What Were the People of California Thinking? 71 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Californians are insane. They just voted down their best hope of avoiding insolvency. When you're in a sinking boat, stop blowing holes in it. So now the U.S. government should take care of them when they decide to spend more than they have? People in states which balance their budgets prudently should subsidize those who do not?
Does democracy mean that the thrifty should subsidize the profligate? Perhaps Californians will not have any incentive to pay their bills unless bonds are secured and creditors can start seizing state government land. In such scenario, tax increases and spending cuts might commence rather quickly.
Everyone should have the right to bear the consequences of their actions. The people have voted for insolvency. Why should the U.S. Treasury give them money? The problem is not a lack of money in California, it is a lack of virtue on the part of voters. No amount of money will ever appease those who insist on spending money they do not have. Every capital infusion is exhausted by a new level of profligacy.
Of course, as we have seen, I suspect that political support for a bailout will come not just from Californians, but also from those bondholders dumb enough to lend to them. Of course, rather than bear the cost of such idiocy, they are hoping to enjoy the higher interest rate of a California debt obligation while enjoying the security of the U.S. Treasury in a bailout. It will be yet more affirmative action for the rich and stupid.
Again, our U.S. government deficits are subsidizing vice and penalizing virtue. Nothing good will come of it.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 71 comments:
The rich get richer will not hold if you do the RIGHT thing so the best solution is do the Wrong thing............
No one who benefited from the excesses is going to take a hit.
Major losses that rightly belong to the few is being distributed to the many COMU-APITALISIM is what has evolved out of subprime.
It appears obvious the govt wants to keep the billionares it knows over the voters its does not.
Now, take the above and apply to most of the recent bailouts ( mortgages, autos, banks, insurance companies, etc, etc. )
Why are we not enraged by those for the same ( and other ) reasons?! I am!
yes in a democracy (mob rule) the majority votes to make everyone pay for the handouts. in our constitutional republic the rights of the minority are protected by law. it is degenerating into a socialist democracy from the voting end. from the top end it is degenerating into corporate fascism. the end product will be a corptocracy with a ruling class presiding over serfs under the guise of "you voted for this." the middle class is caught in a squeeze from the top and bottom. at least the poor won't envy the middle class any longer.
rand makes more sense every day. glad i retired last november. i will not fund this under the progressive marx/engles income tax any longer. i am now trying to figure out how to pay less and less on all the illegal tax schemes.
capitalist hero
i hope you don't go to jail.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Are you really saying "don't judge me for my behavior!"
PLEASE. Of *COURSE* you can judge how other individuals vote!
Let's take an extreme example: some Germans voted for Hitler in the 1930s. Do you think voting for Hitler was OK?
No one wants their taxes raised. But California's budget is leading it to fiscal Armageddon and dragging the rest of the country down with it.
I empathize with you. I do. In fact, I lived in Santa Clara from August 08 to January 09. Once I fully understood how much of my income the state was taking, and the shape the state budget was in and the denial of the citizens, I left in a hurry.
Get out before it's too late.
On May 21 09:05 AM Bones wrote:
> Another point...Harry, what blameless state do you live in that gives
> you the right to judge how other individuals vote? If you just lost
> your job and half your net worth and were upsidedown on your mortgage
> would you vote to have your taxes RAISED?!?! It's a ludicrous request
> and therefore your argument is ludicrous.
these are the same people who voted to free o.j., the same people who gave us skateboarding in swimming pools, the same people who believe pyramids resharpen their razor blades, the same people that sent us pelosi. what more can we ask of them?
I want the politicians to do their job and cut spending -- there's talk of cutting 5000 state jobs on a base of something like 230k jobs -- That seems to be a small amount compared to the sacrifices that many companies and individual families have had to make in the current economic climate. In fact, why not cut 20,000 jobs. I worked for a company that laid off 2000 on a base of 20,000 - (I'm one of the 2000). I've learned to make sacrifices and get by with less. So too can the state.
I'm a native. I've been here since before the New Yorkers came and brought their craziness to the Golden State during the 1960's that turned it into quartz. On what do you base your blind insight?
On May 21 08:04 AM Longwinded wrote:
> I've been up and down the coast from San Diego to Santa Cruz the
> past couple of weeks. Tasty waves...cool buzzin'...so what's all
> this about a "budget crisis" and "insolvency." Those words sound
> like, well, bummers. Anyway, I'm stoked to know you dudes around
> the country are going to help us keep the beachfires lit!
On May 21 08:59 AM Gyoza Mimi wrote:
> Makes me remember Alexander Tyler (written in 1787):
>
> "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist
> as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to
> exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves
> generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the
> majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits
> from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will
> finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed
> by a dictatorship."
23% of voters showed up to vote - that says it all. It says "screw you, screw this, we'll ignore it and ultimately the Federal government will bail us out". And they're right, whether we like it or not they'll get bailed out.
See what a precedent we started. Get the printing press ready for a busy day's work. We need $20 Billion for California.
The question is, what other states are next?
> It's all about instant gratification. California voters resoundingly
> rejected all five out of six budgetary measures by an overwhelming
> two to one margin, setting the stage for a new financial crisis.
> Trashed at the polls were plans to create a rainy day fund, improve
> education, borrow from the state lottery, and pay for children’s
> services and mental health.
Mad, maybe Californians were just tired of an overspending government. Maybe they were weary of constant tax increases, exploding bureaucracies, and the incremental reach of government. Either way, the voters gave the statist establishment a big "thumbs-down" yesterday.
So California is one of the shoes to drop. I also read that the settlement of the Detroit bailout will cause bondholders to avoid any unionized companies in the future. Pandora's box is opened and shoes are dropping (that part is predictable). Unintended consequences are popping up everywhere and as the results fail to succeed in restarting prosperity, look for even more overt fascism. Somehow politicians will do anything to get through the next election, awkward though it's getting and so far the voters have given them thumbs up.
ever read "unintended consequences"? it is entertaining and thought provoking. try to find the pre-lawsuit version if you decide to give it a try.
several posters on sa would probably find it interesting.
another interesting read is "the battle of athens". it is historical. it is an account of a group of ww2 veterans who return home to find a corrupt political machine and how they dealt with it. i knew some of the participants. God bless'em. they're all gone now.
www.statehealthfacts.o...
If California state government spent 7.1% of GDP they would have a multi-hundred billion dollar surplus.
On May 21 12:04 PM fireball wrote:
> leftfield
> ever read "unintended consequences"? it is entertaining and thought
> provoking. try to find the pre-lawsuit version if you decide to give
> it a try.
> several posters on sa would probably find it interesting.
> another interesting read is "the battle of athens". it is historical.
> it is an account of a group of ww2 veterans who return home to find
> a corrupt political machine and how they dealt with it. i knew some
> of the participants. God bless'em. they're all gone now.
On May 21 08:04 AM Longwinded wrote:
> I've been up and down the coast from San Diego to Santa Cruz the
> past couple of weeks. Tasty waves...cool buzzin'...so what's all
> this about a "budget crisis" and "insolvency." Those words sound
> like, well, bummers. Anyway, I'm stoked to know you dudes around
> the country are going to help us keep the beachfires lit!
several decades. In other words, we paid more to the federal
government than we received back in government services.
Our state treasurer went to President Obama asking for some
assistance. I doubt the federal assistance is necessary once
the powers-that-be accept the message from us voters to cut
the wasteful spending.
Oh and Ferdi, maybe you'd rather get your peaches from Peru?
On May 21 12:33 PM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:
> There is at least one good thing about the California meltdown: we
> don't have to worry about the terminator becoming president any time
> in the near future.
Am I happy about the possibility that the rest of the U.S. will be called on to do a CA bailout? No. BUT -- that doesn't have to be allowed to happen, either. The government already backs the CA bonds -- CA just needs to drastically downsize its programs and start paying the debt down. Ahnold & Friends just refuse to do so. Like good komrades, they persist in building the socialist state of CA. Socialism has never worked anywhere at any time in history. We're seeing the failure of it here too. The states hardest hit are those with the most entitlements. At the Federal level, the programs in the most trouble, are the socialist ones -- Social (in)Security, Medicare, etc. Yet, we still have Big O and "The Party" ready to cram even more socialism down our throats -- with bank and auto business takeovers still in progress, they are already focusing on emission mandates (which simply means kontrol over what autos get produced or not), and next up -- healthcare. Just ask the Brits how well that's working out: advanced stage cancer patients are currently denied chemo due to costs. Pregnant women can't get in for a first ultrasound until they are about 5 to 6 months along. Yeah, we really wanna go there??
Wake up, folks!! Seeing this thing go down in CA should be a BIG warning shot across the bow for the rest of the country -- if we ever hope to get back to the prosperity and economic power that we have enjoyed for so long, we need to retrench on a couple things: capitalism, not socialism; and smaller government with lower taxation, not bigger government with more kontrol over our lives and more overhead.
Yes, the re-distributionist Federal tax system and the impact of illegal aliens affect the state, but what for the last several decades has been a heavily Democrat legislature has spent too much, plain and simple. And then they raise taxes on the "wealthy" to cover the shortfall.....so the high income people leave the state. I did.
I hope, as I have with all bailouts, that some sanity will prevail and maybe the Feds won't step in and reward bad behavior.
I'm not holding my breath.
On May 21 11:22 AM sickofthehype wrote:
> They were thinking "WTF, this state can't even pay back its residents
> that it owes refunds to".
>
> 23% of voters showed up to vote - that says it all. It says "screw
> you, screw this, we'll ignore it and ultimately the Federal government
> will bail us out". And they're right, whether we like it or not
> they'll get bailed out.
>
> See what a precedent we started. Get the printing press ready for
> a busy day's work. We need $20 Billion for California.
>
> The question is, what other states are next?
Dear sick
You have absolutely no idea of what is in the minds of Californians. What you have done is expose what YOUR attitude would be... how could it be taken otherwise?
Did you bother to actually read the idiocy and double speak contained in those ridiculous measures? Or are you merely supposing and assuming that they would do what their title insinuated?
I am not about to enshrine the California voter any time soon given their sporadic history, but this time they (we) got it right!
On May 21 07:53 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:
> It's all about instant gratification. California voters resoundingly
> rejected all five out of six budgetary measures by an overwhelming
> two to one margin, setting the stage for a new financial crisis.
> Trashed at the polls were plans to create a rainy day fund, improve
> education, borrow from the state lottery, and pay for children’s
> services and mental health. Only prop 1F, freezing legislator pay
> raises during deficit years, passed. The state now has to immediately
> cut spending by $21 billion by laying off 10,000 teachers, 5,000
> other state workers, and shortening the school year by seven days.
> It will raid every city and county government for additional cash.
> The state will also release 20,000 non violent state prisoners and
> suspend maintenance and construction on thousands of projects. My
> home town high school is closing their sports and music programs.
> If the state’s latest round of $6.5 billion in bond issues did not
> carry federal government guarantees, they would have been wiped out
> in the market. No doubt our well tanned, Austrian immigrant governor,
> Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was in Washington DC for a CAFE photo
> op with Obama, will be sent back to the gym to pump iron sooner than
> he thinks.
Who will win this game of chicken? In all likelyhood the employees, which is why they see no reason to give an inch given their golden staus if the administration intervenes.
Why is it viewed that the only way to fix this situation is for the state of California to increase their income from the people? Why is that the tax payers are the ones being viewed as irresponsible?
It is time for the government to live by the following basic principal. You live on the income you have, not the income you wish you had.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
The commenters here who are angry at the likely Federal bailout should turn their anger at the Feds, not the Californians. There is absolutely no reason for it; California should be forced to live within its means. If only we could vote in a national plebescite to force the federal govt to do the same. Or go to a true gold standard with a 100% reserve requirement, which would accomplish the same thing.
Remember, in 2010, vote for NO INCUMBENT unless he/she voted against all bailouts and spending increases. That goes for politicians at all levels of government. That would guarantee a virtual clean sweep and send a message to them that they'll never forget.
Think about it!!!
check out--united states justice foundation. it may be of interest.
I was born and spent the first 45 years of my life in CA but I would not be proud to live there now.
is this the micro picture of the u.s.?
Truly a prime example of Liberal Socialism. It's complete and utter lack of accountability, conscience, ethics, or remorse. These publicly elected officials are no more than "Pets we can no longer afford to keep".
Voters told Sacramento that they wanted spending cuts not higher taxes; and voters are also "sick and tired" of the "gimmicks" (illegal "end runs" of the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes; and borrowing from various "pockets", like a "shell game"). The past few years have seen drastic increases in the number of state employees, wage increases, and pension/benefit increases- many retiring early (age 50) at $100K+/year to $500K/year.
CA already has the highest tax burden in the USA. If it were not for Proposition 13 and 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes, all CA taxes would be much higher now- probably double or more. Business is already "fleeing" the state. In the midst of the budget mess, Sacramento agreed with the biggest state employee union, that employees could not be laid off unless an entire department was eliminated; this is insane!
Fixing the budget problem is simple: across the board wage cuts for all state employees in an amount necessary to balance the budget. These employees are all overpaid. If they cut their pay by 20%, they would still be paid more than in other states.
Right now, Sacramento politicians are again looking for the "easy out" of an Obama Federal bailout, while they should be doing the "tough" job of cutting spending, which is their job to do. Voters told them "no". The Feds should also have the courage to tell CA "no."
Liberal ("tax and spend") Democrats are attempting to hi-jack this process by "packing" it with liberal delegates. They want to eliminate the requirement of a 2/3 majority to increase taxes. They want to make citizen propositions and initiatives on the ballot more difficult to do. They may even try to eliminate Proposition 13, so they can increase property taxes to astronomical levels. In short, they want more power in Sacramento and fewer rights for citizens.
On May 21 04:00 PM Chancer wrote:
> You Californians who are wishing for a CA state constitutional convention
> to reform state government should be careful what you wish for.<br/>
>
> Liberal ("tax and spend") Democrats are attempting to hi-jack this
> process by "packing" it with liberal delegates. They want to eliminate
> the requirement of a 2/3 majority to increase taxes. They want to
> make citizen propositions and initiatives on the ballot more difficult
> to do. They may even try to eliminate Proposition 13, so they can
> increase property taxes to astronomical levels. In short, they want
> more power in Sacramento and fewer rights for citizens.
> The occupants of the State of California are not widely known, or
> respected, for their ability to think. Witness their affinity for
> the likes of Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi and countless other examples
I agree with you on Rep. Pelosi, but Jerry Brown actually had a novel idea back when he ran for President in '92: replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax!
As regard to Federal bailout - voters have not asked for it, actually most will oppose it. People simply want the silly wasteful spending to end - we can see huge corruption and waste everywhere.
To blame all this insanity on Arnold, however, just doesn't quite compute. While he certainly has his share in this disaster, the larger blame must go to the CA state legislature and their spend-borrow love affair with outrageous entitlement-rich government employee union contracts, expensive business over-regulation, and foolish addiction to an industry of costly non functioning social programs. (See Skid Row area in LA to see the flower of this Leftist approach in lush full bloom.)
On the national level Bush has been used as the Left's all-purpose scapegoat for any unpleasantness. The Democrats in CA are trying to use Arnold in the same way, hoping to distract the ADD afflicted electorate away from the Democrats' own large role in in the creation and perpetuation of the California nightmare and hang the blame on Arnold"s neck.
As it is nationally, the mainstream media here is largely a shill for the Pelosi/Obama Democrats. The SF Chronicle and LA Times are blatantly liberal agenda driven and are doing their best to spin this latest anti-tax vote as anti-Arnold and therefore distract readers from a more detailed and reasoned analysis of the actual origins of the crisis and its possible tough solutions.
When the hard results of this latest vote begin to be felt on the local level here then things should get truly interesting in Marin...and Beverly Hills...and Watts... Stay tuned for the Super-Spin.
Playing the blame game can be amusing for a time, but eventually California, like the US as a whole, is going to have to take its financial bear by the tail and face the glorious fiscal bouquet that awaits beneath that tail. California Dreamin', indeed.
On May 21 07:53 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:
> It's all about instant gratification. California voters resoundingly
> rejected all five out of six budgetary measures by an overwhelming
> two to one margin, setting the stage for a new financial crisis.
> Trashed at the polls were plans to create a rainy day fund, improve
> education, borrow from the state lottery, and pay for children’s
> services and mental health. Only prop 1F, freezing legislator pay
> raises during deficit years, passed. The state now has to immediately
> cut spending by $21 billion by laying off 10,000 teachers, 5,000
> other state workers, and shortening the school year by seven days.
> It will raid every city and county government for additional cash.
> The state will also release 20,000 non violent state prisoners and
> suspend maintenance and construction on thousands of projects. My
> home town high school is closing their sports and music programs.
> If the state’s latest round of $6.5 billion in bond issues did not
> carry federal government guarantees, they would have been wiped out
> in the market. No doubt our well tanned, Austrian immigrant governor,
> Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was in Washington DC for a CAFE photo
> op with Obama, will be sent back to the gym to pump iron sooner than
> he thinks.
articles penned by out of touch writers or writers with an agenda.
As others have stated, California's problems are that of overspending for years and not a lack of revenue. This state government is over reaching and has been enabled in part by an uninformed and misled electorate.
This has finally changed and the electorate
has wised up to the games being played by the legislators, governor and government unions.
There are movements underway to recall certain legislators
and the governor from office for not doing the job that the
citizens wanted.
From this point forward California is not going to be the same place.
It will be better; much better.
The state doesn't need a bailout from the feds. In fact any bailout
will only make our problems worse.
1. The "what were they thinking" part was in passing every bond issue that appeared (schools mostly). Apparently, Californians don't think bonds have to be paid back or have interest associated with them - never have understood why other than politicians sell them that way. Thinks "social security" as a stretch comparison.
2. Revenues have increased by leaps and bounds here. During the last four year "crisis" revenues increased about 10% a year.
3. No programs have been cut. Nobody has been laid off. If unemployment is close to 10% in California, in government it is a big fat zero.
4. Then there are schools. Their budgets have never been cut. They just grow and grow and grow. I believe I heard it is about $1000 a month per child now? When they talk about budget cuts for schools, they are really talking about cutting increases in budgets.
So, if you lived here because your kids and grandkids do, would you vote to raise taxes (10% income, 10% sales, etc.) or cut a few government jobs and programs that have never ended or been cut?
It would have been crazy to pass these con-job propositions. Thank God that something may be done to stop the slide. And, for you not living here, take some of these people, please! I really doubt that you will be paying off CA debt and should not have to do it.
On May 21 10:17 AM curious cat wrote:
> over the years, we sent all of our beautiful people to california.
> the ocean called to them. the earth moved for them. can we really
> blame them for wanting a little something from the rest of us? after
> all, their property values have gone down from ten million to five
> million. isn't that enough of a sacrifice? what must they do to prove
> they deserve our sympathy, burn their largest cash crop?
>
> these are the same people who voted to free o.j., the same people
> who gave us skateboarding in swimming pools, the same people who
> believe pyramids resharpen their razor blades, the same people that
> sent us pelosi. what more can we ask of them?
>
On May 21 09:31 PM devassocx wrote:
> Some posters here have only an understanding of California's problems
> that is being presented in TV sound bites or some
> articles penned by out of touch writers or writers with an agenda.
>
>
> As others have stated, California's problems are that of overspending
> for years and not a lack of revenue. This state government is over
> reaching and has been enabled in part by an uninformed and misled
> electorate.
>
> This has finally changed and the electorate
> has wised up to the games being played by the legislators, governor
> and government unions.
>
> There are movements underway to recall certain legislators
> and the governor from office for not doing the job that the
> citizens wanted.
>
> From this point forward California is not going to be the same place.
>
> It will be better; much better.
>
> The state doesn't need a bailout from the feds. In fact any bailout
>
> will only make our problems worse.
I'm a native Californian and I doubt that this election will change anything anytime soon. It will take many more elections with switches from democrat to republican. One silver lining of this depression in California is waking up voters in 2010 to vote against any candidate with a "D" following their name. Also, it slows down political contributions from public employee unions to the democrats. Otherwise, the liberal democrats who own this state will keep spending and spending like drunken sailors...
On May 21 09:31 PM devassocx wrote:
> Some posters here have only an understanding of California's problems
> that is being presented in TV sound bites or some
> articles penned by out of touch writers or writers with an agenda.
>
>
> As others have stated, California's problems are that of overspending
> for years and not a lack of revenue. This state government is over
> reaching and has been enabled in part by an uninformed and misled
> electorate.
>
> This has finally changed and the electorate
> has wised up to the games being played by the legislators, governor
> and government unions.
>
> There are movements underway to recall certain legislators
> and the governor from office for not doing the job that the
> citizens wanted.
>
> From this point forward California is not going to be the same place.
>
> It will be better; much better.
>
> The state doesn't need a bailout from the feds. In fact any bailout
>
> will only make our problems worse.
On May 21 10:24 AM east coast transplant wrote:
> I'm a Californian (and I don't surf). I voted against all the
> propositions and I'm not insane. And I don't want a Federal bailout.
>
> I want the politicians to do their job and cut spending -- there's
> talk of cutting 5000 state jobs on a base of something like 230k
> jobs -- That seems to be a small amount compared to the sacrifices
> that many companies and individual families have had to make in the
> current economic climate. In fact, why not cut 20,000 jobs. I worked
> for a company that laid off 2000 on a base of 20,000 - (I'm one of
> the 2000). I've learned to make sacrifices and get by with less.
> So too can the state.
>
As far as pensions go, the rich pensions at 50 are mostly limited to police and fire, who tend to cut their life expectency due to the stress and chemical exposure on the job. Teachers have 6.5 percent deducted from every paycheck for their much less generous pension, and most work in retirement.
What also galls me is that these propositions were GOOD IDEAS from a Republican legislator, but people voted them down because they would have extended hikes in sales tax, car fees, etc. for an extra two years.. WE NEED THE SPENDING CAP, the rainy day fund, etc.
On May 21 03:35 PM Chancer wrote:
> With all due respect, the writer has zero understanding of CA's problem.
> It is not about "under-taxing", it is about "over-spending". The
> "Governator" tried to scare the voters about "drastic" cuts (state
> payroll by 2+% when unemployment is 12.5%; 7 days off the school
> year; sending 19K illegal alien prisoners to their home country)
> if propositions failed. These are not "drastic" cuts and should have
> all been done (and much more) before they raised taxes before.<br/>
>
> Voters told Sacramento that they wanted spending cuts not higher
> taxes; and voters are also "sick and tired" of the "gimmicks" (illegal
> "end runs" of the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes; and borrowing
> from various "pockets", like a "shell game"). The past few years
> have seen drastic increases in the number of state employees, wage
> increases, and pension/benefit increases- many retiring early (age
> 50) at $100K+/year to $500K/year.
>
> CA already has the highest tax burden in the USA. If it were not
> for Proposition 13 and 2/3 majority requirement to increase taxes,
> all CA taxes would be much higher now- probably double or more. Business
> is already "fleeing" the state. In the midst of the budget mess,
> Sacramento agreed with the biggest state employee union, that employees
> could not be laid off unless an entire department was eliminated;
> this is insane!
>
> Fixing the budget problem is simple: across the board wage cuts for
> all state employees in an amount necessary to balance the budget.
> These employees are all overpaid. If they cut their pay by 20%, they
> would still be paid more than in other states.
>
> Right now, Sacramento politicians are again looking for the "easy
> out" of an Obama Federal bailout, while they should be doing the
> "tough" job of cutting spending, which is their job to do. Voters
> told them "no". The Feds should also have the courage to tell CA
> "no."
On May 22 02:16 AM alaskaeagle wrote:
> I agree with you. I, too, voted against every measure except 1F.
> The Democrats have taken over the government in the state and have
> started the welfare state. They seem mindless that someone have to
> pay the bills. Their party have voted for every bond measure from
> "save the crickets" to "save the rodent". We have so many bonds that
> have been passed that it would make the USA debt look small. I would
> prefer that the state go bankrupt so the Democrats would have some
> control put on their spending. It would also force our "governator"
> to act like a true Republican. I am almost retired and do plan to
> leave the state. The golden has fled California and I am right behind
> it. I have no hope that the people of California will come to their
> senses and vote for a balanced government. I am also not looking
> for the "feds" to bail us our of this mess. We got our selves into
> it so let us work it out. We are not to "big" to fail. We need to
> be made smaller and leaner.
Voters vote massive federal deficits every year. If the Ponzi is good for the federal gov, it should be good for the states.
Oh, I think it is lunacy at any level and ends with a huge hole in the ground. But enjoy the ride California! Say hi to Keynes and Marx when you get to Hell!
On May 22 10:09 AM Hot Richard wrote:
> Why should the state of CA be any different than the union of the
> USA of which it belongs?
>
> Voters vote massive federal deficits every year. If the Ponzi is
> good for the federal gov, it should be good for the states.
>
> Oh, I think it is lunacy at any level and ends with a huge hole in
> the ground. But enjoy the ride California! Say hi to Keynes and
> Marx when you get to Hell!
I'm very happy to let Obama foot the bill. Let's spread the wealth !!!
On May 21 06:02 AM capitalisthero.com wrote:
> I'll go to jail before I pay for a California bailout.
Oh, man. Americans better enjoy this long weekend. You guys (and your kids and their kids) are totally getting screwed at every turn. One for the history books (if we still have them in the future...and I'm not talking about being digital only).