California Governor Jerry Brown vetoes Dem. approved budget because it doesn't raise taxes

[RiverOfIce]

The size of the state's economy does not have anything to do with the state of it or what effect tax rates have on it.

Well, yes it does.

The over all size of the economy compared to the average income can tell you who to tax more. For example, with only 40,000 dollars on average and with the highest economy, tells you that you can tax the rich way more then you can the poor.

In the state of califorina, the amount of money made the rich is bipolar to the the amount of money made by the poor.

With a high economy, the governer is right, you need to place taxes on the higher earners, and stop placing taxes on the backs of the poor.

You can not get out of debt by cutting spending, you are going to have to raise taxes.

Ok, so according to conservatives, california has about 45 billion in deficit.

Now we can not touch the 25% that goes to health. We can not touch the 11% to protection. We can not default at on the 21% that floats the budget and special interests. We so we have welfare and education. We will have to cut welfare and about 90% of the education budget. Now we just have balanced the budget of California. Of course we have completely screwed the poor. Only about 10% of the most wealthiest children can go to school now and your cost to maintain the poor will increase dramatically and so will crime.

You would have to cut 1/3 of all the spending just to stop the deficit. And doing that would screw the the poor. But you would stop the deficit.

WE would have to cut about 10% out of the health budget, just to make payments to the debt. That would get you out of debit in like 20 years.

OR you can just get the average person in California to pay 18,000 dollars more in the next 20 years, which is, with interest, like $1,500 a year, and you would not have to cut anything from the budget.


OR you can make moderate cuts to the budget, which will not trash your whole economy and increase taxes on the top 50%. That would equal about 800 dollars more per year, per person and would also pay down the debt. If we do not tank the economy with the spending cut could inflate our way out of the debt in like 12 years.

You can not save your way out of this. You would have to take 50% of the budget away, which would leave about 20 billion for education, health, welfare, pensions, and government functions.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, yes it does.

The over all size of the economy compared to the average income can tell you who to tax more. For example, with only 40,000 dollars on average and with the highest economy, tells you that you can tax the rich way more then you can the poor.

In the state of califorina, the amount of money made the rich is bipolar to the the amount of money made by the poor.

With a high economy, the governer is right, you need to place taxes on the higher earners, and stop placing taxes on the backs of the poor.

You can not get out of debt by cutting spending, you are going to have to raise taxes.

Ok, so according to conservatives, california has about 45 billion in deficit.

Now we can not touch the 25% that goes to health. We can not touch the 11% to protection. We can not default at on the 21% that floats the budget and special interests. We so we have welfare and education. We will have to cut welfare and about 90% of the education budget. Now we just have balanced the budget of California. Of course we have completely screwed the poor. Only about 10% of the most wealthiest children can go to school now and your cost to maintain the poor will increase dramatically and so will crime.

You would have to cut 1/3 of all the spending just to stop the deficit. And doing that would screw the the poor. But you would stop the deficit.

WE would have to cut about 10% out of the health budget, just to make payments to the debt. That would get you out of debit in like 20 years.

OR you can just get the average person in California to pay 18,000 dollars more in the next 20 years, which is, with interest, like $1,500 a year, and you would not have to cut anything from the budget.


OR you can make moderate cuts to the budget, which will not trash your whole economy and increase taxes on the top 50%. That would equal about 800 dollars more per year, per person and would also pay down the debt. If we do not tank the economy with the spending cut could inflate our way out of the debt in like 12 years.

You can not save your way out of this. You would have to take 50% of the budget away, which would leave about 20 billion for education, health, welfare, pensions, and government functions.

Great. Let's drive more businesses to China and India. Like 12% unemployment isn't bad enough, let's make it worse. California already taxes the wealthy higher than any other state does. If anything, we need to tax the freeloaders at the bottom more.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Damn those toilet cleaning and floor scrubbing freeloaders! I knew that Maria was never up to no good >_>

 

[vailpass]

So you are saying you cant support a welfare state and be fiscally responsible
The most fiscally responsible states in the world (think Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands) all are strong welfare states.

Have you ever lived in the US?

 

[2strokenut]

Let us visit two principals of budgets.

1.) To stop gaining the debt, you need to stop spending.

2.) To get out of debt, you need to make more money.

You can not save your way out of debt. You can not cut back expenses to get out of debt. To get out of debt you need to make more money.

The government will have to raise taxes. It will have to happen, if you want to get out of debt.

If you think you can cut back spending and get out of debt, you have zero idea how a large budget works.

Secondly, when you tax people higher, the economy grows.

Oh you want proof. Here you go.

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/ima...rt-showing-relationship-among-u-s-gdp-tax.jpg
The lower the tax rate is the worst the gdp is.

The republicans plan of no taxes has never and will never work. Look at the last huge recessions, who was president during the start of the recession?

ROI, your so wrong on this that it hurts my head. You lost all credibility asking who the president was at the start of the recession. You have to look at all forces to understand why GDP falls or rises.

The recession technically started under Clinton, but was it his fault? Not totally. You have to look at what legislation was passed during and what effect it had on the market.

The problem with California is not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem. This is a thread about the State of California, not the federal government.

California has the highest total taxes on gas of any of the 50 states.
http://www.advisor.com/blogs/richard-rider/california-leads-example-highest-gas-taxes-nation

At 8.25%, California has the highest minimum state sales tax in the United States, which can total up to 10.75% with local sales tax included.
Sales taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The budget deal the Legislature reached today will keep California's top personal income tax rate and sales tax rate the highest in the Union.
How California's income tax and sales tax rates compare - latimes.com

There are state with much lower tax rates, yet they are better off economically. The problem is spending, not revenue.

Forget about it Freaky, no one here understands basic econ or history

 

[RiverOfIce]

Great. Let's drive more businesses to China and India. Like 12% unemployment isn't bad enough, let's make it worse. California already taxes the wealthy higher than any other state does. If anything, we need to tax the freeloaders at the bottom more.

I just love that tired argument. I have zero correlation between taxes and jobs being shipped over seas, in fact I have found the opposite.

If you take the last 10 years of democrat in office, Clinton-8 and Obama-2. We exported 10 million jobs over seas. Both clinton and obama have increased taxes across the board. That is a lot of jobs.

But...

George Bush was in office for 8 years and reduced taxes to the lowest levels in years, but he shed 18.52 million jobs in 8 years.

In fact, when obama took office, they exporting of jobs was cut by 500,000 jobs a year +. In the last 2 years, obama brought exporting of jobs to the lowest point since 2000.

 

[Martimus]

Now I know that I'm going to take some heat for this but two things the state of California really needs to do are:

1. Stop regulating the heck out of everything
2. Stop supporting the perpetually unemployed, unemployable, and foreign populations of the state.

Oh and when I say unemployed, by the way, I'm not talking about the people who lost their jobs due to recent economic challenges and are actively trying to find employment. I'm talking about the folks who have figured out that they can live on welfare, food stamps, and community handouts without ever trying to work for a living.

 

[RiverOfIce]

ROI, your so wrong on this that it hurts my head. You lost all credibility asking who the president was at the start of the recession. You have to look at all forces to understand why GDP falls or rises.

The recession technically started under Clinton, but was it his fault? Not totally. You have to look at what legislation was passed during and what effect it had on the market.
Forget about it Freaky, no one here understands basic econ or history

LOL. I love that arguement.

So the recession started under bill clinton, just like Bush sr hand Bill Clinton a recession. But on the same breathe you blame the legislation passed at the time?

Let me see here?

From 1995 to 2007 republicans controlled the house of representives. Frome 1995 to 2001, it was republican senate. From 2001-2003, it was 50/50 split. From 2003-2007 it was republican.

So I am going to agree with you. Republicans cause recessions.

 

[RiverOfIce]

1. Stop regulating the heck out of everything

That worked soo well over the last 4 years, no regulation fixed everything!!

 

[Martimus]

That worked soo well over the last 4 years, no regulation fixed everything!!

No new regulations ^= No regulation

California hasn't had "no regulation" since DW Griffith was still making movies...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Now I know that I'm going to take some heat for this but two things the state of California really needs to do are:

1. Stop regulating the heck out of everything
2. Stop supporting the perpetually unemployed, unemployable, and foreign populations of the state.

Oh and when I say unemployed, by the way, I'm not talking about the people who lost their jobs due to recent economic challenges and are actively trying to find employment. I'm talking about the folks who have figured out that they can live on welfare, food stamps, and community handouts without ever trying to work for a living.

You are exactly on point. The give me welfare but don't expect people to contribute to the system mentality that the Democrats promote to keep people voting for them is what's done us in.

 

[2strokenut]

LOL. I love that arguement.

So the recession started under bill clinton, just like Bush sr hand Bill Clinton a recession. But on the same breathe you blame the legislation passed at the time?

Let me see here?

From 1995 to 2007 republicans controlled the house of representives. Frome 1995 to 2001, it was republican senate. From 2001-2003, it was 50/50 split. From 2003-2007 it was republican.

So I am going to agree with you. Republicans cause recessions.

That worked soo well over the last 4 years, no regulation fixed everything!!

Did you forget the internet bust ROI? Or was that during Bush?

ROI, your very knowledgeable when comes to LTE vs Wimax and network stuff but you are so lacking in basic understanding of Economics, our history and how our govt works that we are unable to have a rational conversation.

Blaming one party or the other is completely asinine. Both parties are to blame for our problems as in democrats want to raise taxes and regulate every chance they get and Republicans for being spineless bastards that go along with whatever the dems want and not sticking to their principles. A great example is No Child Left behind, something that Bush got ridiculed for all the time. I blame Bush for letting Ted Kennedy write the bill. Idiot.


If you want to make the case that there was little or no regulation during the recession or leading up to it go ahead, I'll pick it apart as I get around to it and make you look uninformed.


One last thing, ROI, what happens when you can't pay for the increase in debt even if you taxed every company on the fortune 500, every Millionaire and billionaire at a 100% tax rate? Your F%$*ed. Oh wait, we're already there. You have to cut spending. No way around it.

I just love that tired argument. I have zero correlation between taxes and jobs being shipped over seas, in fact I have found the opposite.

If you take the last 10 years of democrat in office, Clinton-8 and Obama-2. We exported 10 million jobs over seas. Both clinton and obama have increased taxes across the board. That is a lot of jobs.

But...

George Bush was in office for 8 years and reduced taxes to the lowest levels in years, but he shed 18.52 million jobs in 8 years.

In fact, when obama took office, they exporting of jobs was cut by 500,000 jobs a year +. In the last 2 years, obama brought exporting of jobs to the lowest point since 2000.

Yay! Obama's election just stopped it huh? First off let us see your source (if you could be so kind), and second what the heck did obama do in the last 2 years that would do what you claim? I'm pretty sure Obama kept the Bush tax cuts...and called it his tax cuts.

I just love that tired argument. I have zero correlation between taxes and jobs being shipped over seas, in fact I have found the opposite.

If you take the last 10 years of democrat in office, Clinton-8 and Obama-2. We exported 10 million jobs over seas. Both clinton and obama have increased taxes across the board. That is a lot of jobs.

But...

George Bush was in office for 8 years and reduced taxes to the lowest levels in years, but he shed 18.52 million jobs in 8 years.

In fact, when obama took office, they exporting of jobs was cut by 500,000 jobs a year +. In the last 2 years, obama brought exporting of jobs to the lowest point since 2000.

He increased taxes across the board huh?

Obama signs bill to extend Bush-era tax cuts for two more years


Can you at least try to be accurate?

 

[nlsme]

I don't really understand the point of that graph. What are you trying to prove by it?

Taxes won't get raised here because the people will likely throw those that dare to do so out of office more quickly than they voted them in. Raising taxes is an extremely unpopular platform here.

Isn't that why the conservatives hold some of the blame for cali's problems? The way I see it, people are liberal when wanting services, but conservative when having to pay for them. It takes 2 to tango.

 

[2strokenut]

California's population grew by 10% from 2000 to 2010. I'm not sure how that equates to an overall loss of population.

*Face palm*

Moving Out Of California | A state in the rearview mirror - Los Angeles Times

Quote:

For the fourth year in a row, more residents left the Golden State than moved here from other states, according to a report released Wednesday by the California Department of Finance.


Oh heres another one:
California losing residents

 

[2strokenut]

Isn't that why the conservatives hold some of the blame for cali's problems? The way I see it, people are liberal when wanting services, but conservative when having to pay for them. It takes 2 to tango.

Absolutely.


The republicans deserve the blame as well for going along with all the spending.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Isn't that why the conservatives hold some of the blame for cali's problems? The way I see it, people are liberal when wanting services, but conservative when having to pay for them. It takes 2 to tango.

Why would a group of people who have not had power in California be responsible?

 

[nlsme]

Why would a group of people who have not had power in California be responsible?

Money is power, and conservatives tend to have money....

 

[RiverOfIce]

Can you at least try to be accurate?

Prove me wrong!


And I was trying to crack a joke on that one. According to the far right, obama has increased taxes more then clinton did.
Tax-slashing Reagan vs. tax-and-spend Obama | Partisan Gridlock | a Chron.com blog


But really, I was just taking your point of view on that one, in the debate yesterday, it was said like 10 times that obama is trying to increase taxes. but prove me wrong. Show where I am historically or economically wrong! Prove it. All you have said is I am wrong and offered one case in which I was trying to be funny.

Obama has increased the taxes in this country, but not by a whole lot.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Why would a group of people who have not had power in California be responsible?

I am sorry, who was the last gov of California?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Money is power, and conservatives tend to have money....

Then why do wealthy liberals control our state? They certainly aren't poor.

And how does your statement show that conservatives have been in power here? They haven't.

 

[2strokenut]

Prove me wrong!


And I was trying to crack a joke on that one. According to the far right, obama has increased taxes more then clinton did.
Tax-slashing Reagan vs. tax-and-spend Obama | Partisan Gridlock | a Chron.com blog


But really, I was just taking your point of view on that one, in the debate yesterday, it was said like 10 times that obama is trying to increase taxes. but prove me wrong. Show where I am historically or economically wrong! Prove it. All you have said is I am wrong and offered one case in which I was trying to be funny.

Obama has increased the taxes in this country, but not by a whole lot.

I did, see post #37. How I am supposed to know what is a joke or not? Most of what you write in these threads seem like a joke.


YOU made the claim and YOU need to back it up.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I am sorry, who was the last gov of California?

A liberal politician named Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I am talking about who actually controls fiscal policy, however.

The California State Legislature currently has a Democratic majority, with the Senate consisting of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans. Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970.

California State Legislature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bob Maxey]

There is no place in the world where raising taxes is popular.
My point was is he countries with "insanely high taxes" are not unsuccessful - they are actually better places to live and work than the US

You should say, in your opinion, they are better places to live and work. And by the way, I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You should say, in your opinion, they are better places to live and work. And by the way, I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

The three countries I mentioned all have far healthier economies in the US. I know that Sweden ranks in the top 10 of practically every good thing for example.

 

[nlsme]

Then why do wealthy liberals control our state? They certainly aren't poor.

And how does your statement show that conservatives have been in power here? They haven't.

One, the people with money have the most power, no matter who is in office. Two, the GOVERNOR is the one who signs the law. Three, who was the last governor? Four, who was 4 of the last 7 governors?