosophy.
the safe political way to cut social spending is not to keep up with inflation. over time, the budget for that item is reduced. see Chretien, Jean.
dramatic, over night cuts are politically risky. Mike Harris (ON) got relected on it once but eventually people realised there were real world consequences.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 02:51:37 PM
Your California schtick makes Neil seem fresh and new.
It isn't a schtick. Hating New Jersey comes naturally.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 03:30:23 PM
It isn't a schtick. Hating New Jersey comes naturally.
<_< There ARE nice parts of New Jersey. Don't listen to this mook, people.
Kentucky. 'nuff said. ;)
Quote from: saskganesh on May 22, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
the safe political way to cut social spending is not to keep up with inflation. over time, the budget for that item is reduced. see Chretien, Jean.
dramatic, over night cuts are politically risky. Mike Harris (ON) got relected on it once but eventually people realised there were real world consequences.
gotta add to this. if you successfully articulate a political crisis over debt through the media and social medias, and line up your attack dogs in the right order, it's a lot easier to make cuts. in other words, design a good PR campaign.
Thatcher pulled it off. there was a political cost, but she was relected. however, Thatcher could not pull off everything she wanted.
Quote from: saskganesh on May 22, 2009, 08:07:44 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 22, 2009, 03:23:07 PM
the safe political way to cut social spending is not to keep up with inflation. over time, the budget for that item is reduced. see Chretien, Jean.
dramatic, over night cuts are politically risky. Mike Harris (ON) got relected on it once but eventually people realised there were real world consequences.
gotta add to this. if you successfully articulate a political crisis over debt through the media and social medias, and line up your attack dogs in the right order, it's a lot easier to make cuts. in other words, design a good PR campaign.
Thatcher pulled it off. there was a political cost, but she was relected. however, Thatcher could not pull off everything she wanted.
Klein got away with it. He gutted everything, broke the unions and eliminated the threat of the opposition parties.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 22, 2009, 03:00:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 22, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 12:32:17 PM
So is the feeling that Californians should have agreed to the propositions offered to us?
The feeling is that Californians should pass a proposition giving up their power to vote on propositions.
the protection of gnomes and a generally benign budgetary system.
Are gnomes endangered in Switzerland? :huh:
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2009, 08:20:07 PM
Klein got away with it. He gutted everything, broke the unions and eliminated the threat of the opposition parties.
Alberta has had the grand total of one change in governing party since the early 30s - and even ten it was only to change from one right-wing party to another.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 08:04:20 PM
Kentucky. 'nuff said. ;)
There are nice parts of Kentucky as well. Why, I'll bet there are nice, as well as shitty, parts of every state! :w00t:
Quote from: Caliga on May 22, 2009, 09:06:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 08:04:20 PM
Kentucky. 'nuff said. ;)
There are nice parts of Kentucky as well. Why, I'll bet there are nice, as well as shitty, parts of every state! :w00t:
Every part of Yukon is nice. -_-
Only if Arkansas gets a bailout too.
Quote from: Fireblade on May 22, 2009, 11:04:54 PM
Only if Arkansas gets a bailout too.
Arkansas is definitely small enough to fail.
In fact, has it ever NOT been fail?
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2009, 01:25:26 AM
In fact, has it ever NOT been fail?
That was going to be my question. How would one notice the difference if Arkansas got a bailout or not?
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2009, 01:36:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 23, 2009, 01:25:26 AM
In fact, has it ever NOT been fail?
That was going to be my question. How would one notice the difference if Arkansas got a bailout or not?
They pimp their school system.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.schoolbusdriver.org%2Fredneck_monster_school_bus.jpg&hash=ff4bb358be26f24e6aa57a62ca7d72cdd0b146a4)
Quote from: Berkut on May 22, 2009, 10:06:37 AM
California is too big to fail!
Maybe Obama can buy it, "reorganize" and then give it to the state employees union.
I don't see how that would work. Even the idiots who run Fiat wouldn't want to merge with California.
Quote from: garbon on May 22, 2009, 02:48:26 PM
Btw, only an utterly ridiculous person would think that New Jersey should be mentioned in the same breath as New York and California. The same kind of person who might view Massachusetts and California as rivals.
I'm trying and failing to think of a way that California is superior to New Jersey. You have... better beaches?
Better weather, assuming you're a weird sunnofabitch who hates winter?
More distance between you and New York City?
Quote from: Faeelin on May 23, 2009, 09:29:15 PM
I'm trying and failing to think of a way that California is superior to New Jersey. You have... better beaches?
Better weather, assuming you're a weird sunnofabitch who hates winter?
More distance between you and New York City?
Oh, you were dropped on your head as a child? :( :console:
Quote from: garbon on May 23, 2009, 09:40:24 PM
Oh, you were dropped on your head as a child? :( :console:
It's what makes me such a charming character.