California Spends $100+ Billion

[Danoff]

Oh yes.

Yesterday voters in california turned out in droves and borrowed the credit cards of the richest in this state and spent over $100 Billion dollars (over the next 30 years) without batting an eye.

You'd think we'd shop around before spending $100 Billion, you'd think that kind of money wouldn't get dropped on just anything. But these people spent maybe an hour (maybe) reviewing the paragraph long summaries of each of these spending bills and decided it was worth the price.

I don't know about you, but if I was going to spend $100 Billion, I'd want to take my time.... but that's just me.


Here's a summary of what we approved:
1A - "Protection" of the gas tax. Our gas tax had been used to fund things other than roads (which is what it was promised to be spent on). We "fixed the glitch" and reserved it for the roads. That's all fine and dandy but people should be aware that it will create a shortfall in other budget areas.
1B - Highway/Airport/Port funding. $20 billion or so to fix roads (as if 1A didn't do enough). They threw in some language about helping with our ports to keep them secure from terrorists - but that was just a way to get votes. That could have/perhaps should have been done federally since it's a national security issue.
1C - Housing for everyone - Another few billion to provide housing to just about everyone in a special category (battered women, veterans, diabled people, poor people, you name it).
1D - School/Facility Bond - Another chunk of change to improve our schools (it's for the children). No mention of the fact that this state already has the highest taxes in the nation. Where did all of THAT money go? Who knows? What we know is that we need to borrow more money that we don't have (we'll pay it back somehow). In the meantime, look at the smiling children.
1E - Disaster, Flooding Bond - Earthquakes, floods, basically Katrina in LA, that's what this proposition seeks to protect against. Never mind that we have the highest taxes... oh wait, I already said that.
83 - Sex Offender - Let's get those sex offenders off the streets (nevermind that they were put there by the prison system that let them out). Oh by the way, we want to spend a ton of money on a GPS tracking system for them. Taxes? What taxes? We didn't collect any taxes.
84 - Drinking water - Who could vote against drinking water? Someone who thinks it shouldn't cost billions to provide drinking water. Someone who thinks that we already pay taxes... there I go again.

What we didn't vote for
90 - Eminent Domain Protection - No, of course we want the government to be able to seize property from anyone and give it to whoever they want. Where do you think you are? America? HA!

85 - Parental notification of Abortions - This state is about as pro-choice as it gets. 👍
86 - Cigarette Tax - We decided not to make smoking unbelievably expensive.
87 - Oil Tax - We decided not add a new tax for oil companies in the state (I still can't figure out how people know to vote that down but not figure out to vote for prop 90).
88 - Education Funding - I guess we figured $10 billion or whatever it was was enough for the kids... for now.
89 - Public Campaign Funding - Use tax dollars to fund smear ads for politicians? Where's the problem? This was about as obvious a "no" as they come. No wonder it lost by a margin of 50%.


All totalled, we spent $40 billion now, and it will be over $100 billion by the time we pay it back. I hope people are enjoying it. It's not every day you get to take $100 billion from your neighbors and spend it on a short list of items with only a page or two description for what you're spending it on.

Edit: For the record, this state collects roughly $100 billion in taxes each year. So yesterday we spent an entire year's worth of taxes in one shot. That is, ON TOP OF, what we were already spending.

 

[Swift]

1C - Housing for everyone - Another few billion to provide housing to just about everyone in a special category (battered women, veterans, diabled people, poor people, you name it).

I think veterans shouldn't have to worry about housing. Especially those that were hurt during service.

85 - Parental notification of Abortions - This state is about as pro-choice as it gets. 👍

Right, that's cool. But, are the parents responsible for the children's actions? If they are, I can't see how it's fair not to let the parents know. That's just my view point.

 

[Danoff]

I think veterans shouldn't have to worry about housing. Especially those that were hurt during service.

They don't, because they get pensions from the FEDERAL government since they served the FEDERAL government at war.

Right, that's cool. But, are the parents responsible for the children's actions? If they are, I can't see how it's fair not to let the parents know. That's just my view point.

What do you mean?

 

[Swift]

They don't, because they get pensions from the FEDERAL government since they served the FEDERAL government at war.

What about cops and state troopers?

What do you mean?

I mean that parents are responsible for the actions of their children while they are minors. Generally speaking. Not to mention the law demands that they take care of them. So, why is it they can get an abortion and not say anything? Especially if they are under the statute limit in that state? Meaning, 12, 14 or whatever.

I get the whole privacy thing. But it's pretty much saying I can do whatever I want and you still HAVE to take care of me, by law.

 

[Solid Lifters]

I voted for 1C, though I wish there were some ways tax voters had more control over it. Overall, I decided that it was better to have it than not have it.

We have A LOT of homeless people in this state. Homeless that don't deserve to be out on the streets. We arrest them when they become a problem at a HUGE cost to tax payers. Housing them will create jobs and save us money in long run, plus it cleans the streets up. Let's face it, walking through a barrage of homeless people ain't no fun. However, our town does a good job of placing them where they need to go.

 

[Danoff]

What about cops and state troopers?

I don't remember seeing them listed.

I mean that parents are responsible for the actions of their children while they are minors. Generally speaking. Not to mention the law demands that they take care of them. So, why is it they can get an abortion and not say anything? Especially if they are under the statute limit in that state? Meaning, 12, 14 or whatever.

I get the whole privacy thing. But it's pretty much saying I can do whatever I want and you still HAVE to take care of me, by law.

Well this prop wouldn't have changed that. It was only notification of abortion, not permission. We struck down the parental permission prop last time around.

By law, parents are partially responsible for their children's behavior. If your kid goes to school, grabs a pencil and stabs someone in the eye, you don't go to jail. That being said, parents are responsible for providing food, clothing, education, and housing to their kids. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have them. But this state has decided that abortion is a personal decision, one that can be kept confidential and doesn't require parental consent, even if you're under age.

Maybe it's because some kids get pregnant by their parents. Maybe it's because some parents are pro-life and would pressure their kids to bring the fetus to term. There are a lot of reasons why abortion is personal.

edit:

I voted for 1C, though I wish there were some ways tax voters had more control over it. Overall, I decided that it was better to have it than not have it.

We have A LOT of homeless people in this state. Homeless that don't deserve to be out on the streets. We arrest them when they become a problem at a HUGE cost to tax payers. Housing them will create jobs and save us money in long run, plus it cleans the streets up. Let's face it, walking through a barrage of homeless people ain't no fun. However, our town does a good job of placing them where they need to go.

We have a lot of homeless in this state because this state is more generous to the homeless than just about any other (and we have great weather). Who's to say they don't deserve to be in the streets? That's their choice. They chose to spend their money on whatever it was they spent it on (booze, drugs, etc.), they chose their line of work (begging), they chose to live in CA... they get to choose whether they want to live in the streets.

I agree that walking through a bunch of homeless isn't fun. But this isn't going to stop that. Giving them free housing is a good way to call the rest of the nation's homelss over here, encourage people to quit their jobs, and they'll still be standing in the street begging for money (because people reward that behavior by giving it to them).

Plus, it's not your money to spend. That's partially my money you just spent on your pet cause. If you want to take care of the homeless, use your own wallet next time.

 

[Sage]

I’ve already vented my frustration with the vote against Prop 90 here – I thought that that Prop was a shoehorn for victory (duh?), but I guess not. Apparently, 53% of our voters are morons.

And as I noted there, I’m not surprised all these bond measures got passed – in California, if it’s taxable, why not? If it makes you feel all warm and cuddly inside and you can’t directly see the payment you have to make, then it’s probably going to get voted in.

 

[FoolKiller]

Well this prop wouldn't have changed that. It was only notification of abortion, not permission. We struck down the parental permission prop last time around.

By law, parents are partially responsible for their children's behavior. If your kid goes to school, grabs a pencil and stabs someone in the eye, you don't go to jail. That being said, parents are responsible for providing food, clothing, education, and housing to their kids. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have them. But this state has decided that abortion is a personal decision, one that can be kept confidential and doesn't require parental consent, even if you're under age.

Maybe it's because some kids get pregnant by their parents. Maybe it's because some parents are pro-life and would pressure their kids to bring the fetus to term. There are a lot of reasons why abortion is personal.

I agree with Swift on this (on an abortion issue - NEVER!). I don't know what the regulations are on medical procedures in California, but I know in Kentucky that a non-emergency medical procedure cannot be performed without parental permission/notification. When I was in seventh grade I got hit under the eye with a tennis racquet and was bleeding like crazy (so it seemed). I wasn't anywhere near bleeding to death or even needing stitches so the ER doctors stood around until my father could be contacted by phone.

The same goes for cosmetic procedures. Parents have to give permission under the age of consent. I think this should apply to abortion as well. If we can't trust a 14-year-old girl to judge whether she needs bigger boobs then why do we trust her to decide if she wants to carry a fetus to term?

But California law may differ on this. I just think the parental involvement in abortion should be the same as it is in any other non-emergency medical procedure. I would even accept someone with legal permission from a parent to grant a medical procedure (I can't remember the legal term). I know my mother handed a bunch of those out to friends and family after my tennis racquet incident.

 

[Swift]

I agree with Swift on this (on an abortion issue - NEVER!). I don't know what the regulations are on medical procedures in California, but I know in Kentucky that a non-emergency medical procedure cannot be performed without parental permission/notification. When I was in seventh grade I got hit under the eye with a tennis racquet and was bleeding like crazy (so it seemed). I wasn't anywhere near bleeding to death or even needing stitches so the ER doctors stood around until my father could be contacted by phone.

The same goes for cosmetic procedures. Parents have to give permission under the age of consent. I think this should apply to abortion as well. If we can't trust a 14-year-old girl to judge whether she needs bigger boobs then why do we trust her to decide if she wants to carry a fetus to term?

But California law may differ on this. I just think the parental involvement in abortion should be the same as it is in any other non-emergency medical procedure. I would even accept someone with legal permission from a parent to grant a medical procedure (I can't remember the legal term). I know my mother handed a bunch of those out to friends and family after my tennis racquet incident.

That's exactly what I mean from an even BETTER viewpoint then my original statement. Well said! 👍

come to think of it. Getting spirituality out of the discussion totally. From a scientific standpoint, an abortion is very much like getting a wart removed or a nose job. So why is it different in the law?

 

[Danoff]

I think this topic deserves it's own thread. I'll make one.

 

[Swift]

I think this topic deserves it's own thread. I'll make one.

Zalright.

BTW, what are the sales tax rates in California?

 

[Danoff]

Zalright.

BTW, what are the sales tax rates in California?

8+% sales tax, and up to 10% income tax.

 

[Swift]

8+% sales tax, and up to 10% income tax.

Good grief!!! They should've have to even have property taxes at those rates!

 

[Danoff]

Good grief!!! They should've have to even have property taxes at those rates!

That's what you'd think. But they do... and they're biiiig.

 

[Swift]

That's what you'd think. But they do... and they're biiiig.

Man, I can understand why you would make a big deal out of the 100 Billion then. Sheesh.

 

[FoolKiller]

And to think that I complain about 6% sales tax.

 

[Solid Lifters]

We have a lot of homeless in this state because this state is more generous to the homeless than just about any other (and we have great weather). Who's to say they don't deserve to be in the streets? That's their choice. They chose to spend their money on whatever it was they spent it on (booze, drugs, etc.), they chose their line of work (begging), they chose to live in CA... they get to choose whether they want to live in the streets.

I agree that walking through a bunch of homeless isn't fun. But this isn't going to stop that. Giving them free housing is a good way to call the rest of the nation's homelss over here, encourage people to quit their jobs, and they'll still be standing in the street begging for money (because people reward that behavior by giving it to them).

Plus, it's not your money to spend. That's partially my money you just spent on your pet cause. If you want to take care of the homeless, use your own wallet next time.

You have a very ignorant view of homeless people. Not all choose to be there. Some have full time jobs. And the real reason why California has such a huge homeless population is a direct result of our lack of housing which is causing the price of housing to be so damn high.

Again, building and placing these people in homes can stimulate the economy, save tax dollars and make our state a safer and better place to live.

 

[Swift]

You have a very ignorant view of homeless people. Not all choose to be there. Some have full time jobs. And the real reason why California has such a huge homeless population is a direct result of our lack of housing which is causing the price of housing to be so damn high.

Again, building and placing these people in homes can stimulate the economy, save tax dollars and make our state a safer and better place to live.

I don't think Danoff's view of homeless is ignorant. he gets that not all the homeless want to be there. But the sheer fact that to be single and homeless and have the government take care of you is at times much easier then the "standard" life. Well, it's certainly more free.

I don't get how it'll save tax dollars by giving people homes for free though. Could you explain that one?

 

[Danoff]

You have a very ignorant view of homeless people.

How is yours better informed? What information do you have that I don't?

Not all choose to be there. Some have full time jobs. And the real reason why California has such a huge homeless population is a direct result of our lack of housing which is causing the price of housing to be so damn high.

Why would you have a full time job in LA that doesn't offer you an efficiency apartment, when you can have the same full time job in Barstow and have a two bedroom apartment?

Why would I want to provide housing to people so that they can have a full time job in a place they can't afford to live?

What percentage of homeless people do you think have full time jobs? If so, why do they not dissappear during the day, when they should be at their job?

I'll grant you that a handful might work. I don't know that they don't. What I do know is that many of them look like they cannot possibly be employed anywhere. They look like they haven't taken advantage of one of many free places to shower or visited the salvation army/goodwill/charity x for clothes (probably because the salvation army doesn't help drunk people).

Here's what I can tell you. Offering them free housing (with someone else's money I might add), does not encourage them to be more productive. Putting them in jail just might. At least it's a more philosphically sound response to the fact that they're abusing public property.

Again, building and placing these people in homes can stimulate the economy, save tax dollars and make our state a safer and better place to live.

It will attract homeless, encourage people to stop working (or make less than a certain amount), cost billions, and do nothing to reduce begging (or poverty related crime, since they do still have to pay for drugs afterall).

I'll tell you what can stimulate the economy, putting them in jail/not giving them handouts. That'll get them either back to work, or off the streets (helping local businesses). I'll tell you what will save tax dollars, not building a bunch of free housing for people to abuse. Do you know what would make the state a safer place to live? Putting the people committing crime in JAIL.

I absolutely hate your solution. "They're irritating, let's give them money, maybe they'll go away." Giving someone money is the best way to keep them around.

Again, next time you want to be charitable and help the homeless, please feel free to use as much of your money as you like.

 

[Pupik]

Ha ha, our Eminent Domain Law (Ammendment 8) passed. Luckily, the old people that swarm the polls here in Florida hate taxes. That's why all the old snowbirds live here, no state income tax, just a 6% sales tax, and property taxes that vary from city to city (by some margin, though). And there's exemptions up the wazoo on what part of your property value can be taxed, and it's only taxed at the original value of your home when purchased (which means the people next to me who bought their home in 1961 pay about 80% less than I do, but it prevents seniors and retirees from getting tossed out of their homes from taxes just becuase the market spiked).

Everything that included extra taxation (that we were aware of) was soundly defeated in state and my county's election. A 1% increase in sales tax was for public transportation was shot down...I voted no: Let the people who actually use it pay extra, never mind it's already paid for by my property taxes, gasoline taxes, federal income taxes, etc. Nobody in South Florida will take the bus rather than drive, unless it's cheap-as-in-free, which wasn't part of the measure.

Historically in these parts, the best way to stimulate government spending seems to be through bond measures; let the homeowners pay for one bond after another has been paid off, and the millage rate stays the same. This way, nobody feels the difference.