Alaska Darin Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 My point was that money could spent elsewhere. That it's not always the union fault even though the non-thinkers believe that to be so. It's not as simple as "we're going to take money we've allocated on a highway project and divert it to schools or someplace else". Construction projects take a ridiculous amount of planning/infrastructure to get them off the ground. The money they could divert would only be a portion of what has been spent to get the project to the point of putting crews on scene (Enviro/engineering/licensing/permits/supplies/etc). If the state did that, they would basically piss away all of the previous work they'd already done, making the road project significantly more expensive when they finally did do it because of duplication of effort. School funding in the United States has never been a problem. Allocation and priorities certainly, but not the amount of money tossed at the issue. I know that wasn't your argument but I love repeating the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 That doesn't seem to be the blowhard case that is being made.....thinking that getting rid of 90% of regulation is the moral way to proceed as our friend is advocating by returning to the Guilded Age......when we had child labor, no wage controls, a government run by graft and monopolies, and women were begging for temperance because if their husbands were alcoholics they didn't like the idea of lying on their backs to feed their children, not to mention Jim Crow, Lynch Mobs, and Pinkertons and bilking the natives out of their land...... This nation would have boomed if it was driven by regulated capital or not. There was no greater deposit of virgin natural resources and cheap land in the world at the time. Brazil had cheap/free land? not sure about Argentina...but I don't think there was serious land reform in Brazil until the 1930's. You seem to be arguing with your self. On one hand you dismiss the prosperity of the US as a lucky break of natural resources,despite a exploitive, oppressive from of government,then you apologize for Brazil because it only got"land reform" in the 1930s. Why did the US not need this "land reform"? Maybe because we got it right the first time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I just remember the Rogers and Hammerstein musical about it. Ahh, yes. Who could ever forget the classic: SAAAAAAN-Ta-Rem where the pirahna come nipping in the rain. Keep your livestock dry, or you will cry and neeeeeever see them once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 My point was that money could spent elsewhere. That it's not always the union fault even though the non-thinkers believe that to be so.Oh really? Two of my brothers are truck drivers and members of their respective unions. One had to take a 10% paycut and the other 5% and a weeks vacation. It was that or both companies go under. The union had a choice...loss of all the jobs or the paycuts. Don't tell me union don't over inflate their value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 SAAAAAAN-Ta-Rem where the pirahna come nipping in the rain. I had a pirahna when I was a kid. Fed it guppies and goldfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I'm just really curious because for the life of me I cannot see how all the fans of socialism, who see more government as a solution, cannot see that the states that are currently more in tune with socialism are failing faster. Strangely enough what is their solution? Cut the budget, spend less, and let the private sector bring money back to the state. How could this not be obvious that the states with the biggest budgets per capita are the same states failing? Honestly, I would be open to reading how big gov't works in a big liberal utopia. I just cannot see how it survives. It would be nice if you added some data to support what you blather about. The reason states with big budgets are in trouble is because the national economy is in trouble. When people get laid off tax revenues go down, and states are required to balance their budgets. Big states with big budgets get big news. It's how things work. As for the private sector, they are the ones laying people off. It will be a bit before they bring money back to the state... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Why did the US not need this "land reform"? Maybe because we got it right the first time? No contradiction. The Homestead Act broke up about a quarter of the habitable land in the US into bite sized plots for the asking. This pretty much killed hopes of continuing with a plantation or hacienda system in the US. This was intentional reform and regulation. Brazil didn't have it (at least not from what I remember of my S. American history, which isn't my strong suit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I had a pirahna when I was a kid. Fed it guppies and goldfish Didn't feed it any froggies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 It would be nice if you added some data to support what you blather about. The reason states with big budgets are in trouble is because the national economy is in trouble. When people get laid off tax revenues go down, and states are required to balance their budgets. Big states with big budgets get big news. It's how things work. As for the private sector, they are the ones laying people off. It will be a bit before they bring money back to the state... The problem is that the parasites that sit in the state capitals don't want to cut spending, just raise taxes. Thank god there are >33% republicans in the CA legislature or CA would already be empty. Lay off about 70 % of the bureaucrats in Sacramento. They even have a Commission on Commissions there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 The problem is that the parasites that sit in the state capitals don't want to cut spending, just raise taxes. Thank god there are >33% republicans in the CA legislature or CA would already be empty. Lay off about 70 % of the bureaucrats in Sacramento. They even have a Commission on Commissions there. :wallbash: This requires further grants and studies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Didn't feed it any froggies? Nah, i fed it off the dollar menu....dozen guppies or half dozen gold fish for a $1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 It would be nice if you added some data to support what you blather about. The reason states with big budgets are in trouble is because the national economy is in trouble. When people get laid off tax revenues go down, and states are required to balance their budgets. Big states with big budgets get big news. It's how things work. As for the private sector, they are the ones laying people off. It will be a bit before they bring money back to the state... http://13oclock.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/s...ection-results/ (A better comparison would be one which compared deficits with control of the state legislature.) To see the deficits as a percentage of the general fund, see table 1: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Government is getting bigger And Leon is getting Laaaaarger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 http://13oclock.wordpress.com/2009/02/01/s...ection-results/(A better comparison would be one which compared deficits with control of the state legislature.) To see the deficits as a percentage of the general fund, see table 1: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711 Throw this in the mix....2005 most Red States are getting a return on their federal dollar above burden. Texas is close to a wash $.97 cents back for every federal dollar taxed. New York and California, Illinois almost a 20% loss per capita. http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm The deep south may be okay with deficits....but they have their mouths firmly on the gov tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 The reason states with big budgets are in trouble is because the national economy is in trouble. Spending in California has been out of control for some time, mostly because of services to illegals who either send their money home or use it to buy Laker tickets. The national economy obviously hurts, but by no means is it the sole reason California is in trouble, nor the root cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RLflutie7 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Spending in California has been out of control for some time, mostly because of services to illegals who either send their money home or use it to buy Laker tickets. The national economy obviously hurts, but by no means is it the sole reason California is in trouble, nor the root cause. This is the real reason California is in trouble. Illegals are sending their wages out of the country. That's why low wages will always destroy an economy. Even if the money stayed in California, it wouldn't help much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Are you crazy? If we had more money think about how much educated our children would be... You're sentence structure sure proves your point. If we only had spent $2,000 more per student in your school, maybe you would have written this. If we had more money, think about how much more education our children would receive. I guess you just proved you are from Stupid Nation. People like you equate more money to better education. That relationship is not true. D.C. schools spend more per student than most other communities and they are failing miserably. As a side point, the 1,500 students in the D.C. school voucher program are doing very well. But since those schools are private and not beholden to the teachers union, they are stopping the program after these students are finished. So you tell me who has the best interest in providing these students a good and safe education? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 This is the real reason California is in trouble. Illegals are sending their wages out of the country. That's why low wages will always destroy an economy. Even if the money stayed in California, it wouldn't help much. Remittances are largely a red herring. It is the expansion of state services. It is a simple fact that the poor consume more in state spending than they pay - and that is the way we intend it. Somebody gets more than they put in, and we don't want it to be the rich. California's encouragement of illegal immigration (at the state level) has artifically expanded the ranks of the poor. This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Throw this in the mix....2005 most Red States are getting a return on their federal dollar above burden. Texas is close to a wash $.97 cents back for every federal dollar taxed. New York and California, Illinois almost a 20% loss per capita. http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm The deep south may be okay with deficits....but they have their mouths firmly on the gov tit. Yep. What is so "new" about gov't stimulus? Now is the time for the dead beat states to start paying back for their "leg up" at the expense of the benevolent states. Oh, wait... Now that under burdened states stand a chance to actually start "buying a round"... They gotta run home and cry: "No new taxes!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Oh... And the even strange part is that those northern rust belt states (that built the benevolence off of their industry) is losing the amount of representation in gov't... Quite the joke I imagine amongst the free-loading states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts