I too wonder how we can act as if everything is normal -- I for one am screaming inside -- torture, destruction of species, even death of the planet -- and we go on as usual. What does it take to get people on the streets?
Posted by boomerg'ma at March 2, 2008 08:19 AMI don't know, boomerg'ma. If the history of the Czars tells us anything, far too much.
Posted by paradox at March 2, 2008 09:23 AMWhat does it take to get people on the streets?
I've been asking this question for years. I don't mean literally in the streets because I don't think marches are the way widespread public discontent will be expressed in 21st Century America. But I do mean expressions of widespread public discontent.
Well tell me Paradox, where were you when the Governator wanted to bring universal health care to all Californians? Why was Speaker Perota(sp) able to shelve this idea so easily? Democrats run the legislature there, they're gerrymandered to continue to, yet this popular idea couldn't get out of committee. Don't Democrats want this to happen? Doesn't each Californian deserve this to happen? How do you expect this to come to past if Californians aren't willing to take it on themselves. the fifth or eighth largest economy in the WORLD, by themselves and it can't be done.
Another Republican, Governor Romney, was able to get the Democrats in Mass. to go for this idea. Such great leadership from Republicans and such great leadersheep from Democrats. Come on face it, Democrats made this mess Californians are in by their choices. All the way back to Prop 13, your fellow Democrats have been messing the state up. the Eco-extremist's pushed new power away that gave birth to the likes of Enron from Texas. why not take advantage of what California Democrats put out on the plate.
Your fellow UC-Berkley's are making deals with Saudi Arabia right now as the city is at 'war' with the US Marines. Those values are messing up California, once a proud bastion of America's defense and defense industry.
Where is the leadership coming from Californians? Governor Reagan had California leading the way. Your fellow Democrats have eroded that leadership to the leadersheep they now provide. They're gutless, unsighted, crippled by fear now. You wished for this, well you've got it now. That gerrymandering really helped you get this. That lack of competition is what got you here.
Governor Taft of Ohio thought all was great with their economy and raised taxes that drove business out of the state. Governor McGreevey in New Jersey benefited as well as the state of NJ for creating a pro business atmosphere there and drove down their unemployment a full percentage below the national average. Ohioans fired Taft and his successor for the Democrat. New Jersey's people re elected McGreevey and his successor Corzine. Now the Democrats in New Jersey are trying to raise taxes on the business community and Governor Corzine won't have it.
You can't have it both ways Paradox.
End the gerrymandering and allow fair representation. Maybe the people will finally get what they deserve and need. Get back to the greatness that Governor Reagan saw for each and every Californian.
Posted by peter at March 2, 2008 09:59 AMCome on Paradox, we need to take our state back from the oppressive Democrats in Sacramento. Viva the people! Viva America!
Posted by peter at March 2, 2008 01:09 PMThe usaul from pradox: barely readable drivel bemoaning the fact the world is not to her liking. But beyond that, well: Turkana would you please provide paradox with some writing samples and (maybe) a tutorial or two on sentence structure and basic grammar.
However, let me try to deconstruct this heaping passage of dung....
"As I understand it, for ten years Sacramento politicians have played a shell game of denial and evasion, putting off payments for anything under the sun for some magical mystical day in the future. Well, that day is here and California is $11 billion short."
And, may I ask, for the majority of those years what party held the Governorship? And for all of those years, what party has held the majority of local and state-level political positions?
"The Terminator huddled with the rich cronies who enable him and came back with a classic New Republican revolutionary power answer: smash your society by not raising taxes."
Please provide an example where not raising taxes "smashed" a society. Actually, paradox, using that google-thingy that AlGore invented will provide you with a wealth of data that lowering taxes actually increases government tax revenues. (While, surprisingly, the opposite is also true!)
"28 state parks to close. Approximately 20,000 inmates immediately freed. $2.5 billion cuts to our children’s future in education. $1.6 billion cut to Medi-Cal. The list goes on very much longer."
And, amazingly, after ten years of "shell game denial and evasion" a bill comes due. I think there is a lesson here somewhere...but I just can't put my finger on it paradox. Can you help me out here?
"... do Californians want a government or not? If the answer is yes then taxes will have to be raised. End of story."
No. It is quite possible to have a government that does not engage in reckless spending and does not require ever increasing tax hikes: you might want to take a look at the image on the other side of the coin.
"Finding out will mean a much more consistent perusal of the Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, another traipse through the tulips for my life in America that’s going to be, Jesus."
Ok. Would someone volunteer to diagram this sentence for me?
"... they’re counting on citizens being weary and distracted. Wrong again, dudes, wrong again."
Not weary and distracted, but perhaps quite interested: (and) going forward determining that funding for such progressive initiatives as free condoms from the drug-addled, universal "global-warming" indoctrination programs, free housing / medical care / education for illegal aliens, and other such nonsense are not the responsibility of state government.
Posted by Bagley at March 2, 2008 04:02 PMHow many billion for stem cell research? How many billion for the fight of global warming? Let's waste our state's few tax monies on these two area's.
Posted by peter at March 2, 2008 04:50 PM28 state parks to close. Approximately 20,000 inmates immediately freed. $2.5 billion cuts to our children’s future in education. $1.6 billion cut to Medi-Cal. The list goes on very much longer.
Well, the 20,000 inmates is probably a good idea. California incarcerates far too many, mostly non-violent and for offenses like taking (not distributing) illegal drugs. In large part this is because the combined efforts of the "tough on crime" sloganeers and the prison guard lobby.
Otherwise California really is stuck. With only 2 senators for that massive state -- and none with any serious influence -- they get continually rooked in the annual Federal budget games. If California's share of the Federal state-by-state handouts was determined on a per-capita basis California would be running a surplus without any state income tax. Yes, it is that bad.
Honestly, if you're looking for a long-term fix, divide California in to 6 or so states and wait a few years for the new senators to get some seniority.
Posted by Skeptic at March 2, 2008 07:30 PMActually, paradox, using that google-thingy that AlGore invented will provide you with a wealth of data that lowering taxes actually increases government tax revenues.
It's no wonder the US ranks so low amongst first world countries in science education. It's clear that no Republican understands even basic statistics.
I've read SOOOOO many articles that assert this same bullshit -- "tax cuts increase revenues" -- and every one had logic holes that your average high school freshman could identify. Crap like: "Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and the net increase in tax revenues in the 1980s was 17%!" These articles never ask questions like: What was the population growth during that period? The productivity growth? (Both directly influence tax revenues.) What is the normal expected increase in US tax revenues over a 9 year period (it's about 40%, from economic-peak-to-economic-peak)? What were the relative states of the economy in 1981 and 1990? Were there any tax increases or decreases in the intervening years (there were many increases signed by Reagan)? Etc.
There is not a single shred of logical, verified evidence that tax cuts increase revenues. It may be that under certain circumstances tax decreases do boost revenue, but no one has proven it. And having this canard repeated millions of times each day by Republicans doesn't make it true.
For the record, the tax-cut-revenue theory was founded in the 1970s, in the early days of Supply-side Economics, with the theory of the Laffer Curve, which held that as marginal tax rates approached 100% people stopped working harder to earn that extra dollar, so that in effect high marginal rates could slow an economy by retarding the efforts of the top earners. The focus of the Laffer Curve was the very high marginal rates at the time -- over 90% in a lot of European countries and 70% in the US. (As an aside, the highest marginal rate in the US was 90% during the boom times of post WW2 until 1961 -- a fact which should call into question the whole premise of the Laffer Curve.)
While this might have been true -- again, no evidence to support the theory -- there are two problems with applying it today. First, with marginal rates below 50% -- and for the very rich real rates that are far below that -- it is hard to argue that their drive to achieve is somehow measurable retarded by the tax rates. I mean, if you take the theory "tax cuts always increase revenues" (a real quote from VP candidate Jack Kemp in 1996) to it's extreme, then we should cut taxes to 0% and have huge revenues. Obviously that's false -- and so is the whole premise.
Second, it does appear that top earners do more to get the extra buck in today's economy than they did in the 1950s when marginal rates were 90% -- but its not clear that the economy benefits, or tax revenues, or anyone except the top earners. The inflation in CEO compensation(more money for the same work), the increase in almost-legal corruption and graft amongst same, etc, are all symptoms of what happens when top earners strive to obtain more dollars than they would ordinarily get.
Finally, what is perhaps most stunning about the proponents of the "lower-taxes-increase-tax-revenues" crowd is their complete inability to learn from past mistakes. They all, uniformly, predicted major economic troubles after the 1993 Democratic tax increase. Well, they *did* get control of Congress, but their prediction was a flop. Tax revenues boomed -- leading to a surplus (apparently "surplus" is a bad word to Republicans) *and* the economy boomed. Now, granted, the economy was due for a business upswing. And the productivity boom of the 90s helped a ton (good thing Al Gore and the Democrats forced through funding for that "Information Superhighway" boondoggle they talked about during the 1992 campaign, wasn't it?), but even so the Republican's predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong. Kind of like that Republican who wrote the book "Down 36,000" a few years later. But, somehow they never learned from that mistake.
Posted by Skeptic at March 2, 2008 07:49 PM