NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?

Well, it's nice to know my pending unemployment is entertaining someone. I'm going to go try and choke to death on my teaching credential now.

I think, seeing as it's an extreme situation, they should legalize weed, but only allow California to grow it. That would turn our economy around in a hurry. Weed and avocados for everyone!

They shouldn't, but they will.

Let that be another lesson to the prudent.

They shouldn't, but they will.

Let that be another lesson to the prudent.

...is the lesson "put bombs along the Monterey/Fresno County borders cut off those free-loading SoCalites when you have the chance"? Because, learned.

Well?

I guess it depends on the probable outcomes and what it could end up costing. Say you let California fail and it causes mass migrations to other states. One problem state could turn into several.

...is the lesson "put bombs along the Monterey/Fresno County borders cut off those free-loading SoCalites when you have the chance"? Because, learned.

What ever happened to the idea of splitting the state in two? Since you live there what is your opinion on the problem?

Let that be another lesson to the prudent.

Instead of "Tea Parties" we should have just say fuck it and everyone stop paying their bills. We will show them. :p

What ever happened to the idea of splitting the state in two? Since you live there what is your opinion on the problem?

It comes up from time to time. Nothing serious though.

It's kind of along the lines of bitching about your neighbor and talking about moving but never do......

Maybe we should have a Civil War? Won't that simulate the economy?

It's kind of along the lines of bitching about your neighbor and talking about moving but never do......

Well that's what happens most of the time. However sometimes neighbors get crazy and someone ends up in jail and the other dead.

no...civil wars just tend to destroy infrastructure. FOREIGN wars stimulate the economy.

no...civil wars just tend to destroy infrastructure. FOREIGN wars stimulate the economy.

But we already have two foreign wars.

Maybe we should have a Civil War? Won't that simulate the economy?

Hmpf. Reduces job seekers but it increases handicapped costs. Increases jobs and income in munitions, military clothing and supplies. Creates jobs for reconstruction after.

Sure why not?

Maybe we should have a Civil War? Won't that simulate the economy?

Only in California please. I just had my yard redone. It wouldn't look good with dead bodies and shell casings laying all over.

But we already have two foreign wars.

Why stop at two? It actually looks like we are getting into number 3 with Somalia. So maybe that's Obama's plan?

...is the lesson "put bombs along the Monterey/Fresno County borders cut off those free-loading SoCalites when you have the chance"? Because, learned.

I thought the southern bit was where all the movies came from.

Well that's what happens most of the time. However sometimes neighbors get crazy and someone ends up in jail and the other dead.

True. But in the case of two states. It flairs up when there are issues such as a drought, etc. When things are fine; people forget about the idea.

Only in California please. I just had my yard redone. It wouldn't look good with dead bodies and shell casings laying all over.

Hey Soylent Green and money for scrap metal!

Weed and avocados for everyone!

Weed-acados...someone should make that happen.

The IOU thing is old news. Came and went.

Only in California please. I just had my yard redone. It wouldn't look good with dead bodies and shell casings laying all over.
Have you seen the documentary about the last one. (http://www.insmogandthunder.com/)

Weed-acados...someone should make that happen.


That seems plausible. THC is soluble in oil after all.

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that California's budgetary woes were due to the fact that the state constitution requires the legislature to have a supermajority to pass a budget, and that this, combined with partisan factionalism, meant that neither party could pass a budget, since it would require agreement with the opposition that neither was willing to attempt. I dunno about Washington but you certainly can't ascribe the Californian budgetary crisis as "mismanagement by Democrat leadership" ... given that the Governator is a Republican.

Anyway! I digress. I think that the Federal government has a responsibility to see to the fiscal wellbeing of its constituent states. "With great power comes great responsibility", to quote Uncle Ben.

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that California's budgetary woes were due to the fact that the state constitution requires the legislature to have a supermajority to pass a budget, and that this, combined with partisan factionalism, meant that neither party could pass a budget, since it would require agreement with the opposition that neither was willing to attempt. I dunno about Washington but you certainly can't ascribe the Californian budgetary crisis as "mismanagement by Democrat leadership" ... given that the Governator is a Republican.

Anyway! I digress. I think that the Federal government has a responsibility to see to the fiscal wellbeing of its constituent states. "With great power comes great responsibility", to quote Uncle Ben.

Excuse me if there is a misunderstanding however Washington state is under pure Democrat leadership and was only pointing at Washington State's problems stemming from the Democrats. The typical overspending and other bs. Not because of the failure to pass budgets. In Washington for example it's bloated budgets that are the problem. California on the other hand has a different issue going on and not exactly the same as Washington. So hopefully that clears it up.

Hey Soylent Green and money for scrap metal!

But, Soylent Green is people, I tells ya!

PEOPLE!

Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that California's budgetary woes were due to the fact that the state constitution requires the legislature to have a supermajority to pass a budget, and that this, combined with partisan factionalism, meant that neither party could pass a budget, since it would require agreement with the opposition that neither was willing to attempt. I dunno about Washington but you certainly can't ascribe the Californian budgetary crisis as "mismanagement by Democrat leadership" ... given that the Governator is a Republican.

Anyway! I digress. I think that the Federal government has a responsibility to see to the fiscal wellbeing of its constituent states. "With great power comes great responsibility", to quote Uncle Ben.

This bailout would make more sense, as it is the government bailing out it's own holdings, not a private business.

Edit: Also, your avatar. It frightens me.

I thought the real problem with California was prop 13.

Also, say the federal gov. does bail them out. Should it be allowed to set Cal. taxes and oversee spending?

No, I think we need to let the states handle their own budgetary shortfalls, if that means increasing taxes then that is how it should work. If people leave the state to avoid the increase in taxes that allows you to decrease expenditures as you have less people taking advantage of state programs.

I found a link that points out California has the same problem as Washington State. The budget growing out of control. Overspending.....


http://www.rapp.org/archives/2003/12/the_real_california_budget_problem/

I thought the real problem with California was prop 13.


Prop 13 is the neat scapegoat. But people forget what it was like before it. Any project desired by the state, hey just raise property taxes! Got a shortfall, hey just raise property taxes! I remember one elderly couple where their property taxes doubled(or was it tripled) and the value of the property didn't change much.

Kill prop 13? I don't think it would make things better much. But I can see some adjustments being done.

Excuse me if there is a misunderstanding however Washington state is under pure Democrat leadership and was only pointing at Washington State's problems stemming from the Democrats. The typical overspending and other bs. Not because of the failure to pass budgets. In Washington for example it's bloated budgets that are the problem. California on the other hand has a different issue going on and not exactly the same as Washington. So hopefully that clears it up.

Ah right, I got 'em mixed up.

Also, your avatar. It frightens me.

It is Zimmy from Gunnerkrigg Court (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php). And I'm glad to hear that. :D

Also, say the federal gov. does bail them out. Should it be allowed to set Cal. taxes and oversee spending?

One could argue that this would be a good thing, since California finds itself unable to pass a budget currently ... or a bad thing, given that the circus in Washington is likely to be less connected with the needs of Californians as a whole than with the needs of the nation as a whole; that's their job, after all. The California senate is supposed to deal with Californian problems ... but yeah, on the gripping hand if they've screwed up this badly perhaps they need someone to hold their hand.

There's an argument that I recall, generally advocated by people who think that their taxes are going out-of-state, that says that basically taxes raised in one state should only be spent in that state. Which seems to me to be kind of missing the point of taxation, which is (theoretically at least) to take funds from everyone and turn it into infrastructure, security and social services to benefit everyone. Also it would mean that places like Alabama would remain rural hellholes forever, which is hardly to be desired.

No, they shouldn't.

Prop 13 is the neat scapegoat. But people forget what it was like before it. Any project desired by the state, hey just raise property taxes! Got a shortfall, hey just raise property taxes! I remember one elderly couple where their property taxes doubled(or was it tripled) and the value of the property didn't change much.

Kill prop 13? I don't think it would make things better much. But I can see some adjustments being done.

I think the idea was that if prop 13 was repealed it would change the way people voted and spending would be reigned in. Maybe that wouldn't happen though, I don't really know enough about Cal politics.

And of course Calpers - which I do know a fair bit about - seems hell bent on destroying the state anyway.

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?

Should the government protect the well-being of its citizens, and the stability of the country? Hmm, let me think it over, and I'll get back to you.

No, I think we need to let the states handle their own budgetary shortfalls, if that means increasing taxes then that is how it should work. If people leave the state to avoid the increase in taxes that allows you to decrease expenditures as you have less people taking advantage of state programs.
Hey there ... where you been all my secondlife?

considering as how it was the influence and example from the federal level that got those states into trouble in the first place, absolutely yes.

but ONLY for their social programs, critical tangible infrastructure, education, health care, things like that, not just a "here you go kid, have another night on the town".

Only in California please. I just had my yard redone. It wouldn't look good with dead bodies and shell casings laying all over.

Psh... come on... just call it art!

It is Zimmy from Gunnerkrigg Court (http://www.gunnerkrigg.com/index2.php). And I'm glad to hear that. :D

Hmm... I'd've guessed Michael Jackson... or Zombie Michael Jackson.

Wait, I take that back... regular Michael Jackson is already at least that scary... no need for your avatar to be a zombie.

And yes, I did just use a double contraction.

No, I think we need to let the states handle their own budgetary shortfalls, if that means increasing taxes then that is how it should work. If people leave the state to avoid the increase in taxes that allows you to decrease expenditures as you have less people taking advantage of state programs.

Except that the people who leave are the ones with the means to move to another state and be successful, [teachers, lawyers, doctors, businessmen]. Thereby shrinking you tax base even further.

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. ;)

What SHOULD happen is that the entire state representation should be sacked immediately and replaced in a special election, and the state should be forced to tighten its belt. As much as I hate to say it, all non-essential programs (that is, programs that don't deal with infrastructure, feeding people, providing shelter, medical care and education) should be suspended until they're back in the black.

What SHOULD happen is that the entire state representation should be sacked immediately and replaced in a special election, and the state should be forced to tighten its belt. As much as I hate to say it, all non-essential programs (that is, programs that don't deal with infrastructure, feeding people, providing shelter, medical care and education) should be suspended until they're back in the black.

I agree, but we both know what most states will deem as 'non-essential programs'.

Education, welfare, medicare, police and fire departments, etc.

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?
Having attended the Teabagger Party yesterday, and having watched a lot of news recently, and having seen Glenn Beck on YouTube, I now know that there is a massive populist movement of folks who want their states to secede from the union. I think this provides an ideal answer to your question.

Having lived my whole life in Yankee states, I'm a bit tired of my tax dollars being poured into states like Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Texas, where folks rant about how they totally hate the federal government and how they're so totally going to leave the Union some day. So leave already. Secede. If you hate the fed so much, then STOP TAKING OUR GODDAM MONEY.

Having attended the Teabagger Party yesterday, and having watched a lot of news recently, and having seen Glenn Beck on YouTube, I now know that there is a massive populist movement of folks who want their states to secede from the union. I think this provides an ideal answer to your question.

Having lived my whole life in Yankee states, I'm a bit tired of my tax dollars being poured into states like Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Texas, where folks rant about how they totally hate the federal government and how they're so totally going to leave the Union some day. So leave already. Secede. If you hate the fed so much, then STOP TAKING OUR GODDAM MONEY.

This.

It should be noted too that California has been paying in more than it gets back for years, so you could argue that we're owed it.

It should be noted too that California has been paying in more than it gets back for years, so you could argue that we're owed it.

Same for my home state (Minnesota).

Right now we're in a recession. Everybody is hurting right now. But there are many states that, even during the prosperous times, take more than they give. I'd say it's pretty fucked up to say that now that shit is hitting the fan we should stop allowing "giver" states to get help from the federal government; those states have been paying more in taxes than they receive in federal money for DECADES, after all, so why the hell shouldn't they be entitled to a little back now?

Same for my home state (Minnesota).

Right now we're in a recession. Everybody is hurting right now. But there are many states that, even during the prosperous times, take more than they give. I'd say it's pretty fucked up to say that now that shit is hitting the fan we should stop allowing "giver" states to get help from the federal government; those states have been paying more in taxes than they receive in federal money for DECADES, after all, so why the hell shouldn't they be entitled to a little back now?

Mah state gotz no monies to helpz.:(

We're still far to concerned with locking up our ex-Gov.

I wonder what's the biggest drag on California. Is it the large quantities of illegal immigrants, the insane quantities of people in jails, or is it companies just aren't making as much money as they used to to be able to support the state?

Also, if California got as much money back per dollar of taxes as the Red States do, we'd have no problems at all.

No, the federal gov't should not bail out the states. California has been screwing itself for many, many years now and no one had the guts to make the hard choices needed to bring the budget under control. The state legislature will not learn anything if there are no consequences. Californians in general will learn nothing if there are no consequences. You made the bed, so now lie in it. I say the same thing to Washington State and every other state that has gone into debt.

Hmm... I'd've guessed Michael Jackson... or Zombie Michael Jackson.

Wait, I take that back... regular Michael Jackson is already at least that scary... no need for your avatar to be a zombie.

And yes, I did just use a double contraction.
Too dark to be Micheal Jackson... :p

concerning the OP?

I thought portions of the 'Stimulus package' were supposed to go to each state?

Having attended the Teabagger Party yesterday, and having watched a lot of news recently, and having seen Glenn Beck on YouTube, I now know that there is a massive populist movement of folks who want their states to secede from the union. I think this provides an ideal answer to your question.

Having lived my whole life in Yankee states, I'm a bit tired of my tax dollars being poured into states like Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Texas, where folks rant about how they totally hate the federal government and how they're so totally going to leave the Union some day. So leave already. Secede. If you hate the fed so much, then STOP TAKING OUR GODDAM MONEY.

I agree that my state (Alaska) should stop taking your money. I think we've been drunk on petrol dollars and fed cash and need to wake up to the reality that is around us. I also think that we need more taxes. Why? Because the amount of debt that we have got as a nation. If you are an American that is your debt, and I think the sooner we take ownership of that the sooner we can fix the obvious problem. I have representation in government perhaps not the reps I would like, but that is the nature of Representative Democracy.

Having attended the Teabagger Party yesterday, and having watched a lot of news recently, and having seen Glenn Beck on YouTube, I now know that there is a massive populist movement of folks who want their states to secede from the union. I think this provides an ideal answer to your question.

Having lived my whole life in Yankee states, I'm a bit tired of my tax dollars being poured into states like Mississippi, Alaska, Alabama, and Texas, where folks rant about how they totally hate the federal government and how they're so totally going to leave the Union some day. So leave already. Secede. If you hate the fed so much, then STOP TAKING OUR GODDAM MONEY.

Texas is a Tax donor state.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States
you also left out states like Maine eating up the ebenfits of federal Tax dollars.
Your generalization of southern sates being benefits leeches and New England states being Tax donors is false.

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?

No. If a state gets itself into a mess, it is wrong for their to be direct federal help to bail them out. However, I think that poor states in terms of poverty levels not public debt, should get additional roads and schools funding.

No. If a state gets itself into a mess, it is wrong for their to be direct federal help to bail them out. However, I think that poor states in terms of poverty levels not public debt, should get additional roads and schools funding.

here is what we do. The federal government assumes the debt.
Then revokes California's status as a state removing their representatives and such. California then becomes a federally administered territory until its people pay back the federal government.

Texas is a Tax donor state.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8229012/Tax-Donor-or-Contrib-States

I guess they must go back and forth a lot, because I've read reports that say the opposite.

Or perhaps it's all in the maths.


you also left out states like Maine eating up the ebenfits of federal Tax dollars.

Well yeah, I "left out" Maine when I was talking about states that continually bluster about wanting to secede from the union all while they suck up tax dollars. Seeing as how I've spent a great deal of time in Maine and have not really noticed any thriving secession movement up in those parts.


Your generalization of southern sates being benefits leeches and New England states being Tax donors is false.
Impressive. You manage to both completely miss the humor AND also miss the point!

I'll bet you also can pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time.

What ever happened to the idea of splitting the state in two? Since you live there what is your opinion on the problem?

I still think it's a grand idea, but the desert we call L.A. would be dependent on Colorado forever for wayer. Which is kind of their problem, in my opinion.

I thought the southern bit was where all the movies came from.

It is. They can keep them.

Weed-acados...someone should make that happen.

The IOU thing is old news. Came and went.

Guacamole that gets you baked. Dear god, it's beautiful.

No, I think we need to let the states handle their own budgetary shortfalls, if that means increasing taxes then that is how it should work. If people leave the state to avoid the increase in taxes that allows you to decrease expenditures as you have less people taking advantage of state programs.

I don't think so. The people who will leave the state will likely be people who actually have a little money that could be taken away. Those left will be the ones who need state programs, with less tax money to fund them.

I agree, but we both know what most states will deem as 'non-essential programs'.

Education, welfare, medicare, police and fire departments, etc.

Exactly--if you remove "police and fire departments". Around here, police and firefighters are still getting raises and bonuses, still retiring at 90% of their income because, you know, every single officer who retires has some niggling wrist pain that can be called on for disability pay.

It should be noted too that California has been paying in more than it gets back for years, so you could argue that we're owed it.

People seem to have short memories that way, don't they?

Seriously, they're gonna miss us when they can't find any avocados around the Super Bowl.

Guacamole that gets you baked. Dear god, it's beautiful.


"These chips just keep getting better and better!"

Simple question really. Should the US government step in and bail out US states that have run themselves into the ground? California is one that top's people's minds when thinking of this. They are about to give out IOU's. It makes me chuckle however it's a dead serious problem. The state of Washington is in the same boat really. Mismanagement by our Democrat leadership and years of it have destroyed the state budget. So should the Fed's overburdened as they are bail out states now? If not how should states handle a collapse? How say you....?
They should let California and Washington go bankrupt.......or better yet, sell them to Canada and then put a lot of pressure on Oregon to join them. :D

"These chips just keep getting better and better!"

err... we ran out of chips an hour ago...

If the US government was to not bail them out, would this not raise major questions as to the extent to which the states of America are really 'united'? Surely patriotism demands assisting other apple pie-eating freedom lovers, no matter how stupidly their economies have been run by the local elites?

If the US government was to not bail them out, would this not raise major questions as to the extent to which the states of America are really 'united'? Surely patriotism demands assisting other apple pie-eating freedom lovers, no matter how stupidly their economies have been run by the local elites?

Actually, the US government has not bailed them out before, and nobody questioned it.

States are technically still sovereign, which is why they can't be placed into bankruptcy: unlike municipalities.

It's a big whatever tho'. The idea that California won't be bailed out is ridiculous. Too many rich folks rely upon Cali bonds for tax free income. Now, if it was W.VA or WYO, might be a different story.

If the US government was to not bail them out, would this not raise major questions as to the extent to which the states of America are really 'united'? Surely patriotism demands assisting other apple pie-eating freedom lovers, no matter how stupidly their economies have been run by the local elites?

But that just isn't the American way. It doesn't involve guns or killing natives or any of the fun stuff.

Actually, the US government has not bailed them out before, and nobody questioned it.

States are technically still sovereign, which is why they can't be placed into bankruptcy: unlike municipalities.

It's a big whatever tho'. The idea that California won't be bailed out is ridiculous. Too many rich folks rely upon Cali bonds for tax free income. Now, if it was W.VA or WYO, might be a different story.

Thanks for the info. This is the sort of stuff modules on American politics don't cover in detail, so thats interesting insight.

I found a link that points out California has the same problem as Washington State. The budget growing out of control. Overspending.....

Ironically states where the legislature are Republican increase spending slightly more than where the legislature is controlled by Democrats.

If the US government was to not bail them out, would this not raise major questions as to the extent to which the states of America are really 'united'? Surely patriotism demands assisting other apple pie-eating freedom lovers, no matter how stupidly their economies have been run by the local elites?

It is not really that their economy has been ran stupidly(it has)
But that their government, in particular the budget, has been ran stupidly.

Ironically states where the legislature are Republican increase spending slightly more than where the legislature is controlled by Democrats.

more than 11-15% a year? Where are these ones?

more than 11-15% a year? Where are these ones?

Its quite possible that is was more than 11-15% per year but its based on averages of red and blue of state expenditures rather than particular states. I'm looking for my book, The Right Nation, to source it.

Its quite possible that is was more than 11-15% per year but its based on averages of red and blue of state expenditures rather than particular states. I'm looking for my book, The Right Nation, to source it.

It isn't a red Vs. blue state matter.
It is a issue of Californian republicans vs Californian democrats.
New york Democrats are more then capable of managing their state without running it to bankruptcy.
Given they had some issue New York did not, namely Goldman-Sachs deciding to Short their California state Bonds. But, that was not likely to cause a state to go Bankrupt, and seems closer to Goldman Sachs realizing California was a bad investment and it was time to get out.

ah yes, but it was california REPUBLICANS who ran the state economy down, by gambling it away, just as they did the federal. at any rate, yes, too much of the rest of america's economy depends on california's too.

democrates tax and spend on things that are actually useful and bennifit real people.
republicans tax and spend it on themselves bennifitting no one. not even themselves.
(nor the real economy).

ah yes, but it was california REPUBLICANS who ran the state economy down, by gambling it away, just as they did the federal. at any rate, yes, too much of the rest of america's economy depends on california's too.

democrates tax and spend on things that are actually useful and bennifit real people.
republicans tax and spend it on themselves bennifitting no one. not even themselves.
(nor the real economy).

To say that business leaders who were democrat did not exist is silly.
not to mention the state of California's democrat controlled legislature was free to "regulate" as they saw fit, and provided they could get 3 republicans to vote with them they could tax as they saw fit too.

ah yes, but it was california REPUBLICANS who ran the state economy down, by gambling it away, just as they did the federal. at any rate, yes, too much of the rest of america's economy depends on california's too.

democrates tax and spend on things that are actually useful and bennifit real people.
republicans tax and spend it on themselves bennifitting no one. not even themselves.
(nor the real economy).

I don't know if I would take it that far, but I am very amused by the conservative stance that spending trillions of dollars on the infrastructure of a foreign country is not socialism while spending on the infrastructure of our country IS socialism.

To say that business leaders who were democrat did not exist is silly.
not to mention the state of California's democrat controlled legislature was free to "regulate" as they saw fit, and provided they could get 3 republicans to vote with them they could tax as they saw fit too.

ah yes, and i denyed this how?
so "buisness leaders" who are members of one party are just as retarded (as far as bannifiting anyone but themselves, or for that matter even themselves in many cases) as those who affiliate with another.

none the less, it was the pseudoconcervative intrests in certain counties who did indeed gambol away their county's assets on the stock market.

ah yes, and i denyed this how?
so "buisness leaders" who are members of one party are just as retarded (as far as bannifiting anyone but themselves, or for that matter even themselves in many cases) as those who affiliate with another.

none the less, it was the pseudoconcervative intrests in certain counties who did indeed gambol away their county's assets on the stock market.

So what your saying is business leaders in both parties gambled away their money on the stock market?
but your looking for a way to blame a specific group that's not in power in the government?

here is what we do. The federal government assumes the debt.
Then revokes California's status as a state removing their representatives and such. California then becomes a federally administered territory until its people pay back the federal government.

I do not like this idea at all. Californians have the right to have deficit spending. They have the responsibility of dealing with the ramifications. They are a sovereign people and they can make their own choices. The Federal government must not be permitted to take away a state's status as a state except for wierd circumstances like the civil war and reconstruction (I am not really sure what happened then but I am sure it was exceptional).

Your point that perhaps the Federal government could loan California money is an option but I am not sure if it is a good one. If the Federal government loaned money to California it would interfere with the California municipal bond market. That market should be enough to finance California's debts. California and California municipal bond investors have some choices to make. I do not think that Washington DC should have anything to do with it.

I do not like this idea at all. Californians have the right to have deficit spending. They have the responsibility of dealing with the ramifications. They are a sovereign people and they can make their own choices. The Federal government must not be permitted to take away a state's status as a state except for wierd circumstances like the civil war and reconstruction (I am not really sure what happened then but I am sure it was exceptional).

Your point that perhaps the Federal government could loan California money is an option but I am not sure if it is a good one. If the Federal government loaned money to California it would interfere with the California municipal bond market. That market should be enough to finance California's debts. California and California municipal bond investors have some choices to make. I do not think that Washington DC should have anything to do with it.

The problem is they are unable to get more debt, or it will be at an ungodly interest rate.
And will have to pay through the nose for it.
The revoking of statehood status should be in agreement with California, I see write it as a treaty between the Governor and president and have both the governments ratify it.
Id like it because it would teach further states a lesson, namely don't run your state like Enron.

The problem is they are unable to get more debt, or it will be at an ungodly interest rate.


Bernanke will be a buyer of last resort. I guarantee you. (Then it will be 'swapped' with the treas. just like maiden lane. That's how it'll get pulled off. The old Quantitative Easing switcheroo).

Bernanke will be a buyer of last resort. I guarantee you. (Then it will be 'swapped' with the treas. just like maiden lane. That's how it'll get pulled off. The old Quantitative Easing switcheroo).

I just want it to be with a penalty namely temporarily losing statehood. Otherwise other states will be like why am I not running a deficit I can throw that on the Federal government when it almost bankrupts me.