Especially in California!

[Ender]

A TAX CUT AS EXPLAINED BY A DEMOCRAT
If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts, maybe this will
help explain:

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund
was then due.

The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped
them and suggested that they send out
refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of
fairness.

After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for
the tickets, most of the money would
go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair
and unconscionable.

Therefore, here is the new deal:

People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to
spend. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit."

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.

People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of
money and don't need a refund. After
all, If they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough
taxes.

People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they
have way too much to spend.

The people driving or walking by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch
the game will get $10 each, even
though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Richard Gephardt, Senator Tom Daschle or
Senator Hillary Clinton for assistance.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nonsense.

Pete Wilson ring a bell? Howard Jarvis? Ronald Reagan? of course, they had nothing to do with the mess California is presently in. What was I thinking. And it's the Democrats' fault that a radical right wing failed Congressman, Issa, has blown a buncha money to push California into spending 60-70-80 mil on a pointless election.

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
Nonsense.

Pete Wilson ring a bell? Howard Jarvis? Ronald Reagan? of course, they had nothing to do with the mess California is presently in. What was I thinking. And it's the Democrats' fault that a radical right wing failed Congressman, Issa, has blown a buncha money to push California into spending 60-70-80 mil on a pointless election.

pssst....Pete Wilson left a budget surplus to Davis...and even 80 mil is NOTHING compared to a $35 BILLION deficit.

 

[rmcrobertson]

pssst...Clinton left at least a several hundred billion surplus, yes? Isn't the Federal government about a zillion in the hole now?

My point was that between deregulation, corporate chicanery, and the ebb and flow of capital, it's hard to blame Davis alone. It's also hard to blame only a governor who inherited twenty-plus years of irresponsible tax cut/shifts, loonbox voters' decisions, and childishly irresponsible choices about where to spend State money....

So the cure is spend another big chunck for an "election," that's gonna end up in court forever? Here's something I just read in a James Lee Burke novel, "Heartwood:" "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging."

 

[Ender]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
pssst...Clinton left at least a several hundred billion surplus, yes? Isn't the Federal government about a zillion in the hole now?

My point was that between deregulation, corporate chicanery, and the ebb and flow of capital, it's hard to blame Davis alone. It's also hard to blame only a governor who inherited twenty-plus years of irresponsible tax cut/shifts, loonbox voters' decisions, and childishly irresponsible choices about where to spend State money....

So the cure is spend another big chunck for an "election," that's gonna end up in court forever? Here's something I just read in a James Lee Burke novel, "Heartwood:" "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging."

pssst..you seem to forget about 9/11...the war in afghanistan..etc...these cost money and are legitmate costs. it cost the ecomony about a trillion dollars and affected airlines, hotels, restaurants etc.

the other point is it wasn't full deregulation, only a half hearted attempt which led to the failure. real competition leads to lower prices. we only let a few companies compete and that put us in a bad position. add to that, during the "electric" crisis Grey Davis had ENRON help him to try to solve the problem. Why were they there? Because they gave him a ton of money. It's things like this that have led to our situation.

and look at any econmics textbook and you'll find that tax cuts help the economy. why? because of efficiency. the average person spends money at 90% efficiency. Business at about 80%. Government spends at around 60%. 60% of all the money paid in to taxes gets to where it is supposed to be. Spending money on taxes except for the bare minimum requirements is a bad investment. Dems don't seem to realize that.

 

[Ender]

IN JUNE 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine was hailing California as a "laboratory" for Democratic policies. With "its Democratic governor, U.S. senators, state legislature and congressional delegation," author Harold Meyerson gushed, "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." In the Golden State, Meyerson said, "the next New Deal is in tryouts."

*LOL...and $35 Bazillion in debt...

 

[rmcrobertson]

So lemme see if I've got this right.

Grey Davis and the Dems caused the whole problem all by themselves, within two years, with bad policies on spending and business alone, and the deficit has nothing whatsoever to do with a) the economy, b) energy companies, c) irresponsibility on the parts of previous admins, d) the fact that every other state is facing the same problems, e) irresponsible tax cuts/deregulations.

George Bush the present Pres, however, is in no way whatsoever responsible for the fiscal hole that the whole country is in. The problem's entirely because of a) the economy, b) terrorists, c) irresponsibility on the parts of previous admins, d) states that can't manage their money, e) not enough tax cuts that go to the wealthy so that they can invest their money to help the rest of us, and not enough deregulation so that corporations can be free to let capitalism run for the good of us all.

OK, perfectly logical. What was I thinking.

 

[Ender]

The crisis in California is a budgetary crisis. from bad policies and the collapse of the DOTCOM market. the Dotcom market was a speculative market that was bound to crash sooner or later because there was no real product being produced. only speculation. Since calif had silicon valley, it was hit hard by that collapse, and should have taken steps to cut spending. it didn't. a shortfall of revenue and overspending led to this crisis.

Bush inherited this collapsing market and had to deal with further falling of the economy because of what happened with the twin towers. Many leading prominent economists credit Bush with softening the recesion with the tax cuts. The fiscal hole as you call it is an economic one where the Prez has limited effect. The Prez can reduce the limit of bank reserves, raise or lower taxes, try to convine the Fed to lower or raise interest rates. or go into deficit spending. Deficit spending has a limited effect and can be harmful if they last longer than two years and the deficit is large. The crisis in California is a budgetary one in which the state congress and the governor are in control of. obviously they are two different issues.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. I did have it right.

 

[Ender]

*L...liberals hate facts.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Shaw was a vegetarian, and a member of the Fabian Society, if I recall correctly. But perhaps I don't, because that means he was a variety of socialist.