California Impending Fiscal Demise

[Maxwell the Fool]

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them.

 

In fact, California is seen by many as the most liberal state in the union.

 

I lived in California for the vast majority of my life... So I know what I'm talking about :)

[Aurielius]

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them.

 

In fact, California is seen by many as the most liberal state in the union.

 

I lived in California for the vast majority of my life... So I know what I'm talking about :)

Maxwell is correct about perceptions, on the eastern seaboard we refer to California as the 'Left Coast". All that aside, Max is also correct in that the vast proportion of the state's population is far from wealthy despite how it is portrayed in film's and TV. That still leaves the question of what to do about a state that enacts legislation that it has not been able to pay for on such a grand scale of deficits. Pennsylvania has a balanced budget amendment to our state constitution if we can't pay for something it cannot be enacted into law. If the other states have to live within their means why should we be called on to support California's largess?

[Harbringe]

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them.

 

In fact, California is seen by many as the most liberal state in the union.

 

I lived in California for the vast majority of my life... So I know what I'm talking about :)

Maxwell is correct about perceptions, on the eastern seaboard we refer to California as the 'Left Coast". All that aside, Max is also correct in that the vast proportion of the state's population is far from wealthy despite how it is portrayed in film's and TV. That still leaves the question of what to do about a state that enacts legislation that it has not been able to pay for on such a grand scale of deficits. Pennsylvania has a balanced budget amendment to our state constitution if we can't pay for something it cannot be enacted into law. If the other states have to live within their means why should we be called on to support California's largess?

 

What I am about to say is something that I came across a couple of months ago and I wasn't going to post this because though it is something I read over I can no longer provide a link to it ,so if you want to dispute something (not you in particular Aurielis just anyone in general ) go ahead if you want but don't expect a response because I'm not going to bother .so here goes.

 

This article I read was an analysis of the US subsidy system that exists within the US economy ,it was using data (2004) from the US Dept of Commerce and the IRS .Now when it comes to the US subsidy program in the US there are 2 basic levels of contribution Federal and local State and I could try to list what those subsidies do and who gets them but to be quite frank it is just too massive ,to say the least its a list that just goes on and on and on .What interested me was the level of contribution that each State makes it was a list going from top to bottom with those at the top pay the most and those at the bottom taking the most.The people paying into the system only went about 20% of the way down ,the rest were all taking from the system.

 

On a side note: when you talk about subsidies people need to understand that your talking about wealth redistribution by the State ,that Ladies and Gentlemen is Socialism and the biggest recipients of that Socialist money are your US Corporations that's why they call it Corporate welfare.What I find odd is that many conservatives will get on the bull horn about the Socialist welfare State and all those welfare mothers sucking dry all you pull yourself up by your boot straps conservatives ,yet never mention anything about all the money your corporations get through subsidies.As far as welfare goes your corporation are the biggest welfare whores on the planet ,the only people that can compete with the US when it comes to subsidies is the EU.The difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans understand it for what it is.Anyhoo back to regular programming.

 

So this list of states who contribute to or take from the subsidy program I cannot completely recite but this is what I can tell you.

 

Of the top 5 contributors 4 were liberal states 1 conservative

 

2004 Data

California 68 billion

New York 29 billion

Illinois 21 billion

Texas 12 billion (which was odd given that Texas's GDP is second largest in the nation ,oil lobbyist's hard at work I guess)

Pennsylvania 8 or 9 billion not sure only remember it was where it went into single digits (and yes I know its a battleground state but in the last 60 years it has gone Democratic more often than Republican ,in cases where the opposite was true they were listed as conservative)

 

Of the bottom 5 all of them were conservative in fact as a whole the conservative states were receiving 76% of all the money being taken.If the liberal states were to opt out of this subsidy system they would see 137 billion dollars come back into their economies on a yearly basis and it would be the liberal states telling the conservative states to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop being such a bunch of welfare mothers.Now that's not to say all conservative states but definitely the majority of them .

 

Anyhoo the point of this is to say that if California had not of paid into this system over the last 6 years even if you use just the 2004 Data they would have an extra 408 billion dollars ,now I don't know what California's debt is but surely that amount would have had a big effect on their current situation .Just thought this would add to the discussion and give some perspective as to one of the reasons they are in such trouble.Still doesn't excuse the things they did on their own to screw up mind you but puts things in a different light.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Harbringe

[marharth]

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them.

 

In fact, California is seen by many as the most liberal state in the union.

 

I lived in California for the vast majority of my life... So I know what I'm talking about :)

Maxwell is correct about perceptions, on the eastern seaboard we refer to California as the 'Left Coast". All that aside, Max is also correct in that the vast proportion of the state's population is far from wealthy despite how it is portrayed in film's and TV. That still leaves the question of what to do about a state that enacts legislation that it has not been able to pay for on such a grand scale of deficits. Pennsylvania has a balanced budget amendment to our state constitution if we can't pay for something it cannot be enacted into law. If the other states have to live within their means why should we be called on to support California's largess?

 

What I am about to say is something that I came across a couple of months ago and I wasn't going to post this because though it is something I read over I can no longer provide a link to it ,so if you want to dispute something (not you in particular Aurielis just anyone in general ) go ahead if you want but don't expect a response because I'm not going to bother .so here goes.

 

This article I read was an analysis of the US subsidy system that exists within the US economy ,it was using data (2004) from the US Dept of Commerce and the IRS .Now when it comes to the US subsidy program in the US there are 2 basic levels of contribution Federal and local State and I could try to list what those subsidies do and who gets them but to be quite frank it is just too massive ,to say the least its a list that just goes on and on and on .What interested me was the level of contribution that each State makes it was a list going from top to bottom with those at the top pay the most and those at the bottom taking the most.The people paying into the system only went about 20% of the way down ,the rest were all taking from the system.

 

On a side note: when you talk about subsidies people need to understand that your talking about wealth redistribution by the State ,that Ladies and Gentlemen is Socialism and the biggest recipients of that Socialist money are your US Corporations that's why they call it Corporate welfare.What I find odd is that many conservatives will get on the bull horn about the Socialist welfare State and all those welfare mothers sucking dry all you pull yourself up by your boot straps conservatives ,yet never mention anything about all the money your corporations get through subsidies.As far as welfare goes your corporation are the biggest welfare whores on the planet ,the only people that can compete with the US when it comes to subsidies is the EU.The difference between Americans and Europeans is that Europeans understand it for what it is.Anyhoo back to regular programming.

 

So this list of states who contribute to or take from the subsidy program I cannot completely recite but this is what I can tell you.

 

Of the top 5 contributors 4 were liberal states 1 conservative

 

2004 Data

California 68 billion

New York 29 billion

Illinois 21 billion

Texas 12 billion (which was odd given that Texas's GDP is second largest in the nation ,oil lobbyist's hard at work I guess)

Pennsylvania 8 or 9 billion not sure only remember it was where it went into single digits (and yes I know its a battleground state but in the last 60 years it has gone Democratic more often than Republican ,in cases where the opposite was true they were listed as conservative)

 

Of the bottom 5 all of them were conservative in fact as a whole the conservative states were receiving 76% of all the money being taken.If the liberal states were to opt out of this subsidy system they would see 137 billion dollars come back into their economies on a yearly basis and it would be the liberal states telling the conservative states to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and stop being such a bunch of welfare mothers.Now that's not to say all conservative states but definitely the majority of them .

 

Anyhoo the point of this is to say that if California had not of paid into this system over the last 6 years even if you use just the 2004 Data they would have an extra 408 billion dollars ,now I don't know what California's debt is but surely that amount would have had a big effect on their current situation .Just thought this would add to the discussion and give some perspective as to one of the reasons they are in such trouble.Still doesn't excuse the things they did on their own to screw up mind you but puts things in a different light.

 

Socialism is not the redistribution of wealth, that's what US propaganda says all the time to scare us, but that's not what it is at all.

 

You also have to note that data from 2004 would be pretty inaccurate due to the market crash and other major economic issues in the following years.

[Amayakyrol]

Ah, California. Behold the wonders of an interfering government.

[Harbringe]

@ Marharth

Socialism is not the redistribution of wealth, that's what US propaganda says all the time to scare us, but that's not what it is at all.

 

You also have to note that data from 2004 would be pretty inaccurate due to the market crash and other major economic issues in the following years.

 

The whole point of drawing the contrast between the welfare mothers and the corporate welfare whores that exist within the American system as defined by the concept of Socialism and wealth redistribution being put forth by the conservatives .If the conservative's are going to use that line of reasoning when it comes to social spending ,then at least be consistent about when it comes to all the forms of corporate welfare that is on the go ,stop being hypocritical and call it for what it is.

 

I agree the 2004 data would've changed due to the market crash ,how much I don't know ,but it is just there to give a sense of the kinda numbers that have helped contribute to California's current situation and whatever the final number would have been it still would have been big.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Harbringe

[Sinophile]

Accept California isn't the state where all the rich people live (although a great many of them do). California has a VERY large underclass, and has a gap growing between the rich and poor. Also, that law doesn't keep the wealthy free of taxes, and is only a fairly small concession to them.

I am too lazy to google the stats, but California's per capita income isn't that high. Keep in mind that California also the the hioghest population than any other state. I believe that the current global economic Crisis has hit California harder than most other states for two reasons:

 

1.) California has a lot of industries sensitive to the economic Climate(E.G. tourism, Computer hardware).

2.) California has had ridiculously high property values over the past 20 years. The housing crash is part of what has caused the current economic climate.

 

if we can't pay for something it cannot be enacted into law. If the other states have to live within their means why should we be called on to support California's largess?

Because California's financial problems can easily become National financial problems. We have Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Disneyland, Napa Valley, The California Missions, The Golden Gate bridge, Monterrey County(where John Steinbeck lived and wrote about), and a bunch of other things and places. Were it not for California, we wouldn't have computers, or really awesome movies. If America had not wrested California from Mexico, chances are Americans would be sneaking across the border, and struggling to learn Spanish.

[marharth]

@ Marharth

Socialism is not the redistribution of wealth, that's what US propaganda says all the time to scare us, but that's not what it is at all.

 

You also have to note that data from 2004 would be pretty inaccurate due to the market crash and other major economic issues in the following years.

 

The whole point of drawing the contrast between the welfare mothers and the corporate welfare whores that exist within the American system as defined by the concept of Socialism and wealth redistribution being put forth by the conservatives .If the conservative's are going to use that line of reasoning when it comes to social spending ,then at least be consistent about when it comes to all the forms of corporate welfare that is on the go ,stop being hypocritical and call it for what it is.

 

I agree the 2004 data would've changed due to the market crash ,how much I don't know ,but it is just there to give a sense of the kinda numbers that have helped contribute to California's current situation and whatever the final number would have been it still would have been big.

I see what you mean about the numbers now, and I would have to agree with you now.

 

But for the socialism thing, socialism isn't even supposed to be based of wage labor. True socialism is a society were everyone is equal and shares. The difference between sharing and the redistribution of wealth is that in a socialist system you wouldn't have to work in order to gain wealth, so the "redistribution of wealth" isn't really what it is.

 

Socialism is not when you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. In a perfect socialist system you wouldn't even have the need for money.

[Sinophile]

Socialism is not when you take money from the rich and give it to the poor. In a perfect socialist system you wouldn't even have the need for money.

That is social policy, not socialism.

[Aurielius]

if we can't pay for something it cannot be enacted into law. If the other states have to live within their means why should we be called on to support California's largess?

Because California's financial problems can easily become National financial problems. We have Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Disneyland, Napa Valley, The California Missions, The Golden Gate bridge, Monterrey County(where John Steinbeck lived and wrote about), and a bunch of other things and places. Were it not for California, we wouldn't have computers, or really awesome movies. If America had not wrested California from Mexico, chances are Americans would be sneaking across the border, and struggling to learn Spanish.

 

Because California has tourist attractions it's worth bailing out? If we bail out California without making it pay for it's fiscal frivolousness we certainly will have a national problem. Aside from Silicon valley there is nothing that cannot be found elsewhere in the country or relocated to another state. Given the current tax code in California their industries that are not weather dependent are already looking elsewhere, where was the last major new expansion of the computer industry in Silicon Valley?, in Texas and Washington. as for the tourist attractions..let me see...The Macinak Bridge in Louisiana (longest) or the Boston Bridge (most innovative), Disney World in Florida, The Alamo in Texas, as for writers anywhere in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Hollywood you can keep, another of them would be two too many.As for the Napa valley, it's dependent on water from adjacent states, which are in the process of contesting the water distribution arrangement boondoggle that was perpetrated on them in the 40's.

 

Wake up, California created it's own mess an short of receivership will have to solve it the old fashioned way, with budget cuts, service cuts, renegotiating it's union contracts, and curtailment of it's entitlement programs, like the other forty nine states do.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Aurielius