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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (231074)	4/29/2005 2:14:21 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571929

Ted, to address your points one-by-one: - Prop. 13 was necessary to protect middle-class homeowners from paying more taxes simply because neighboring homes are being speculated upon. Besides, Prop. 13 does nothing to lower the taxes of new home buyers. Hence, Sacramento should still be raking in the dough from the housing boom. Like Ah-nuld pointed out, CA doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. - Corruption is a big factor, I'll agree, but in my opinion, the bigger waste of money is the bureaucracy. Lots of redundant agencies doing the work that half the personnel could accomplish, but of course, the public employee unions always divert attention by pointing to teachers, nurses, and police officers, which we always seem to have a shortage of. - Yeah, illegal immigration does put a drag on our state services, somewhere on the order of $5B a year in California alone according to one report. Of course, the allies of the unions are also the same ones protecting the rights of illegal immigrants. As usual, it's all about scoring political points and making someone else pick up the tab. - As for that "me-first" attitude you talk about, it's not specific to California. I've seen that a lot back in Oregon, especially from people who are quick to blame all of Oregon's recent problems on people moving from California. NIMBYism and the entitlement mentality is alive and well up and down the Left Coast. And probably nationwide as well. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (231074)	4/29/2005 10:32:16 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571929

RE:"The unions may be part of the problem in CA but they are not the biggest problem. Prop. 13 was a costly give away. There is no way the state can maintain its huge infrastructure on the amount of property taxes its residential base is generating. And I've heard all the arguments that Prop. 13 has generated a lot of growth. Personally, I think most of that growth would have happened with or without Prop. 13. Corruption is another important factor. Everywhere in CA someone has their hand out for 'a payback'.........these paybacks really make doing business in CA costly. In addition, CA is paying the price of all the cheap labor its gets from illegal immigration. Illegal immigration has contributed to many problems such as the gangs, the crowded infrastructure, the crime etc. requiring more police enforcement, social services and costly infrastructure improvements. Finally, there is a me-first attitude in CA that results from all the mismanagement and problems. People only care about themselves. That makes getting anything done just that more difficult. As I said, its really easy to blame CA's financial problems on the unions but I suspect they are not the major culprit by any stretch of the imagination." ------------------- Very good Ted...

To: tejek who wrote (231074)	4/29/2005 5:43:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571929

There is no way the state can maintain its huge infrastructure on the amount of property taxes its residential base is generating. Until recently CA spending was growing by leaps and bounds. If they needed the money for basic infrastructure they shouldn't have spent it on so many other things. From 1990 to 2001 CA state spending per person AFTER adjusting for inflation went up 25.9% cato.org As of 2003 CA's taxes where the 6th highest in the country. townhall.com "The state's fiscal problems stem directly from the massive increase in spending during Gray Davis's administration. Between 1998 and 2001, on Davis's watch, spending increased by a whopping 48 percent. Because the state was running surpluses for most of this time, a more stringent balanced-budget amendment would have done little to limit spending or solve California's current fiscal woes. Conversely, a well-designed spending limit would have halted this expansion of government and prevented the current fiscal crisis. If spending had grown by the inflation rate plus population growth since 1998, the 2003 budget would have been $14 billion less and the accumulated surpluses would have totaled over $50 billion. This would easily pay down the state debt and leave a tidy sum for tax relief." nationalreview.com Tim