Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Gray Davis

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The society before that collapsed in economic failure. I think this is a poor outcome. I prefer the society after the New Deal. Roosevelt got results.

So as a Californian and a US citizen, what do you want to see happen? What changes need to be made or are you just resigned to trust Obama and Warren Buffet and Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Originally posted by whodey
Entitlements like social security, nationalized health care, etc. Whether you favor them or not, from all indications, these entitlements are unsustainable. The experts tell us that social security and medicare/medicaid will go bust yet Obama wants us to go even further with medical entitlements. The options are, go bankrupt with the current set up, decras ...[text shortened]... of you or leave more money for yourself so that you and your famiy can take care of yourselves?

I do not oppose such entitlements. They should be evaluated on a case by case basis. If they are unsustainable they were poorly implemented and should be modified until they are sustainable. Which experts are you referring to? You are quick to suspect Buffet but you refer to unnamed experts yourself.

I am unconvinced of some of your assumptions. Can you show me why individual programs are unsustainable?

Most of my hard earned money will not go to the government in order to pay for my own insurance. If that was the problem then you would be equally opposed to insurance companies in general. Are you?

Probably not. You're probably opposed to being forced to pay for someone else's insurance. There are two parts to that; being forced, and someone else. The progressive nature of the taxation probably also bothers you.

The USA has had federal taxes on and off since 1861. In 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment was passed. In the 30's was the New Deal which was a complex package. What exactly do you object to?

Some people are unable to care for themselves even with sufficient money. There are many reasons for this. Addictions, disabilities, or simply not being raised right and not being familiar with budgeting and self-restraint, and are likely psychologically scarred as well.

In addition, such people are often unable to earn what would otherwise be sufficient money otherwise. They cannot pay for health care. What you seem to want is for rich people to have to pay less and therefore be able to get even richer and for poor people to go without. Is that an ideal situation? Not unless there's some other factor involved.

I am in favor of progressive taxation. Money has different value depending on how much of it you have, and the financial system is run by the government and enforced by government agents, e.g. allowing lawsuits and punishing theft and violence. The land people do business on is protected by government agents who die for a person's privilage to do business in peace.

The Right to Property means that you are permitted to own something, not that you're permitted to own everything by inheritance from your father and the government is obliged to protect your stuff from the sick and hunry masses. That's the kind of thing we Rebelled against in 1776.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

I am unconvinced of some of your assumptions. Can you show me why individual programs are unsustainable?

http://www.kbtx.com/money/headlines/44822447.html

It is a short article, but it gets to the point. Trustees of social security said that social security will start paying out more than it is taking in by 2016. It will be one year sooner than predicted because of the bad recession. Then the giant fund will be completly depleted by the year 2037. In addition, the trustees said that Medicare was in even worse shape. They said that if it continues as is, it will be insolvent by the year 2017.

Originally posted by whodey
So as a Californian and a US citizen, what do you want to see happen? What changes need to be made or are you just resigned to trust Obama and Warren Buffet and Arnold Schwarzenegger?

If I wanted to get involved, I'd do a careful review of every bit of spending the State does and make a wish list of what I would want to cut out. It would be reviewed and pruned once or twice and a final list of cuts determined. Once that is done we see what the budget looks like.

If we're still in the red, we look at what it is that keeps so much wealth in our state. How much of it is something that can be moved elsewhere? A lot of wealth is land, harbors, tourist areas, infrastructure, etc.

That aspect of California's wealth cannot leave. We can exaggerate the progressive nature of our taxes as much as these things make up a portion of the wealth of Californians.

Some of these things are owned by fairly poor folk, like an old couple's paid-off home. These should be lightly taxed.

Any kind of liquid wealth should be treated with respect, because it can vanish and go to Mexico or even to another state. High levels of liquid wealth and unnecessary possessions and luxuries owned or consumed should be taxed when possible, but a balance must be found in order to keep as much of that wealth in the state. This should be determined by a team of experts.

If California can no longer supply the high levels of taxes were previously did, and the tax requirements have not been lowered somehow, the Feds need to re-evaluate what they're asking from us.

A similar process should be performed at the Federal level. Some states might stop seeing as much Federal money. However the Feds should maintain a discretionary reserve they can use to shore up emerency situations.

Originally posted by whodey
You trust Obama? Why? Has he given you a reason to trust him? I would say whoever I trust they must first earn my trust. A better question to ask is, do you trust your government? Do you trust a government that steals from social security and continues a ponzi scheme that is sure to go belly up as ALL ponzi schemes do? The founding Fathers did not seem ...[text shortened]... y create such an inefficient form of government with checks and balances via all three branches?

I trust him because I trust the New Deal ideas that I believe he is probably modelling his system on. I trust him because Buffet endorses him and I've admired and respected the man since I first learned of him years ago. I trust him because his diplomacy makes sense to me. I trust him because his background gives him insight to many things the standard upper class WASP Presidents have been ignorant for a consistently long period of time. I trust him because the bits of information I've picked up and my own intuition tell me the economy's recovering, and I trust him because America chose him.

I trusted GWB too, and I don't feel my trust was completely misplaced. Some of it was, but overall I can accept his choices for the most part.

Social security can be saved. What it needs is a decrease in benefits in inflation-adjusted dollars and a raising of the age at which benefits kicked in. The age 65 was instituted in the 1930s, when life expectancy was shorter and quality of life for the elderly was lower. I also like Obama's idea of letting payroll tax kick in again at $250k of income. With come combination of these, SS can be saved. It's just that no politician has the guts to mess with this issue and when Bush tried to do it (whether his ideas were good is a different issue), they all but lynched him.

Medicare has to be revamped as part of an overhaul of the healthcare system. I'm not in favor of a single payer system by any stretch of the imagination, but we pay too much and don't get enough bang for our buck in healthcare costs. I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but we need an overhaul of the system.

There are federal entitlement programs that are a joke. As part of my job, I see every day the unbelievable abuses that exist in the Section 8 Housing Assistance program, for example. Whichever moron thought up the rules for that program left loopholes that you could fly an A-380 through.

Originally posted by whodey
Forget about Warren Buffet and Barak Obama for a second. This goes much further back than these two clowns. They are just playing the same games. Do you think government is on the right track piling up such debt as they have over the years?

In short, are you happy as a Californian being $16 billion in debt? Are you happy as an American citizen being. ...[text shortened]... g money like we are doing now? Show me a country who has dome similar things that has survived.

I am O.K. with debt as long as it's paid back on the schedule agreed upon and the borrowing of which was carefully analyzed by trained professionals as being in the interest of the state or nation. There is nothing wrong with debt in itself. The problem is if the debtor does not make the agreed upon payments.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.kbtx.com/money/headlines/44822447.html

It is a short article, but it gets to the point. Trustees of social security said that social security will start paying out more than it is taking in by 2016. It will be one year sooner than predicted because of the bad recession. Then the giant fund will be completly depleted by the year 2037. In addi ...[text shortened]... even worse shape. They said that if it continues as is, it will be insolvent by the year 2017.

Social security has been poorly implemented and needs to be modified. I have not studied it in depth so I can't give specific recommendations.

Low birthrates are easy to handle and helps with another issue. Increase legal immigration. There are many skilled workers who cannot get here legally. If we expect people to live longer change the age you get it. If people only live to 70 and are elderly by 50 they should get to retire earlier than people who live to 100 and don't really become old until 70.

The Boomer problem is a temporary bump. Social Security needs to be set up to handle such situations. It will happen again and again as birthrates rise and fall.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
. Which experts are you referring to? You are quick to suspect Buffet but you refer to unnamed experts yourself.

Here is an article that pretty much sums up my concerns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032001820.html?hpid=topnews

"In the first independent analysis of Obama's budget proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that Obama's policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels.....Tax collections, meanwhile, would lag well behind spending, producing huge annual budget deficits that would force the nation to borrow nearly $9 trillion over the next decade - 2.3 trillion more than the president predicted.......the CBO predicts that deficits under his policies would exceed 4% of the overall economy over the next 10 years, a level White House budget director Peter R. Orszag yesterday acknowledged would "not be sustainable". The result, according to the CBO, would be an ever-expanding national debt that would exceed 82% of the overall economy by 2019 - double last years level - and threaten the nation's financial stability. 'This clearly creates a scenario where the country's going to go bankrupt. It's almost that simple.' said Senator Judd Gregg, the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who briefly considered joining the Obama administration as commerce secratary. 'One would hope these members would wake somebody up'.

Here is another handy web site regarding the ND.

http://www.brilling.com/debt_clock/

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I trust him because I trust the New Deal ideas that I believe he is probably modelling his system on. I trust him because Buffet endorses him and I've admired and respected the man since I first learned of him years ago. I trust him because his diplomacy makes sense to me. I trust him because his background gives him insight to many things the stan mpletely misplaced. Some of it was, but overall I can accept his choices for the most part.

There are two problems with trusting other people. The first problem is trying to determine if they mean well. The other issue is if they know what's best or know what the #$$# they are doing!!. I think we can both agree that Obama is no economist and is more of an ideologue and should be suspect for no other reason than this. In addition, his projections continue to be off target in terms of unemployement numbers and the percentage rate for the recovering economy. As for Buffet, this gives me the most hope, however, I don't trust him as you. Perhaps he is stating what he believes, but the truth of the matter is that we have entered uncharted territory with such a massive debt. Not even Warren has the expertise to decide such matters as this. In fact, who does?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I am O.K. with debt as long as it's paid back on the schedule agreed upon and the borrowing of which was carefully analyzed by trained professionals as being in the interest of the state or nation. There is nothing wrong with debt in itself. The problem is if the debtor does not make the agreed upon payments.

I suppose that this is where we part ways. I'm not OK with debt. I suppose it is a necessary evil, however, that does not change the fact that debt is nothing more than a noose around your neck and should be used with caution as a result. So where is the caution today?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Social security has been poorly implemented and needs to be modified. I have not studied it in depth so I can't give specific recommendations.

Low birthrates are easy to handle and helps with another issue. Increase legal immigration. There are many skilled workers who cannot get here legally. If we expect people to live longer change the age y ...[text shortened]... set up to handle such situations. It will happen again and again as birthrates rise and fall.

Agreed, it needs to be reformed. However, who gonna do it? The real fear I have with entitlement policies is that they become sacred cows. Case in point is when Bush tried to begin dialogue to reform Social Security. They basically tarred and feathered him for doing so. Reform Social Security? Yea, good luck with that.

Originally posted by whodey
http://cbs5.com/local/Governor.Schwarzenegger.Davis.2.652751.html

So how about it, is Arnold Schwarzenegger just as bad or worse than Gray Davis? Lets compare the two. Since Arnold was elected in 2003, with a recall vote that cost the tax payers some $43 million, Governor Schwarzeneggar and company have run up a $14 billion deficit. In addition, Gray Da ...[text shortened]... ses the governor proposed. I hope it sends a message, but more than likely will change nothing.

One of the problems in California is that there is a basically a one-party legislature where the republicans are not competitive anymore.

Any government must with what a very roomy Democratic majority. If only the Republcians had learned how to win in California rather than taking the hardliner's approach, the competition would help the state and the governors with more room for decision making.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
[b]One of the problems in California is that there is a basically a one-party legislature where the republicans are not competitive anymore.

That pretty much sums up Washington even though there are Republicans that are still there.

Originally posted by whodey
That pretty much sums up Washington even though there are Republicans that are still there.

True, although it's only been true in Washington for about 3 years, while it's been true in California for about 13 years... which explains some of California's problems with responsibility and responsiveness.