View topic - Examples of Presidential Leadership by President Obama • Redscape

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

14 May 2012, 3:04 pm

archduke

where the clear implication you are trying to make is that the teachers being fired for being gay is related to the right to work aspect of the state. Which is patently wrong

.

Archduke, I'm quoting from a gay blog, which I stated earlier. Their claim is that "you can be fired for being gay in Alabama" because there are no federal protections and because Alabama is a right to work state. A legislation which some clam should be called right to get fired for any old reason. And again, the blogger claims that could be for being gay.
You're the guy who claims that the teachers union wouldn't have that happen. Since you havn't posted an example of the union actually stepping up a defence like that, or a policy saying that they would. (I couldn't find one either), you've slid down to the "they got fired for being lazy" rationale.. At the same time as laying claim to a great deal of personal knowledge about real difficulties faced by gay people coming out... I think this is rather odd and contradictory. .
Its pretty easy to disguise discrimination isn't it? "Its not that he was gay, its that he was lazy..." Which is what the bloggers really claiming...
You can beleive discrimination doesn't exist and dispute the difficulties that an out teacher would have in Alabama but you haven't offered any evidence that it isn't happening. Or that there are really any protections for them
By the way, one of my two best friends in University was gay. His girl friend learned about it from me, inadvertently, when he suddenly moved in with a male recording star... I can't say he, being in the entertainment industry, ever suffered any consequences socially or profssionally from coming out, (having ducked the confession to the girlfiend that I had to deal with, poorly..) . But he died of Aids at 32.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

14 May 2012, 3:14 pm

ray

Just on this small issue, you may not be aware of the facts. California has particularly liberal rules when it comes to retirement, health care and pension.

I think I am aware of the pension and health care issue. I just don't think that this is the singular reason the education budget got to be 52% of the state budget. If it is, what is the fix? (And I quoted the actual California tax rates, so i know those too.)

Arch

This means there is no incentive for the employee to try and limit medical cost. For example, NJ teachers can pick from 6 different plans but just about everybody takes the most expensive plan with the best available benefits because there is no cost incurred by the employee. Therefore, the entire expense is carried by the tax payer

The disconnect between recipient and payer.... I get it.
Funny thing about single payer systems or socialized medicine. Everyone gets the same plan for their whole life and everyone contributes through their taxes... Which would take care of this particular problem,.
Once everyone is paying for insurance through their taxes, its really interesting what happens when the government agencies start to negotiate with the health care providers,..... Right now in Ontario there's a freeze on doctors compensation. (Fee for service system where doctors have enjoyed fabuolous income growth for 20 years..) Doctors aren't getting much sympathy for their demands right now. There being a strong link between tax rate and higher medical costs...

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

14 May 2012, 3:58 pm

danivon wrote:Even Russell's bringing out the cuss-words this week. It's all so welcoming!

Sorry about that. Haven't been sleeping well which is making me extremely short tempered. It is part of the reason I have been reading a lot here but not replying. I knew I would quickly descend into the obnoxiousness I so dispise from others. Mea Culpa's. I'll try to keep a better handle on it.

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

14 May 2012, 4:24 pm

rickyp wrote:you've slid down to the "they got fired for being lazy" rationale.. .

I am not giving that as the only rationale. I am pointing out that your referenced blog is an ipse dixit.

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

14 May 2012, 5:26 pm

bbauska wrote:Swear word free since 2008...

too funny. I think it's 50/50 that you will break in 2012.

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

14 May 2012, 5:34 pm

Ricky:

By the way, one of my two best friends in University was gay. His girl friend learned about it from me, inadvertently, when he suddenly moved in with a male recording star...

Also, a lot of Ricky's college girl friends turned out to be gay. (just joking)

I think I am aware of the pension and health care issue. I just don't think that this is the singular reason the education budget got to be 52% of the state budget. If it is, what is the fix?

I don't know if it's unusual or bad for education to be 52% of a state's budget. Education is 2/3rds of my town's budget because that is an important function of the town, and crime and fire are limited. My only point is that CA pension and health care benefits are exorbitant. You've said they are no big deal, which tells me that you don't really get it. They are a big deal. They are part of what is bankrupting the state. Also, labeling something "education" shouldn't give it a free pass. There are bloated education bureaucracies that are top heavy and there are many administrative functions that don't contribute to education. My sense is that you were implying that education is valuable, and therefore CA should raise taxes.

: Machiavelli; Emissary; Posts: 7378; Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

14 May 2012, 8:38 pm

I hear he has some great dog recipes.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

15 May 2012, 6:30 am

http://unionwatch.org/what-percent-of-c ... pensation/

ray

I don't know if it's unusual or bad for education to be 52% of a state's budget. Education is 2/3rds of my town's budget because that is an important function of the town, and crime and fire are limited. My only point is that CA pension and health care benefits are exorbitant

My original point is that if education is 52% of the budget you can't really cut the budget back without affecting the education budget. SInce, according the the studies linked in the article above 37.5% of state employees compensation IS pernsions and health care .... those two items need to part of the equation. It seems enormously high that percentage but,
Too generous indexing of pension contributions and a runaway health care inflation seem to be the base causes.... One can be fixed fairly directly. The other requires a new health care system.
I don't think there are easy answers or too much BS bloat that can be cut easily. There will be blood. (In the form of both tax increases and expenditure cuts.)
There always is, despite those who think there's some kind of magic...

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

15 May 2012, 6:44 am

yes, that percentage is enormously high. That is my point. I think you are glossing over it too much.

The runaway health care inflation is not solely attributable to the weaknesses of the US system. Yes a new US system would help, but there are important things that CA can do in the absence of US reform. CA has layered on additional problems which Archduke and I have already discussed. CA needs to layer off those additional problems.

You do have to ask yourself why CA needs a top tax rate of about 14% as Brown is proposing whereas Massachusetts can have a rate of 5.3% for most income.

I think there will be some muscle that is cut, but there is a lot of fat in that budget. There has to be.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

15 May 2012, 8:51 am

For the record, sales taxes are already higher than the published rate. Look here.

If you go back to the main page, you can look at other cities. LAX is 8.75%.

California's unemployment rate is over 10%. They have the ninth largest economy in the world. For more than a decade, California has pursued "tax, spend, and tax some more" policies. Democrats rule the legislature and have protected union contracts. They've done everything President Obama has tried to do on a national scale--and it has bellyflopped.

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

15 May 2012, 8:59 am

What are the reasons for the bellyflop?

Is it too many illegal, I mean, undocumented immigrants? I think that could have some effect.
Perhaps it is the corporate taxes. That certainly causes a few businesses to move to Nevada.
Is it the regulative government that is affecting how business can sell and market their products?

Danivon, RickyP and Freeman2,
Why is California in such trouble if the system of tax and spend seems to be so much like the Federal Governments? If it is similar, shouldn't the same result likely occur? If it is not similar, how?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

15 May 2012, 10:17 am

I'm not convinced that California's problems are the same. For example, I've seen the income tax and sales tax rates quoted, but what of property tax? How much of an effect does the need to abide by referendums on taxes and spending have?

How much is historical? I don't know the answers to these but they are relevant.

there is, you see, a difference between sovereign spending and taxation (which the Federal government can do as controller of the money presses) and what regional governments can do, however autonomous. There is also a difference between a general policy of deficit spending (usually not a good idea) and one of spending in a deficit to try to help the polity out of recession. States also have a different level of competition to the US. The US as a whole is a massive market, so locating thre as opposed to somewhere else may depend on costs other than just taxes. States within the Union, however, are up against each other.

For me, however, 'tax and spend' is a misnomer for what you are criticising. The point is to be realistic about what the costs of policies are and to ensure that they are paid for over time. If you have a situation where majorities support spending X on something, but also baulk at paying the taxes for it, there will be problems. Which is why Republican dominated Orange County failed a while ago, and why Democrat dominated California is in trouble now. However, if everyone concerned (the people as well as politicians) can act like grown ups and pay the dues, fiscal pressures won't cause this kind of periodic pain.

Of course, there are ways that 'tax and spend' ideas can help business. Universal health coverage by national insurance, for example, takes the pressure off employers to deal with the kind of issues that Ray Jay and ARJ describe. If it stops being about employer - employee negotiation, differences between public and private employees will reduce.

: Ray Jay; Ambassador; Posts: 4991; Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

15 May 2012, 10:24 am

cognitive dissonance?

: bbauska; Administrator; Posts: 7463; Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

15 May 2012, 10:40 am

I agree that the people are expecting a service, but not expecting to pay for said service. Kind of an immature way of thinking, in my book. Perhaps if, as RickyP said; the tax costs of all programs were disseminated to the public the way of thinking would change.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

15 May 2012, 10:43 am

danivon wrote:For me, however, 'tax and spend' is a misnomer for what you are criticising. The point is to be realistic about what the costs of policies are and to ensure that they are paid for over time. If you have a situation where majorities support spending X on something, but also baulk at paying the taxes for it, there will be problems.

Sure, you should not spend more than you are bringing in. California has been doing that for quite some time. The response is cutting around the edges because a lot of the commitments are unions, green projects, environmental concerns, and benefits to the needy--all core Democratic concerns. Since Prop 13 limits increases on property taxes, other fees and taxes have gone through the roof.

Californians have perfected the "expect everything, pay nothing" mentality. I laughed reading about George Lucas' inability to build a studio in Marin County. Even after he agreed to keep 95% of the land permanently undisturbed, it was not enough. So, he's selling it to developers who may turn it into low-income housing. In Marin County? :laugh:

Which is why Republican dominated Orange County failed a while ago, and why Democrat dominated California is in trouble now.

Hmm, interesting take on Orange County's problems. Read this and see if it doesn't undercut/wipe out your attempt to blame the GOP

Robert Lafee Citron (born 1925) is a Democratic Party politician who was the longtime Treasurer-Tax Collector of Orange County, California, when it declared Chapter 9 bankruptcy on December 6, 1994. Citron was the only Democrat to hold office in otherwise Conservative/Republican Orange County at the time. The bankruptcy was brought on by Citron's investment strategies,[1] which seemed to be an effort to earn high incomes for the county without raising taxes. As usual in finance, high incomes went along with high risk. A cash crunch occurred when interest rates increased and financiers for the county required increased collateral from the county.
Citron controlled several Orange County funds including the General Fund, the Investment Pool, and the treasury Commingled Pool. He sent out the county's tax bills with catchy slogans, such as "Taxes paid on time never draw fines."[2] He won re-election seven times; in his last election victory, his opponent, John Moorlach, charged that his handsome gains were the result of risky betting.[2]
As controller of the various Orange County funds, Citron had taken a highly leveraged position using repurchase agreements (repos) and floating rate notes (FRNs). The loss incurred by the usage of these financial instruments reached the amount of $2 billion and was caused by being too highly leveraged for rising federal interest rates.[2] In other words, if federal interest rates had not risen, the massive trading position would have been a substantially profitable position; if interest rates did rise, the trading position would result in substantial losses. In fact, rates rose.
The Orange County funds, managed by Citron, were worth $8 billion.[2] However, Citron went out to the repo market and leveraged the County Pools to amounts ranging from 158% to over 292%. To obtain this degree of leverage, he used treasury bonds as collateral. Profits of the fund were excessive for a period of time and Citron resorted to concealing the excess earnings. He pleaded guilty to improperly transferring securities from the Orange County General Fund to the Orange County Treasury Commingled Pool.

However, if everyone concerned (the people as well as politicians) can act like grown ups and pay the dues, fiscal pressures won't cause this kind of periodic pain.

Democrats won't cross their union allies. Period. That is a major, major problem. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/14 ... s-20120314

Of course, there are ways that 'tax and spend' ideas can help business. Universal health coverage by national insurance, for example, takes the pressure off employers to deal with the kind of issues that Ray Jay and ARJ describe. If it stops being about employer - employee negotiation, differences between public and private employees will reduce.

Obamacare is not helping business. Healthcare costs are still going up. It's cheaper to dump coverage. Taxes are heading up to pay for it.

151 posts • Page 9 of 11 • 1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Examples of Presidential Leadership by President Obama