Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (2137)	10/10/2003 3:31:51 PM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7936

When in doubt, change the subject. The fact that Wilson had already raised spending in California by 38 percent is instructive. (I haven't checked your figures there, BTW, and as usual you didn't cite to anything to support it, but it sounds fairly close to what I have heard elsewhere so for purposes of discussion I will accept it as accurate.) Once an entity, whether it be a household or a business or a state, has already raised its spending by nearly 40 percent in a relatively short period of time, you have to wonder why there would be so many pressing priorities (there's that word again) that would necessitate (not "tempt" but "necessitate") raising spending another 40 percent. I also recall Wilson being governor for twice as many years (8) to accomplish 38 percent than Davis was when he crossed 40 percent (the numbers on Davis are closer to 50 percent for the first four years, and only reach down towards 40 percent when you include the modest rollbacks of year 5). The key thing here is that you seem to believe that spending requirements are based on revenues. For government, that is too often the case, but it shouldn't be. Spending "needs" should be independent of revenue. Let's say I decide I need a car, to get to work, to go to the store, to drive my kids to McDonald's so they can become as obese as everybody else's kids. Now, let's say that this year I have $20,000. So I decide to address this "need" of a car by buying a Honda Civic, brand new, reliable, a bit small and not so fast, but very efficient at addressing the "need" of getting from point A to point B. Now let's say I walk into work the next month and my boss says, OMD, you've been doing a great job, here's a 40K bonus. And I think, great, I now have 40K more than the 20K I used to address that car "need" last month. The Civic is ok, it gets me around, but the kids think I'm dull and it doesn't make anybody look at me with envy. Ah, but that Lexus sports coupe, now that would really turn some heads. My kids would think I'm cool, I could drive 100 mph in a 65 zone protected by 8 airbags and 10 first rate stereo speakers that I could use to listen to Gray Davis speeches on cassette. So now I sell the Civic and spend 80K on the Lexus. Only trouble is, I don't have 80K. I have the original 20K that I got back from selling the Civic, the 40K bonus, and a bank willing to loan me the other 20K. Is it a good idea for me to upgrade to the Lexus, just because my revenue went up? Then, the next year, I lose my job, my revenue goes way down, and my electric bill goes up, but dammit, that Lexus is just too cool to give up, my kids love it, my wife loves it, it still turns heads, and until the bank threatens to repossess it I am going to keep it. That, in a nutshell, is how Gray Davis governed.

To: American Spirit who wrote (2137)	10/10/2003 7:32:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

If Wilson raised spending 38% there should be less need to raise spending again, but according to your figures Davis raised it 40% (from a larger base). Also Davis continued to raise spending once the economy started to falter and revenues decline, then he lied about the extent of the deficit which was in fact several times larger then he claimed. This lie helped lead to his recall. Bush also needs to rescind his tax cuts for the rich to pay for this expensive war of his. But of course he refuses to. The biggest factor leading to the federal deficit is neither war, nor the tax cuts but rather the slowing of the economy leading to lower tax revenues. The 2nd biggest factor is increased non-war spending over the last several years. Bush shares in the responsibility for that spending. If you want to blast Bush as a spendthrift be my guess but that isn't a defense of Davis. Tim