What Were the People of California Thinking? 71 comments
an article to
-
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 in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
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?