5
   

Why Obama's 'New Deal' will fail in California

 
 
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 10:08 pm
I know this has been pushed out of the news cycle with the Dem (non-Obama admin it can't involve them can it?) scandal in Chicago, but I wanted to point out a California perspective.

Not a bad idea, but let's talk about the roadblocks Obama's own party will put up to this plan.

Living in CA, I like to use my former Golden State as a great example of Dem party mismanagement. Wonder why new freeways, which are greatly needed in the state, are rarely built or expanded here?

Or why new high schools cost up to $100 million each?

It starts with the EIR (Environmental Impact Reports) state regulations require. Then, public school districts have to hire private consultants to shepherd them through the state Dept. of Ed bureaucracy, which is an out of control monster itself.

Look at the costs of the Bay Bridge rebuild. Another out of control monster.

Build a new roadway on undeveloped land? Ain't gonna happen, with the power environmental groups and their lobby has in Sacramento.

Jobs? Yeah, lot of government, environmental, petty bureaucrat jobs will develop in CA with Obama's plan. But actual roadways, schools, or other improvements?

Not unless there is a change in the way the state does business...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 1,934 • Replies: 57
No top replies

 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 10:22 pm
@A Lone Voice,
It won't work anywhere, Lone Voice. Look at where it has been tried. I think Japan has tried it, and it isn't working. The Great Depression, or FDR, is Obama's model, but there is not proof it worked then, in fact 37-38 were some of the worst years of the Depression, and it was the war that brought us out of it, alot due to selling materials the couple of years before we actually entered the war.

Here is my analogy. Public Works, or government spending is like dipping into a spring fed lake with a bucket and pouring it out back into the lake or around the edge of the lake. Real economic growth requires the spring to be flowing to replenish the lake, to feed the lake, to raise the level of the lake. But if the spring is slowing down or stopping, simply dipping into the lake with no influx of new water, it gets staler and staler. You might be able to dampen the shores where it has dried up, somewhat, but doing so only increases evaporation, and the lake level drops even faster.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 11:00 pm
@A Lone Voice,
We passed prop 2 over the objections of asses like you, ALV, and we'll keep on passing things over the objections of asses like you. And if you don't like it, then try and get your side elected in numbers big enough to stop us.

Cycloptichorn
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 11:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I'd vote for Prop 2 myself but I don't see the analogy or connection here.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Dec, 2008 11:15 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

I'd vote for Prop 2 myself but I don't see the analogy or connection here.


He and I went back and forth about the merits of it for a while.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 06:54 am


Common sense impact studies before project approval and any associated
fees paid to minimize negative impact on the area are good things.

Having left wing environmental terrorist involved is a bad thing.
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 10:03 am
Just raise the State income Tax and State Sales tax on all the citizens of CA and let them solve their own ******* problems. They created their problems with liberal spending programs and now they have to pay up.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 11:14 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Just raise the State income Tax and State Sales tax on all the citizens of CA and let them solve their own ******* problems. They created their problems with liberal spending programs and now they have to pay up.


Heck, fine with me. I support and applaud this idea. So do the Democrats in CA who have been trying to raise taxes forever.

Tell it to the Republican governor, who refuses to do so, Woiyo.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 11:25 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Not my ******* problem. You voted for him, you live with him.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 12:06 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Not my ******* problem. You voted for him, you live with him.


Not I, friend. But I see what you're saying. CA does in fact have to live with who we voted for governor.

But surely you see, it's a win for me either way. We'll either raise taxes here in CA - which I support - or we'll get some federal money from Obama, paid for by raised taxes nationally - which I support. It seems to me that YOU are the one who is going to have to live with it, unless the Republicans in CA can get Ahnold to raise taxes.

Cycloptichorn
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 12:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What the ****....better get Bush while he is in mood to bail out the "tiny 3" car makers.

Unbelievable how the state of this Nation has degenerated over the greed of Corporate Executives in America and the inability of Govt to let the Capitalist System and Bankruptcy Courts strip the wealth out of those who created the current mess. That goes for State Govts who squandered taxpayer dollars and now cry for help.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 12:44 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

What the ****....better get Bush while he is in mood to bail out the "tiny 3" car makers.

Unbelievable how the state of this Nation has degenerated over the greed of Corporate Executives in America and the inability of Govt to let the Capitalist System and Bankruptcy Courts strip the wealth out of those who created the current mess. That goes for State Govts who squandered taxpayer dollars and now cry for help.


I don't disagree, though I suspect we would be at odds when it comes to proscribing the methods of repairing the situation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 05:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
But surely you see, it's a win for me either way. We'll either raise taxes here in CA - which I support - or we'll get some federal money from Obama, paid for by raised taxes nationally - which I support


How high would you raise taxes?
What would be the upper limit on taxes you would agree with?
Would you be ok with the govt taking 90% of your total worth in taxes?
Would you accept a tax rate that takes 95% of your income every payday?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 05:54 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
But surely you see, it's a win for me either way. We'll either raise taxes here in CA - which I support - or we'll get some federal money from Obama, paid for by raised taxes nationally - which I support


How high would you raise taxes?
What would be the upper limit on taxes you would agree with?
Would you be ok with the govt taking 90% of your total worth in taxes?
Would you accept a tax rate that takes 95% of your income every payday?


It depends on which services I receive in return.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 10:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

We passed prop 2 over the objections of asses like you, ALV, and we'll keep on passing things over the objections of asses like you. And if you don't like it, then try and get your side elected in numbers big enough to stop us.

Cycloptichorn


Sigh.

And the libs say the conservatives are the haters.

Like I've pointed out, I will flee this state, leaving it to your ilk as soon as taxes get high enough to make it worth uprooting my family and life. And with the crime, businesses leaving the state, and the state going bankrupt and raising taxes, I'm sure I'll be actively looking soon.

Thing about raising taxes? They can only go so high before even libs force another Prop 13. And if Uncle Sugar doesn't kick in Fed money, CA is doomed.

But being from Berkeley, you're expecting the handout?

By the way, address the issue: you never seem to get around to doing so...
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Dec, 2008 10:37 pm
@okie,
okie
Bush tried the Iraq war spending to pull the economy up but instead it is tanking. It was the war that is the cause of this financial meltdown with $2 billion a month war bill and to fore stall the recession by creating a housing bubble.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 12:10 pm
@A Lone Voice,
Don't let the door hit ya in the ass on the way out.

As for the topic, well. We'll muddle on through. Counter-balancing all your complaints are the positives which make CA one of the most desirable states to live in in the nation.

Republicans bitching about the costs of regulation or taxes is nothing new, and boring to me. There's nothing to respond to.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 01:09 pm
California is a great area, too bad the libs are running the state into the ground, cyclops.

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/12/09/afx5801514.html

"California's ability to issue debt to fund job-creating public works is also at risk if the state budget shortfall is not closed, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer told lawmakers.

California is the biggest issuer of U.S. public debt. With its finances in disarray and credit markets in turmoil, the state in recent weeks has been unable to find institutional buyers for its public works debt so state loans for current and planned infrastructure projects may be cut off as early as next week, Lockyer said.

Last month, Lockyer scaled back by two-thirds a state Department of Water Resources revenue bond deal for more than $500 million in debt because of weak institutional demand.

'There is just no demand out there among the institutional investors we need,' said Lockyer's spokesman Tom Dresslar."

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 01:15 pm
@okie,
Yup; it's time to raise taxes. The Republican's stubborn insistence on cutting taxes, always, no matter how much a deficit we face, is asinine.

It is not the Liberals who are hurting CA, it's the Republicans, who refuse to pass any budget which raises taxes...

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Dec, 2008 01:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I agree, you have to pay for it, but raising tax rates carries with it a huge risk, that it will not return the revenues expected, and could drive more commerce out of California, thus reducing future hopes of revenues.

I think the better solution is to cut spending in a dramatic fashion, cyclops. If I equate household budgeting, cutting spending is the most practical solution that works the best, and I don't think the principles of running a state is that different.

I am not that familiar, but hasn't stupid policies cost California billions, such as paying for the education and health care of illegals, just one example?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Obama's 'New Deal' will fail in California
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/08/2021 at 10:33:05