Kat,

If the media feeds us what we want, then it is "who designed Michelle's gown?"


Nick, I will have to look that up?? Have not had a tv in 22 years. When I visit someone with a tv, or listen to commercial radio I am befuddled by what we as a society want to see and hear and buy.
Was is a yummy gown?

Not really

ed:brev

Edited by hknewman on 01/28/2013 19:09:51 MST.

Guess I used the wrong word, but the idea is the same. I should have said "One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter." It comes down to perspective.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”


http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/01/22/fontana-school-pd-purchases-14-ar-15-assault-weapons-to-protect-students/

They aren't called 'fries', they're called chips. The best sauce with chips is HP Brown Sauce. :-)

And you never saved our butts in WWII. The Soviets defeated Hitler. ;-)

Call them anything you lie as long as it doesn't have the word French it in. And don't forget good old gravy for dipping your chips ;)

Nick, I hear what you're saying about having states on board that take more than they give back to the economy. It is a problem world-wide. You only have to look at the EU to see the effects of a downturn in world economy on member states. None of the options are very appealing for dealing with such a situation. One option is for those who still have jobs to pay ever increasing taxes, which the tax payer is naturally not happy about. Other options for government to increase the qualification requirements for welfare, whether that be increasing the age of retirement, reducing health benefits, reducing the amount paid for each welfare subsidy, and of course cracking down on free-loaders who just don't want to find tax-paying employment. Of course, the US could try to kick California out of the union too. I guess this would mean California would run as it's own country, with it's own currency, passports, etc...The problem with most of the schemes that decrease benefits is that it also increases the already very wide gap in socio-economic inequality. This inevitably leads to more violence of all sorts (burglary, domestic and child abuse, drug abuse, fraud, and generally poorer parenting), thus also more guns and more gun violence. Of course, the best solution is to find ways to stimulate the economy, give everyone a job that pays the bills AND taxes to keep those that truly still need welfare (sick, injured, elderly folks) in a reasonable position. Maybe California could secede and then turn into a world supplier of arms of all sorts to boost it's economy. I think, given the current economic situation, it could make quite a good living out of supplying Texas, Israel and the middle east with with arms.

Edited by retropump on 01/23/2013 13:18:52 MST.

Mike, it sounds like you need a history lesson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBX0i1EIWk

(strong language)

Sorry for asking the question, my understanding of economics is not great, but according to Wikipedia "In 2008, when measured as a percentage of GDP, California had the 6th highest tax burden of the fifty states and has contributed on average well over 3.65 billion dollars per year for the last twenty years into the federal treasury than it has received in Federal services in return."

I guess it is now having a bit of a crisis, but is that good enough reason to grumble that it is now putting it's hand out for assistance? Or is our idea of social welfare that, like insurance companies, we only pay out when revenue still exceeds profits?

"I guess it is now having a bit of a crisis, but is that good enough reason to grumble that it is now putting it's hand out for assistance?"

I'm not sure that crisis is the correct term for it. Media-inflated crisis might be better. Too many politicians are playing their silly games. The state could end its financial headaches almost overnight if the politicians put their cooperative will into it.

--B.G.--

Why is California having a financial crisis?

Too many liberal spending programs?

Too many people avoiding paying taxes with loopholes?

Too many illegal immigrants?

???

Or too much of their taxes going to red states?

There is a really cool map I have seen that shows which states receive different levels of federal welfare money. It was interesting to see that the politically red states overwhelmingly receive more government assistance and pay less taxes.

Usually how you spin the numbers. Goes both ways. I would like to see the map and what they defined as government assistance and how they defined taxes.

CA, IL and NY are blue state with very large populations. I would assume they receive more Social Security and Medicare than most other states. Seems logical that they would have more people on food stamps, welfare, medicaid, etc given the large population. If just looking at percentages maybe that's not the case, but in raw dollars would be hard to imagine. I don't know the answer.

The blue states I mentioned are all high tax states and that's even after ignoring the very large unfunded pension liabilities that will have to be paid someday. I'm always amazed at how businesses have to record a liability on their balance sheet for future pension liabilities. They have to record an expense each year on the income statement for any unfunded amount. They also have to use realistic investment returns. However state and federal governments are not required to do the same.

Illinois has around 96 billion in unfunded future pension liabilities. They calculate based on 8% return (they just dropped from 8.5%) which is crazy.

CA is has around 160 billion in UFPL. They us 7.5%, so a little better. However last year the return was like 1-1.8% for some of the largest funds. A more conservative rate would be 4-5% which would put the unfunded portion at around 500 billion. Wow. If the tax payers had to pay that things would get real interesting.

Funny how the government calls businesses unethical. I'm telling you our political system is just made up of a bunch of crooks...


Deep breath, deep breath...step off the soap box....

Brad

Brad, it was, of course, on a per capita basis. When you look at that data, the southern states are in trouble if they ever really get what they think they want: less taxes and less government spending. The winners would be the urban areas. They tend to to get much less of their money back in federal gov't benefits. So I'm not sure why they want to keep supporting the rural areas.

Incidentally, Cali is a large city in Colombia, South America. Cali has never been an abbreviation for the state California. Cali is slang that is used mostly by people who can't correctly spell California.

--B.G.--

"Cali is slang that is used mostly by people who can't correctly spell California."

I thought it was what everyone called Calista Flockhart. At least that's what I called her when we were on speaking terms.....

Hmmm, the per capita federal aid that I've drummed up is interesting indeed:

1) D.C $4,656.06 per person
2) Vermont $2,873.67
3) ALaska $2,574.68
4) New York $2,301.14
5)Massachusetts 2,122.33
6)Louisiana $2,028.70
7) Tennessee $1,975.93
8) Maine $1,923.61
9) New Mexico $1,917.11
10) Mississippi $1,900.24

"Cali has never been an abbreviation for the state California. Cali is slang that is used mostly by people who can't correctly spell California."

You obviously don't know LL Cool J.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdizL4on-Rc

They assumed 8.5%??? I assume 4% for myself.

In the 1990s, there was a record bull market so 8.5% was achievable. All the (Deomocratic) politicians and labor people had to have known that the 8.5% number was not achievable long term

They have to go back and renegotiate all those pensions. If responsible politicians present the numbers to labor officials, maybe they can reach an agreement, share the burden.

But that doesn't explain today's financial problem.

And I don't think the inequitable Federal distributions are enough to resolve California's problems.

One problem is Proposition 13 that limited property taxes. Over the long term I think businesses pay less and less property tax and now you're feeling it.

"If responsible politicians present the numbers ..."

That's an oxymoron.

--B.G.--

"Calista Flockhart. At least that's what I called her when we were on speaking terms....."

In your dreams, Douglas.

--B.G.--