oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to kilingspam
Re: This is what massive Federal tax cuts will get you
said by kilingspam  :
You are forgetting that California got ripped off with the fake energy crunch costing the state $38 billion dollars.
The judge only ordered $2 billion to be paid back.
What is wrong with that picture?
If someone raided your bank account of $36 billion dollars kinda hard to balance a budget huh?
Responsible tax cuts are fine if the Federal does it without corruption. Monies I pay in taxes to the feds that should be sent right back are going to pay for contracts signed for rebuilding Iraq. These fed contracts where handed out without any bidding. Hummmm, lets just hand a contract over to Cheneys old company without getting ANY QUOTES! Must be nice to spend my hard earned monies that way!
States are having to do these things because the Bush Admin (Feds) are ripping off every single american, or should I say all but the richest 1% that gave millions for Bush to be handed his seat by a court ruling and not by our votes.
Anyway, would one expect anything different from his brother Jeb?
The energy costs aren't part of the budget. They are paid through higher energy rates. The energy distributors like Edison International and SDG&E are the ones who took the hit and now are getting paid back through higher rates. Edison International just announced a price rollback for large energy users because they have reclaimed a portion of their losses and it was large energy users who took the biggest increases (I pay, even as a residential user up to .25/kWh for electricity »Re: Tough Love for California? ).
The $50 billion (as there was initially a $12B surplus was solely caused by excessive spending including 44,000 new gov't jobs during what was supposed to be a hiring freeze. Revenue exceeded both population and inflation in the state while spending increases DOUBLED population and inflation.
The ones who raided the state for billions was Davis and his cronies in the legislature.
As for Halliburton, the contract was temporary (only to fight oil fires and assess damage to the Iraqi oil infrastructure and repair it if necessary, NOT FOR REBUILDING ALL OF IRAQ) and they were the only U.S. corporation who had the resources to do it. It wasn't some scheme...the gov't simply had no alternatives. said by Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, the commander of the Corps of Engineers:
No other contractor could satisfy mission requirements in the time. available
Remember, the thought at the time was that there would be literally hundreds of oil fires which turned out not to be the case and thus there is no billions being paid out. They money paid is only for work done. Little work means about $50 million so far of a possible max of $7 billion. Hardly a conspiracy. Since then, the U.S. Army has put other contracts up for bid. »www.enr.com/news/bizlabor/archiv···0411.asp
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports
[text was edited by author 2003-08-26 19:20:04] |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to kilingspam
said by kilingspam :
You are forgetting that California got ripped off with the fake energy crunch costing the state $38 billion dollars.
The judge only ordered $2 billion to be paid back.
What is wrong with that picture?
If someone raided your bank account of $36 billion dollars kinda hard to balance a budget huh?
California did not lose 36 billion to a fake energy crisis. The crisi cam about because first it botched the deregulation by limiting the amount the utilities could charge then they locked themselves into long term contracts right before the prices went up.
Yes, there were some shenanigans, but most of the money lost was due to bad deregulation and foolish contracts.
quote:
Responsible tax cuts are fine if the Federal does it without corruption. Monies I pay in taxes to the feds that should be sent right back are going to pay for contracts signed for rebuilding Iraq. These fed contracts where handed out without any bidding. Hummmm, lets just hand a contract over to Cheneys old company without getting ANY QUOTES! Must be nice to spend my hard earned monies that way!
States are having to do these things because the Bush Admin (Feds) are ripping off every single american, or should I say all but the richest 1% that gave millions for Bush to be handed his seat by a court ruling and not by our votes.
Anyway, would one expect anything different from his brother Jeb?
Even accepting every word you say as true (Haliburton got a sweetheart contract, the tax cut mysteriously involved taking money from poor americans and giving it to rich americans), what does that have to do with state budget deficits? |
|
kilingspam
join:2001-04-30
San Jose, CA
|  reply to oliphant5
You are forgetting that California got ripped off with the fake energy crunch costing the state $38 billion dollars.
The judge only ordered $2 billion to be paid back.
What is wrong with that picture?
If someone raided your bank account of $36 billion dollars kinda hard to balance a budget huh?
Responsible tax cuts are fine if the Federal does it without corruption. Monies I pay in taxes to the feds that should be sent right back are going to pay for contracts signed for rebuilding Iraq. These fed contracts where handed out without any bidding. Hummmm, lets just hand a contract over to Cheneys old company without getting ANY QUOTES! Must be nice to spend my hard earned monies that way!
States are having to do these things because the Bush Admin (Feds) are ripping off every single american, or should I say all but the richest 1% that gave millions for Bush to be handed his seat by a court ruling and not by our votes.
Anyway, would one expect anything different from his brother Jeb? |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to oliphant5
Sorry, that's not reality. Go ahead and cut those benefits...and see who gets handed their asses in the state legislature elections.
Sure, cut expenses for other things-but those Medicare benefits are going to run the whole country out of business when the Boomer generation starts retiring and needing those benefits. We are already experiencing this on a national level...oh wait, new stadiums for the football team are more important.
(God knows I won't comment on your "election" for governor....sheesh!) |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| reply to garagerock
said by garagerock :
said by joebear29 :
Yes, but tax revenues increase as well.
If the states had held spending increases to population growth + inflation, they would not be in fiscal crisis.
Yes, in the laboratory that sounds great.
In the real world, people who need Medicare aren't going to tolerate any caps on that spending, especially when the older generation has a LOT of political clout (AARP, anyone?) and vote in large numbers. Health care issues alone are going to bankrupt the whole country if we're not careful...and wishing it all away isn't going to work.
So-raise taxes to continue benefits, or cut benefits? Both are political landmines for politicians.
Sure, in California combined increases of population and inflation was 21%. Revenue increased 25%. Spending increased 40%. Now they want another $10 billion in new taxes. And you want to tell me that this isn't a spending problem?
Yes...you cap the friggin' spending. Knock of with the INCREASES in benefits. Etc.
--
Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack McKokkov Motorsports |
|
