Calif. Aid Request Spurned By U.S.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

Washington Post article

 

Let me get this straight: California doesn't have the political will to raise taxes or cut spending to balance their budget so they want the Federal government to bail them out. WTF!

 

That will be a great precedent to get started. NY can then drop its income and sales taxes and just let Washington pay for everything. Actually, as a NYer I kind of like this idea. Maybe we can get rid of our property taxes too while we're at it.

[Booster4324]

Washington Post article

 

Let me get this straight: California doesn't have the political will to raise taxes or cut spending to balance their budget so they want the Federal government to bail them out. WTF!

 

That will be a great precedent to get started. NY can then drop its income and sales taxes and just let Washington pay for everything. Actually, as a NYer I kind of like this idea. Maybe we can get rid of our property taxes too while we're at it.

 

Does a meltdown of the government mean you get to fire them all and start over?

[X. Benedict]

Washington Post article

 

Let me get this straight: California doesn't have the political will to raise taxes or cut spending to balance their budget so they want the Federal government to bail them out. WTF!

 

That will be a great precedent to get started. NY can then drop its income and sales taxes and just let Washington pay for everything. Actually, as a NYer I kind of like this idea. Maybe we can get rid of our property taxes too while we're at it.

 

Bailing out state budgets will do lasting harm to our system of federalism.

[Magox]

First off, I'd like to say that I support the decision of not bailing out California. I believe they are taking the right approach in cutting off spending as opposed to raising taxes (for now). In the short term, there will be a lot more job losses, the slashing of the welfare program will cause more pain and overall, there will be a negative deteriorating impact on their economy.

 

However, what I find to be funny and somewhat hypocritical is that the same people who supported the administration in all the other bailouts, cradle the administration in not bailing out California. Why? Because of the blind support that has been afforded to this presidency. To me, the comments coming out of California sound very familiar to the alarmist warnings that what we had heard before, like "fiscal meltdown" or "less than 50 days away from a meltdown of state government." or "After June 15th, every day of inaction jeopardizes our state's solvency and our ability to pay schools and teachers and to keep hospitals and ERs open," or "A fiscal meltdown by California or any other large state or municipality would surely destabilize the U.S., if not worldwide, financial markets," .

 

Ring a bell? Comments very similar to this one were made about TARP and GM.

 

Having said that, I support the idea of not bailing out California, I'm guessing the "bond vigilantes" and the strong words and possible actions from our foreign debtholders may have had something to do with this possible decision.

[DC Tom]

So give the CSEA 80% of the state, the other 20% to the federal government, and screw the bondholders who are just irresponsible speculative predatory lenders anyway.

 

I mean, that's what a bailout is supposed to be, right?

[X. Benedict]

However, what I find to be funny and somewhat hypocritical is that the same people who supported the administration in all the other bailouts, cradle the administration in not bailing out California. Why? Because of the blind support that has been afforded to this presidency. To me, the comments coming out of California sound very familiar to the alarmist warnings that what we had heard before, like "fiscal meltdown" or "less than 50 days away from a meltdown of state government." or "After June 15th, every day of inaction jeopardizes our state's solvency and our ability to pay schools and teachers and to keep hospitals and ERs open," or "A fiscal meltdown by California or any other large state or municipality would surely destabilize the U.S., if not worldwide, financial markets," .

 

Ring a bell? Comments very similar to this one were made about TARP and GM.

 

Having said that, I support the idea of not bailing out California, I'm guessing the "bond vigilantes" and the strong words and possible actions from our foreign debtholders may have had something to do with this possible decision.

 

I don't really see the hypocrisy in supporting an intervention by the Federal Reserve and Treasury to buy assets (though troubled) to protect liquidity and

not supporting a Federal intervention to supplement a state's budget shortfall based on absolutely no assets.

[Magox]

I don't really see the hypocrisy in supporting an intervention by the Federal Reserve and Treasury to buy assets (though troubled) to protect liquidity and

not supporting a Federal intervention to supplement a state's budget shortfall based on absolutely no assets.

So the whole premise of your argument is that California doesn't have assets and that the banks and GM do?

 

Are you sure about that, in regards to California not having assets?

 

The argument for bailing out GM had nothing to do with ensuring liquidity to the markets. It was a bailout that had everything to do with job losses.

 

Let's just say that I am going to play along with your argument, which is incorrect if I am understanding you properly, what would the difference be from bailing out GM and bailing out California?

[X. Benedict]

So the whole premise of your argument is that California doesn't have assets and that the banks and GM do?

 

Are you sure about that, in regards to California not having assets?

 

The argument for bailing out GM had nothing to do with ensuring liquidity to the markets. It was a bailout that had everything to do with job losses.

 

Let's just say that I am going to play along with your argument, which is incorrect if I am understanding you properly, what would the difference be from bailing out GM and bailing out California?

 

How'd GM get into this? Of course GM has assets.

That's what bankrupcy is, right? Protecting your remaining assets from creditors.

 

I do think the TARP was the least bad option.

 

What assets are there in a state budget shortfall?

 

Either way, you are the one who is arguing it is hypocritical to agree with you.

[Magox]

How'd GM get into this? Of course GM has assets.

That's what bankrupcy is, right? Protecting your remaining assets from creditors.

 

I do think the TARP was the least bad option.

 

What assets are there in a state budget shortfall?

 

Either way, you are the one who is arguing it is hypocritical to agree with you.

Who said GM didn't have assets?

 

Btw, California does have assets, just like every state does. The argument that was made by the administration for GM was that if they weren't bailed out, millions of jobs would of been lost causing a new round of "panic" for the markets and now California is making a similar argument today. There really isn't too much of a difference between the two.

 

The main reason why this presidency is having a tougher time in bailing out California is because of the pressure that is being applied by the "bond vigilantes" and foreign debtholders, because of our national debt.

[Kelly the Dog]

The main reason why this presidency is having a tougher time in bailing out California is because of the pressure that is being applied by the "bond vigilantes" and foreign debtholders, because of our national debt.

Or because it's a state with the seventh largest economy in the world and not a company.

[/dev/null]

Obama should offer to bailout California. Consider how much leeway the federal government has over companies that took TARP money

 

If Obama bails out California, he can exercise his will and declare Prop 8 invalid

[Magox]

Or because it's a state with the seventh largest economy in the world and not a company.

umm

 

What point are you trying to make, that they should because they are the seventh largest economy? or that they shouldn't because they are not a company?

 

whoever believes that the national deficit didn't play a role in this possible decision is fooling themselves.

[X. Benedict]

Btw, California does have assets, just like every state does.

 

Help me out here. This is how I see it....California wants the Federal Government to guarantee their Muny bonds for a budget that there is no hope

in balancing in the near future. What assets exactly would the federal government hold here?

 

If California defaults....what happens to US bonds?

 

 

(Didn't Mayor Koch want something similar in the 70's for New York City?)

 

 

My premise was that bailing out State budget shortfalls and guaranteeing state debt is potentially damaging to our federal system and should be avoided.

 

I guess I don't see the contradiction that you do.

[Kelly the Dog]

umm

 

What point are you trying to make, that they should because they are the seventh largest economy? or that they shouldn't because they are not a company?

 

whoever believes that the national deficit didn't play a role in this possible decision is fooling themselves.

 

Because they are the seventh largest economy in the world, the federal government shouldn't be bailing them out, which they won't, and the state will make some smart and some stupid cuts to work it out themselves.

[Magox]

Help me out here. This is how I see it....California wants the Federal Government to guarantee their Muny bonds for a budget that there is no hope

in balancing in the near future. What assets exactly would the federal government hold here?

 

If California defaults....what happens to US bonds?

 

 

(Didn't Mayor Koch want something similar in the 70's for New York City?)

 

 

My premise was that bailing out State budget shortfalls and guaranteeing state debt is potentially damaging to our federal system and should be avoided.

 

I guess I don't see the contradiction that you do.

I am not disputing that bailing out California is a bad idea. I all ready stated that it was, what I am saying is that there is very little distinction between bailing out GM and bailing out California. The decision to bailout GM was about saving jobs, California is making the same argument.

 

Also, I would argue that there is very little hope in the US government getting back their money in the GM bailout, wouldn't you agree?

 

The problem with this argument is that we both agree in not bailing out California, the reason why I made my post was the hipocrisy in defending the decision of GM's bailout from this administration, but also defending this presidencies decision to possibly not bailout California.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that many people would be in favor of bailing out California if this administration would of signaled that it was possibly going to do so. The reason why they are signaling that they won't, has very little to do with any sort of moral dilemna's, it is strictly about our national deficit.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I am not disputing that bailing out California is a bad idea. I all ready stated that it was, what I am saying is that there is very little distinction between bailing out GM and bailing out California. The decision to bailout GM was about saving jobs, California is making the same argument.

 

I see a big difference in the two. The GM bailout was necessary to save jobs not only at GM but throughout the auto industry. The end of GM would have spelled the end of many auto suppliers and would have had an major impact on all other auto manufacturers who rely on the same suppliers for parts.

 

The California crisis could be resolved by the state legislature increasing taxes and fees and/or cutting services in order to balance their budget. Every state is suffering under the economic downturn. Should all of them just do business as usual and have the Federal government pick up the difference? States would no longer have to raise taxes or cut spending. All they would have to do is act irresponsibly and have the Fed balance their books for them.

[Magox]

I see a big difference in the two. The GM bailout was necessary to save jobs not only at GM but throughout the auto industry. The end of GM would have spelled the end of many auto suppliers and would have had an major impact on all other auto manufacturers who rely on the same suppliers for parts.

 

The California crisis could be resolved by the state legislature increasing taxes and fees and/or cutting services in order to balance their budget. Every state is suffering under the economic downturn. Should all of them just do business as usual and have the Federal government pick up the difference? States would no longer have to raise taxes or cut spending. All they would have to do is act irresponsibly and have the Fed balance their books for them.

GM was necessary because it would save jobs. Ok

 

So what do you think California cutting services and costs entail?

 

JOBS!! and lots of them.

 

GM had a failed business model, they were losing Billions of dollars even when the economy was supposedly healthy. When the economy went under, it just exasperated their situation even more so. The economy is the biggest issue that is working against California. Property, income and Capital gains taxes are big sources of revenue for California, so when the economy tanked, California felt the effects more so than the average state.

 

This is the moral dilemna that the government faces now, since it opened up the pandora's box of bailing out failed businesses.

 

So let me get this straight, bailing out a failed business is ok, but not a U.S state?

 

gotcha

[pBills]

GM was necessary because it would save jobs. Ok

 

So what do you think California cutting services and costs entail?

 

JOBS!! and lots of them.

 

GM had a failed business model, they were losing Billions of dollars even when the economy was supposedly healthy. When the economy went under, it just exasperated their situation even more so. The economy is the biggest issue that is working against California. Property, income and Capital gains taxes are big sources of revenue for California, so when the economy tanked, California felt the effects more so than the average state.

 

This is the moral dilemna that the government faces now, since it opened up the pandora's box of bailing out failed businesses.

 

So let me get this straight, bailing out a failed business is ok, but not a U.S state?

 

gotcha

 

 

If they bail them out, are they going to replace the powers that be with people who can run the state?

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

GM was necessary because it would save jobs. Ok

 

So what do you think California cutting services and costs entail?

 

JOBS!! and lots of them.

 

GM had a failed business model, they were losing Billions of dollars even when the economy was supposedly healthy. When the economy went under, it just exasperated their situation even more so. The economy is the biggest issue that is working against California. Property, income and Capital gains taxes are big sources of revenue for California, so when the economy tanked, California felt the effects more so than the average state.

 

This is the moral dilemna that the government faces now, since it opened up the pandora's box of bailing out failed businesses.

 

So let me get this straight, bailing out a failed business is ok, but not a U.S state?

 

gotcha

 

No, my argument is that California HAS THE MEANS to solve its own problem. They just lack the political will to solve it themselves. That's a big difference from GM.

[finknottle]

Let's just say that I am going to play along with your argument, which is incorrect if I am understanding you properly, what would the difference be from bailing out GM and bailing out California?

 

Michigan will be up for grabs in 2012, and blame Obama if they lose their jobs. California is safely democratic in the national elections no matter what happens.