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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ajtj99 who wrote (204215)	5/26/2009 10:58:53 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

So let's say that California starts defaulting on debt obligations. They have full taxing authority. Can the loaners sue them in court, and the courts force payment? If they don't pay, will they be able to raise funds going forward? Will anyone loan them money after a default with no corrective action? Either Uncle Obama gives them taxpayer money, they raise taxes, or the state more or less shuts down. It seems that simple to me. Whichever way it unfolds, I see companies exiting the state in the future if they have to bear the burden for state spending.

To: ajtj99 who wrote (204215)	5/26/2009 11:44:31 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

ajtj, so your issue with prop 13 is that it limits increases to a level that are typically less than CPI? if so, i think that is a reasoned positioned. i'd just like to reiterate, though, that CA's problems have NOTHING to do with revenues. they have to do with spending. CA's revenues climbed faster than population and inflation and we were still running huge deficits. imho, if prop 13 didn't exist, we'd still have deficits but the spending would be that much larger. more crack doesn't solve a crack addict's problems.