Hey Gov. Schwarzanegger....the last bit of respect is gone.

[Mandelon]

So the state can issue IOUs instead of paying its bills in US currency, but it won't accept the IOUs back....complete bullsh*t. :bash:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed AB 1506, a measure authored by Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-El Cajon). The bill would have required all state departments to accept IOUs issued by the state of California. Businesses and individuals could have redeemed IOUS as payment for state taxes, vehicle licensing fees and other debts.

The issuance of IOUs represents an embarrassing failure on the part of the state to manage its finances, the acknowledged in a statement regarding his veto. Unfortunately, if the Legislature does not pass a balanced budget soon, the possibility that the Controller will be forced to issue IOUs this year becomes all too real. I sympathize with businesses that were issued IOUs last year and those businesses that may receive them this year.

But he added, Requiring state departments to accept IOUs in lieu of cash payments defeats the purpose of issuing IOUs in the first place. It would exacerbate the state's cash crisis and would accelerate the possibility of the state defaulting on its debt service and payroll obligations.

 

[rivermobster]

Arnold is up there with Obama in my book now. What a total wimp he is...

 

[DaveC]

Not to defend schwarzenegger but when Brown is elected you are gonna wish you had schwarznegger back :thumbsdown

the lesser of two evils IMHO

he kinda sux but i kinda look at it like this: lets look at the wacko left wing crap that he doesnt sign into law. It coukd be worse

Ill take what I can get.

 

[Mandelon]

Not to defend schwarzenegger but when Brown is elected you are gonna wish you had schwarznegger back :thumbsdown

the lesser of two evils IMHO

he kinda sux but i kinda look at it like this: lets look at the wacko left wing crap that he doesnt sign into law. It coukd be worse

Ill take what I can get.

You make a good point! But Arnie started out so well, and then just seemed to give in to the left.

You are right that California is in for some real challenges coming up after this election...

 

[rivermobster]

Not to defend schwarzenegger but when Brown is elected you are gonna wish you had schwarznegger back :thumbsdown

the lesser of two evils IMHO

he kinda sux but i kinda look at it like this: lets look at the wacko left wing crap that he doesnt sign into law. It coukd be worse

Ill take what I can get.

*sigh*

Boy I hope you are wrong, but knowin Ca, I'd have to guess you are right.

 

[DaveC]

It sux. But it is what it is :thumbsdown

arnie started off alright but after that initial defeat made a left turn :thumbsdown

I think Meg is done. Wish she wasnt.

Fawk we are screwed :bash:

and to think I am an optimist

 

[DaveC]

say what???? The unions are already running ads for brown!!
Big bucks too

I honestly cannot believe he is in the lead. Guess the electoral has memory loss

I don't think Brown is a done deal. I've heard the unions are pushing Meg.

 

[pronstar]

Arnold is a closet Lib in Republican clothing.

He enacting many Lib policies - like stricter handgun control and greenhouse-gas/global warming bullshit - all on his own :thumbsdown

 

[Flyinbowtie]

Arnie started out big but fizzled out big, too.
The problem (or one of them) is that he has never had any cooperation from the state legislature, which is completely infested with left-wing socialists, who cannot see and do not care what they are doing to the cash-generating machine this economy once was.

There is a prop on the ballot now to reduce the number of votes necessary to pass the budget to a much smaller majority, which will allow the socialists to run the minority over with the bus when it comes to passing the legislation. Get that passed and put moonbeam back in for another destructive tour and there won't be much of this state left when they are done. Far too little left for t ever to recover in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my boys, even if we could take control of it from the leftists, which is unlikely at best.

I wanted dearly to spend the rest of my days on the land that has been in my family for almost 40 years, but it may come down to only staying until my elderly mother passes on, and then fleeing like so many others have done over the hill to Nevada, somewhere within 100 miles of Reno.
I think my eldest son is gonna beat me to it, he is looking to transfer back over there right now.

 

[u4ea32]

It is a shame that all issues are cloaked in "left" or "right" rather than intelligently discussed.

For example, isn't it pretty darn obvious that the taxes are too low? Is there anyone who actually believes that the streets and highways are being maintained or expanded properly? Anyone actually think its a good idea to let our education system collapse? Anyone think its a good idea to not really deal with health care costs? Anyone actually think its a good idea that the middle class pays so, so much more into the budget than the wealthy? Anyone think its a good idea that the wealthy are getting much richer, while those of us who work are barely staying afloat? Anyone really think its a good idea to keep wasting our national wealth on wars in the Middle East? Anyone actually want to have the government say what you can do in your bedroom?

Yet some, especially those wealthy drug addicted right wing media wack jobs, think the answer to all problems is to cut taxes and let the whole system go down the drain, while stepping up government intrusion into truly private matters like having children or getting married.

Sorry, I don't equate anarchy with conservatism.

 

[u4ea32]

There is a prop on the ballot now to reduce the number of votes necessary to pass the budget to a much smaller majority, which will allow the socialists to run the minority over with the bus when it comes to passing the legislation. Get that passed and put moonbeam back in for another destructive tour and there won't be much of this state left when they are done. Far too little left for t ever to recover in my lifetime, or the lifetimes of my boys, even if we could take control of it from the leftists, which is unlikely at best.

I disagree that socialism is always a bad idea. For example, the entire military, including the military industrial complex itself, is socialism. So is the freeway system. So is the education system. I'm more of a moderate, in that sometimes its a very good idea, and that includes those parts of civilization where the market forces are not sufficient for the good of the population at large.

I do agree that there may be "Far too little left to ever recover" but, come on, you must still have SOME memory: the trashed economy is due to the so-called conservative Republicans.

I mean, if you can't remember that, then I'm sorry for you. Get some medicine for that alzheimer's condition, as a lot of the rest of your life (not just your politics) must be suffering horribly. I feel for you, my parents are going through it, and its a tragic condition.

 

[pronstar]

For example, isn't it pretty darn obvious that the taxes are too low?

Not at all obvious to me.
What is obvious is that government spending is way too high, and in CA especially, the government payroll is way too high, and employs way too many people drawing way too many benefits, especially upon retirement.

Is there anyone who actually believes that the streets and highways are being maintained or expanded properly?

Gas taxes are meant to repair roads, but are diverted to the general fund. So they don't go where they're supposed to, where we VOTERS were initially told they'd go.

Anyone actually think its a good idea to let our education system collapse?

Nope, but it's not a good idea for administrators to waste funds, either.
When cuts come, high-paid administrators never get laid off. Teachers, hands-on people with your kids, the lowest paid people on the totem pole, they're the ones who are laid-off.

Anyone think its a good idea to not really deal with health care costs?

And having Obamacare rammed down our throats is the answer?
No thanks.

Anyone actually think its a good idea that the middle class pays so, so much more into the budget than the wealthy? Anyone think its a good idea that the wealthy are getting much richer, while those of us who work are barely staying afloat?

According to who?
You?
The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent).

Do you really think earning over $66,532 is considered wealthy?

 

[Flyinbowtie]

Ya beat me to it Pronstar.

But I can't resist adding a bit.
I am 51 years old, and my memory is fine. I am doing okay because we never lived over our heads, and since I saved as much $ as I could raising two sons and paying for everything I could with cash when I was working we will be fine, but thank you for your concern.
My politics are the result of a lifetime of experience in the real world.
I am an American first, a conservative by choice, and I suspect I have seen at least as much as you in my years. I spent 25 of them wearing a badge and gun, seeing and dealing with things you probably cannot even imagine.
Taxes are not too low, government is redfining inefficency in the way it spends money.
We are spending too much money on all the wrong things, and in the places we should spend it we are going about it wrong.
The education system in this state is in the top 2 or 3 in per student $ spent, yet we are falling like a rock in our ability to educate children. My two sons are great examples, I sent them to Private tutors for 3 years each at a cost of over 20k to make up for the failure of the public school system. I paid for their education twice.
The military, by it's nature, is not socialist, it is a dictatorship by nature. It has to be or the chain of command structure does not work. Having served in a paramilitary organization I understand it. I jsut passed on your belief that is it socialist to my son, who served in the Army and is int he reserves, he laughed outloud.
Take another look at the stats on who pays what in the form of federal income taxes.
Pronstar has given you the basic numbers, but you need to see it for yourself.
I generally try to not get personal with my conversations here, but if anyone needs to reevaluate their perspective, I think it may be you.
You've got things all twisted.

 

[MMD]

Arnold is a RINO ("rhino") - a Republican In Name Only

The Unions and their pensions are killing this country and it's only going to get worse when they ram Brown as governor up our asses again. He was a POS then and he's still a POS only now he's a 70 year old POS.

With the unions supporting Brown and Boxer and the other libs funding them with their huge amounts of union dues monies, the public has no chance.

After this election if Brown and Boxer and the other shit birds are re-elected I'll make plans to get out of this state once and for all. If only my house was worth as much as I owe on it I could sell it and get out right away...

 

[u4ea32]

Definition of socialism:

socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)

? n
1. An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

Now, to me, that sounds exactly like how militaries and police forces operate. So, Flyinbowtie, you may claim to be a conservative, but you have made your living as a socialist! Ha!!

This isn't to bust anyone's b*lls, its just to illuminate that there are huge portions of the US economy that are in fact socialist, and these portions are heavily supported by "conservatives."

Me, on the other hand, I am actually a capitalist. I have started seven companies, put everything I have, can steal, borrow, whatever, its all on the line all the time. I consider myself a conservative, but the term has been stolen by, well, we know.

And for certain, we can all agree, that the military wastes money, that police departments waste money, that education systems waste money, and so on. There is plenty of waste in public (aka socialist) endeavors. And we do need to clean this up, as we all pay for it.

Are commercial (capitalist) enterprises the way to go? How would it feel for the military to NOT be socialist, for the police to NOT be socialist? No thanks!

 

[Racey]

Definition of socialism:

socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)

? n
1. An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

Now, to me, that sounds exactly like how militaries and police forces operate. So, Flyinbowtie, you may claim to be a conservative, but you have made your living as a socialist! Ha!!

This isn't to bust anyone's b*lls, its just to illuminate that there are huge portions of the US economy that are in fact socialist, and these portions are heavily supported by "conservatives."

Me, on the other hand, I am actually a capitalist. I have started seven companies, put everything I have, can steal, borrow, whatever, its all on the line all the time. I consider myself a conservative, but the term has been stolen by, well, we know.

And for certain, we can all agree, that the military wastes money, that police departments waste money, that education systems waste money, and so on. There is plenty of waste in public (aka socialist) endeavors. And we do need to clean this up, as we all pay for it.

Are commercial (capitalist) enterprises the way to go? How would it feel for the military to NOT be socialist, for the police to NOT be socialist? No thanks!

I think you mean socialized not socialist, but that's word misuse, no biggy, i understood what you meant....


As a Libertarian/Free Market supporter there was nothing wrong with the initial idea of socializing certain areas of our lives (Police, Fire, Military, Roads, Public Works, Etc) This was done initially as a convenience to the people. That way you didn't have to pay each of these things individually etc. and a standardized policy and practice was put in place that made all of the services available to the public via a fee/tax.

When compared to how these services are run today there is no doubt in my mind that they would ALL work much better if they were individually and privately operated, it would just be a little bit of a pain in the ass to the public have to pay a separate fee for each road system you used, or for each time you needed fire or police service, etc. That would pretty much be a buzz kill, but the systems themselves would provide a much greater benefit per dollar if they worked like this. And if you think i'm Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs just hear me out on this.... If all of these things were privately owned and run, they would all be constrained to a...... BUDGET! yes that's right, they would all be forced to work within the means of the money they received for their service, and they would find a natural balance of price vs. service vs. efficiency, or they would go out of business due to competitors providing a better product a better price.

You see the problem with these entities being socialized in today's times is that no one in government is truly accountable any more, and they also all think they have an open ended check book to just keep borrowing money, and never make sacrifices to their production, lay-offs for un-necessary positions, payroll control, expenses etc. They all have the mentality that "We can just pay for it later" but no one ever becomes responsible later, just the public. If these systems were actually constrained to a real budget, one that wasn't set by politicians and back room deals, and overspending on building, supplies, other expenses to give favorable contracts to friends and special interests, but actually to the lowest bidders capable of performing the job we wouldn't have all these problems.

It basically comes down to the fact that the people that are in control of the states finances are irresponsible, stupid, corrupt, or a combination of the three. and until that changes we will continue to see the same results we have been seeing.

 

[u4ea32]

Unfortunately, I'm too dumb to figure out how to do multi-level quoting.

I think we all seem to agree there is too much waste. We seem to differ on the response to this waste. That's OK, its boring to talk only with the mirror!

Anyway, I said something like "its not a good thing that the middle class pays so much tax, while the rich keep getting richer." And Pronstar responded:

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $66,532) earned 68.7 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.6 percent).

Do you really think earning over $66,532 is considered wealthy?

No. In my book, "wealthy" are those who DON'T depend upon INCOME much at all. For example, those who get salaries of $1M, but stock options of $200 million (which are tax free until you convert that wealth into expended cash, and who the hell just blows the wad? The invest it somewhere, through a company, and that $200M remains tax free.

What's also missing in your statistic is that the TOTAL income of that top 25% is far more than four out of every five dollars earned! The top 1% -- yes ONE PERCENT -- owns 43% of the wealth in the USA. The bottom 80%, approximately those who earn less than about $75K, owns only 15% of the wealth of the USA. They don't have to declare their "income" as "income" for income tax purposes.

What we have now is a tax system that is heavily on the backs of those who earn a paycheck, no matter how big or small. The wealthy pay very, very little in tax. If they do pay taxes, they need to get a better accountant!!!


Read this, by a university in the "conservative" south: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So its reasonable that those who get all the benefit of this society pay so little in tax?

 

[u4ea32]

I think you mean socialized not socialist, but that's word misuse, no biggy, i understood what you meant....


As a Libertarian/Free Market supporter there was nothing wrong with the initial idea of socializing certain areas of our lives (Police, Fire, Military, Roads, Public Works, Etc) This was done initially as a convenience to the people. That way you didn't have to pay each of these things individually etc. and a standardized policy and practice was put in place that made all of the services available to the public via a fee/tax.

When compared to how these services are run today there is no doubt in my mind that they would ALL work much better if they were individually and privately operated, it would just be a little bit of a pain in the ass to the public have to pay a separate fee for each road system you used, or for each time you needed fire or police service, etc. That would pretty much be a buzz kill, but the systems themselves would provide a much greater benefit per dollar if they worked like this. And if you think i'm Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs just hear me out on this.... If all of these things were privately owned and run, they would all be constrained to a...... BUDGET! yes that's right, they would all be forced to work within the means of the money they received for their service, and they would find a natural balance of price vs. service vs. efficiency, or they would go out of business due to competitors providing a better product a better price.

You see the problem with these entities being socialized in today's times is that no one in government is truly accountable any more, and they also all think they have an open ended check book to just keep borrowing money, and never make sacrifices to their production, lay-offs for un-necessary positions, payroll control, expenses etc. They all have the mentality that "We can just pay for it later" but no one ever becomes responsible later, just the public. If these systems were actually constrained to a real budget, one that wasn't set by politicians and back room deals, and overspending on building, supplies, other expenses to give favorable contracts to friends and special interests, but actually to the lowest bidders capable of performing the job we wouldn't have all these problems.

It basically comes down to the fact that the people that are in control of the states finances are irresponsible, stupid, corrupt, or a combination of the three. and until that changes we will continue to see the same results we have been seeing.

I bet we are all a lot closer to agreeing on these issues than it may appear. You summarized things very well in your last paragraph.

I think the reason we need to continue to have socialized essential services, instead of private services, is because we want the behavior of those organizations to focus on their role in society, and not be focused on profit as everyone like me must be.

So I think we could probably agree that getting out of this deficit spending thing is key. Budgets are important!

 

[pronstar]

No. In my book, "wealthy" are those who DON'T depend upon INCOME much at all. For example, those who get salaries of $1M, but stock options of $200 million (which are tax free until you convert that wealth into expended cash, and who the hell just blows the wad? The invest it somewhere, through a company, and that $200M remains tax free.

What we have now is a tax system that is heavily on the backs of those who earn a paycheck, no matter how big or small. The wealthy pay very, very little in tax. If they do pay taxes, they need to get a better accountant!!!

Ummmm...no.
I don't know who wrote the data in your link, and it's about wealth not taxes. And your assumptions trying to correlate wealth with taxes paid don't jibe with government data. And the assumptions you make in "your book" aren't based on facts at all.

But let's assume that one statistic you quote is correct:
"The top 1% -- yes ONE PERCENT -- owns 43% of the wealth in the USA."

Well...guess what?
They pay about that percentage of the total tax burden as well.

Data by the IRS and the bi-partisan Tax Foundation, show the rich are indeed paying a lower share of the nation?s tax burden. But that?s because the rich are losing income. And while their share of the nation?s earnings is falling, their average tax rate is rising.

The top 1% (AGI over $380,354) of tax returns paid 38% of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20% of adjusted gross income.

The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619), however, still paid far more than the bottom 95 percent. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

The top 1% paid an average income tax rate of 23.27%, up from 22.45% in 2007 ? the first increase since 2000. The study attributes the increase to the fact that the wealthy are earning more of their income from wages and salaries rather than capital gains and dividends (which are taxed at a lower rate).

Yes, the wealthy still have a huge share of income and taxes. The report states that the top 5% of tax-payers earn 34.7% of income and pay 58.7% of taxes.

But the data just doesn't support the notion that the "rich" are gaining their share of income while paying ever lower tax rates.

It's all right here.
http://taxfoundation.org/research/show/250.html

AGI of $160K ain't exactly rich.
Yet this 5% of the population pays more in taxes than the other 95% of the populaiton combined.

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

Pronstar, you can split hairs on details but the revelation that the working class pay lots in taxes is not real shocking.

The percentage numbers are misleading, as usual.

It's very skewed when more than 50% of the country does not crack 35 grand a year.

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes. That sounds wrong...until you look at more data. The top 1% is 1.4 million people that make, on average, 1.7 million a year. That is why the numbers look wrong.

When half the country makes less than 35 grand it's gonna look that way.
Also, the data is being lumped together as if the percentage numbers are equal. They're not.

The top 50% pay 97.3% of the taxes.

 

[pronstar]

Pronstar, you can split hairs on details but the revelation that the working class pay lots in taxes is not real shocking.

The percentage numbers are misleading, as usual.

It's very skewed when more than 50% of the country does not crack 35 grand a year.

The only point I'm refuting is the assertion that "people who make money don't pay taxes". That's the direction this thread went to, and it's simply not true.

The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes. That sounds wrong...until you look at more data.

I don't think it sounds wrong at all.
In fact, it simply makes my point..."wealthy" people who make/who have money do, in fact, pay taxes.

 

[Racey]

The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes. That sounds wrong...until you look at more data. The top 1% is 1.4 million people that make, on average, 1.7 million a year. That is why the numbers look wrong.

When half the country makes less than 35 grand it's gonna look that way.
Also, the data is being lumped together as if the percentage numbers are equal. They're not.

The top 50% pay 97.3% of the taxes.

It's never gonna make a pretty looking graph, this is because neither income distribution, or tax rates, are linear :thumbsup

 

[Dave Wettlaufer]

Yup, we agree.