Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Bailouts: Still Totally Unpopular
New Rasmussen Reports figures show that Americans are opposed to bailing out California, 59 percent to 24 percent, and opposed to have the federal government guarantee the state's loans by an even wider margin. This bit from the press release was especially interesting:
Most Republicans (67%) and unaffiliated voters (51%) say it is better to let the state go bankrupt than to provide federal subsidies. Democrats, by a 58% to 30% margin, hold the opposite view.
As on many issues, the difference in opinion between the Political Class and the rest of the nation is larger than the gap between the political parties. By an 84% to seven percent (7%) margin, the Political Class prefers federal subsidies over bankruptcy. By a 67% to 21% margin, those in the Political Class favor federal loan guarantees to help California raise money (see more on the Political Class).
Voters have consistently opposed federal bailout funds for the auto industry, the banking industry and insurance companies. Looking back on the bailouts that were provided, most continue to believe they were a bad idea.
Link via Instapundit.
John Tagliaferro|5.22.09 @ 9:15AM|#
(Socialist perspective)
Democrats, by a 58% to 30% margin, hold the opposite
view.
Because they are better educated, brighter and more tolerant than
the Nazi Republitards.
|5.22.09 @ 9:29AM|#
Those evil Republicans don't understand. That single mother working two jobs in Montgomery, Alabama, needs to pay higher taxes so the retired police chief in L.A. Reason posted about yesterday can keep his $238,000 pension. To do anything else would be unfair and mean spirited.
The Last Thrice-Sayer|5.22.09 @ 9:30AM|#
New Rasmussen Reports figures show that Americans are
opposed to bailing out California, 59 percent to 24 percent, and
opposed to have the federal government guarantee the state's loans
by an even wider margin.
This will no doubt be portrayed by the media as a moment when our
noble statesmen in Washington must risk the wrath of the electorate
for the good of the country.
Good news is, we get to rattle our chains at the ballot box in
another 16 months.
Democrats, by a 58% to 30% margin, hold the opposite
view.
I wonder if the margins would be reversed if we were talking about
a red state, say Texas.
Brandon|5.22.09 @ 9:36AM|#
These numbers are interesting, but meaningless. 95%+ of the politicians supporting past, current and future bailouts will be reelected.
|5.22.09 @ 9:41AM|#
"These numbers are interesting, but meaningless. 95%+ of the
politicians supporting past, current and future bailouts will be
reelected."
I don't know about that. If the economy continues to nosedive, and
that is a pretty good bet, there could be a real sea change in
2010. The marks are starting to get wise.
|5.22.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Most Republicans (67%) and unaffiliated voters (51%) say it
is better to let the state go bankrupt than to provide federal
subsidies. Democrats, by a 58% to 30% margin, hold the opposite
view.
This is why so many libertarians vote GOP. What kind of dumbshit
thinks that the irresponsible and profligate Californians (elected
officials and the dumbasses who keep electing them,
approving utterly moronic special interest ballot initiatives all
the while bitching about their tax rates) deserve to be bailed out
by the rest of the nation?
Oh yeah, 58% of the Dems who fucking worship the granola
state.
I've heard every single one of your arguments, blue teamers. Don't
even bother trying to change my mind about the total irresponsility
of a fed bailout. You'll just embarrass yourselves.
The Last Thrice-Sayer|5.22.09 @ 9:42AM|#
Brandon,
Unfortunately true. A fact we need to throw back in the face of
liberals who insist that the democratic process is a viable
substitute for the market.
kinnath|5.22.09 @ 9:50AM|#
One of the beautiful things of living in a state with a balance budget requirements in its constitution is that we get to cope with service cutbacks while sending income taxes to the feds so they can bailout dumbshits like Californians.
|5.22.09 @ 9:57AM|#
"John,
I bet Republicans were saying that in 1933, too..."
The world moves faster than it did back then. It wasn't until 1938
that the Dems took a real beating in mid terms. Things move quicker
now. Also, you have to remember that the New Deal, as crazy and
misguided as it was, really was something new. The government was
the size of PBS in 1932. There is nothing new or inovative about
Obama. Also, the electorate was a hell of a lot more closely
divided in 2008 than it was in 1932. Further, the parteis are a lot
less powerful than they once were. The days of one party staying in
power for forty years are over. It is just a different world.
Brandon|5.22.09 @ 9:57AM|#
I don't know about that. If the economy continues to
nosedive, and that is a pretty good bet, there could be a real sea
change in 2010. The marks are starting to get wise.
OK, I'll amend that down to 90%. The historical
incumbent reelection rate is not quite as high as I originally
remembered. But even then, the electoral system is so rigged in
favor of incumbents and the status quo that in any given election
voters are very unlikely to substantively alter the ideological
composition, if not the partisan composition, of Congress.
|5.22.09 @ 9:58AM|#
One of the beautiful things of living in a state with a
balance budget requirements in its constitution is that we get to
cope with service cutbacks while sending income taxes to the feds
so they can bailout dumbshits like Californians.
From each according to his ability...
|5.22.09 @ 10:03AM|#
"OK, I'll amend that down to 90%. The historical incumbent
reelection rate is not quite as high as I originally remembered.
But even then, the electoral system is so rigged in favor of
incumbents and the status quo that in any given election voters are
very unlikely to substantively alter the ideological composition,
if not the partisan composition, of Congress."
For my entire life, sans six years of Republican control of the
Seanate, the Dems controlled the Congress by wide margins. Then in
1994, the Republicans took over, which was something no one thought
would ever happen. That lasted 6 years until the Dems took back the
Senate from 2000 to 2002. Then in 2006 they took it all back. Now
maybe it is the natural order of things for the Dems to be in
charge of Congress. Or, maybe people are more willing to throw the
bums out than they once were.
The Last Thrice-Sayer|5.22.09 @ 10:04AM|#
John,
Obama will successfully pass the blame to your boy in Crawford for
handing off such a terrible economic mess, and the media will
assist him in this. To be honest, like Hoover, Bush does deserve a
lot of blame for this, though not for the reasons that will be
given.
Things may happen faster, but that doesn't really matter if they
don't happen at all. Perversely, the Internet allows viewpoints to
be, if anything, more set in stone by the ability to
select what news one hears. Also keep in mind that the government
propaganda machine is far, far more advanced and subtle than it was
back in the 1930s.
|5.22.09 @ 10:13AM|#
"Obama will successfully pass the blame to your boy in Crawford
for handing off such a terrible economic mess, and the media will
assist him in this. To be honest, like Hoover, Bush does deserve a
lot of blame for this, though not for the reasons that will be
given."
We will see. Obama only got 53% of the vote. A large portion of the
country hates his guts. It is easy to forget that sometimes in the
din of the state run media's propeganda machine. Further, Obama
won't be running in 2010. There won't be a huge black turnout like
2008. And there won't be any reason for all the guilty white people
to turn out and vote for a black President. The dynamics of that
elections are going to be completly different. Time will tell. But
in the end, if people really think the sollution to their problems
is more unchecked Obama, then you really can't feel to sorry for
the country.
|5.22.09 @ 10:18AM|#
The Last Thrice-Sayer,
One other thing. Every day his hard core supporters get a little
more disapointed with him. Now, that doesn't mean they are going to
run out and vote the other way. But, what it does mean is that they
are a lot less likly to show up at a mid-term election and vote in
the name of saving Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
|5.22.09 @ 10:19AM|#
John, with ACORN running the census it is going to take more than a sea change to flip congress.
|5.22.09 @ 10:25AM|#
"John, with ACORN running the census it is going to take more
than a sea change to flip congress."
Touche. I will admit that maybe we are our own banana republic
complete with our own former two dollar pimp as dear leader. If
that is the case, we are screwed anyway.
|5.22.09 @ 10:31AM|#
John-
Let us not forget about the single biggest piece of the
socialist/bailout pie:
The military industrial/national security complex.
You do not have a "right" to take my hard earned money in order to
soothe your fears of a Mohammed hiding in the cupboard.
|5.22.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Fuck off Mike. You turn every thread into the same fucking argument about the military industrial complex. Learn a new schtick once in a while.
Flomax|5.22.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Like acid reflux on a warm summer's day, you never know when libertymike is going to turn up.
Xeones|5.22.09 @ 10:35AM|#
then you really can't feel to sorry for the
country.
Sure i can. I can feel sorry for the rest of us.
...a Mohammed hiding in the cupboard.
Dude, just stock up on canned ham.
Mike M.|5.22.09 @ 10:39AM|#
As on many issues, the difference in opinion between the
Political Class and the rest of the nation is larger than the gap
between the political parties. By an 84% to seven percent (7%)
margin, the Political Class prefers federal subsidies over
bankruptcy.
This to me is one of the biggest problems in America, and one which
naturally doesn't get talked about much in the "mainstream" press:
the disconnect between the people and the government today is big,
and getting bigger by the day. The relationship in many ways is
becoming almost antagonistic.
These are the kinds of dangerous seeds that, when planted,
eventually grow into violent revolutions.
John Tagliaferro|5.22.09 @ 10:49AM|#
liberymike,
What year, decade or century are you talking about? What is your
source?
|5.22.09 @ 10:51AM|#
John-
You are hypocrite. You just don't seem to get it.
As to your assertion that I "turn every thread into the same
fucking argument about the military industrial complex," it is
frivolous and wholly without merit. A couple of weeks ago,
Bakedpenguin asserted that my hobby horse was hate speech
legislation. Another poster accused me of turning every thread into
a condemnation of public employees. I remember another poster who
claimed that I turned every thread into a rant on the ninth
amendment.
Accuracy and precision, John. Accuracy and precision in thy
assertions. You may not like what I have to say about the military
industrial/national security complex, but don't malign your
credibility with a demonstrably false assertion that I turn every
thread into the military industrial complex.
|5.22.09 @ 10:52AM|#
Good Bad news is, we
don't get to rattle our chains at the ballot box
in for another 16 months.
Not in time, IOW, to prevent a California bailout,
catastrophe-and-trade, or heapin' helpin' of socialized
medicine.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Are they seriously considering bailing out California? Because that would be really fucked up. Why in the world would they do that?
Some Guy|5.22.09 @ 10:55AM|#
I don't know about that. If the economy continues to
nosedive, and that is a pretty good bet, there could be a real sea
change in 2010. The marks are starting to get wise.
What's a sea change? Getting it down to 85% Congressional
recidivism?
|5.22.09 @ 10:56AM|#
MNG-
Do I "turn every thread into the same fucking argument about the
military industrial complex"?
|5.22.09 @ 10:59AM|#
Are they seriously considering bailing out California?
Because that would be really fucked up. Why in the world would they
do that?
Uh, dude, Cali is too big to fail. Duh.
|5.22.09 @ 11:06AM|#
According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,
for fiscal year 2009, the United States military budget accounted
for over 48% of the world's defense expenditures. The Center points
out that the "official" budget DOES NOT INCLUDE combat expenses for
Iraq and Afghanistan. The spending for those wars of aggression and
empire building accounted for another 700 billion dollars for FY
2009.
But, because its Memorial Day Weekend, we all must salute the
military industrial/national security complex and worship all of
the sheeple and canon fodder who can't hack it in the private
sector and would rather be the anti-Galt and be slaves to their
masters. Thus, military spending is necessary and it is absolutely
the paragon of economic efficiency.
People like John just can't get their mouths off of the tits of
Caesar.
Mr. Bates|5.22.09 @ 11:10AM|#
Are they seriously considering bailing out California?
Because that would be really fucked up. Why in the world would they
do that?
Don't blame me, I voted for Mary Carey.
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Aw, bless your heart, LM.
MNG - because, really, the Federal Government is playing chicken
with us. It's basically saying "well, who else are you gonna vote
for?"
And we'll blink. Because, for whatever reason, people only want to
vote for one of the two parties.
kinnath|5.22.09 @ 11:13AM|#
But, because its Memorial Day Weekend, we all must salute
the military industrial/national security complex and worship all
of the sheeple and canon fodder who can't hack it in the private
sector and would rather be the anti-Galt and be slaves to their
masters.
That one earned a great-big, heart-felt FUCK YOU.
|5.22.09 @ 11:13AM|#
"People like John just can't get their mouths off of the tits of
Caesar."
Take a gas pipe Mike.
|5.22.09 @ 11:16AM|#
People like John just can't get their mouths off of the tits
of Caesar.
Caesar has tits?
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 11:21AM|#
Like I said, LM, bless his heart, is just trying hard to be an obsequious follower of the Lew Rockwell crowd. Military-industrial complex obsession, combined with borderline antisemitism and paranoia = half of the blog contributors at Lew Rockwell, anti-state.com, striketheroot...all those psychotic places where white misanthropes go to dog on jocks (military), the wealthy (Jews and International Bankers), and women...basically all of the people that made them feel inadequate in high school. Only they do under the guise of being "Menckian" and satirical in the name of liberty, but it's really just cathartic for them.
|5.22.09 @ 11:23AM|#
Notice how John just can't respond with anything remotely substantive. He is the anti-Galt.
BakedPenguin|5.22.09 @ 11:26AM|#
A couple of weeks ago, Bakedpenguin asserted that my hobby horse was hate speech legislation.
libertymike, you're right, and I was wrong. There are multiple
issues on which you are annoying.
|5.22.09 @ 11:26AM|#
"Notice how John just can't respond with anything remotely
substantive. He is the anti-Galt."
Mike, I have responded substantively to your bullshit about a dozen
times on different threads. At some point though, you get tired of
talking to the wall. And I don't really want to highjack the thread
to a completely unrelated topic. Go post on Kos or Lew Rockwell or
something.
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Because you're not arguing substance, LM. And you don't get to invoke Galt, given that Ayn Rand determined that the military is a valid institution of the government and gave a speech at West Point one year.
John Tagliaferro|5.22.09 @ 11:29AM|#
libertymike,
John T.-
Source for what?
Source for
the one and only comment you made on this thread before I asked
you.
Let us not forget about the single biggest piece of the
socialist/bailout pie:
The military industrial/national security complex.
Citation needed, from an authoritative source.
The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation is not one and
their statement (if accurately quoted by you) does not support your
assertion anyway.
Hugh Akston|5.22.09 @ 11:30AM|#
The whole idea of people storming the Bastille and dragging Obama et al into the streets is, of course, wholly dependent on the Republicans giving us a discernible alternative. Let us not forget that the phrase "Too big to fail" was coined under the Bush administration.
|5.22.09 @ 11:30AM|#
Even if we do bailout Califronia, it will only be a short term measure. Bailing out California is like paying off a compulsive gambler's credit cards on the promise he won't run them up again. Even if McHopey and Congress bail out CA, there is no reason to believe that CA won't be right back in the shape it is in now in two or three years. Worse still, bailing out CA will just encourage other deadbeat states like New York to continue their fiscal irresponsibility with the assurance the feds will bail them out. Regardless of what happens, we can't bail out every state and we can't bail out California forever. At some point, the whole fucking ponzi scheme has to fail. It is just a question of when.
John Tagliaferro|5.22.09 @ 11:32AM|#
John and TAO,
Thank you. I did not realize that I was responding to a wall.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:34AM|#
TAO-well, you gotta admit the party that noone wants to vote for
has really earned that status...
Epi
Can states fail? They should just tighten their fucking belts...
Really, I guess I'm a liberal, but I'm confused at all this bailing
out stuff...If that's liberal then its certainly the worst part of
it...
Libertymike
I would have thought he would have accused you of turning every
thread into one about Israel...
|5.22.09 @ 11:34AM|#
TAO-
What is the Lew Rockwell crowd? Is iit the same as the antistate
and striketheroot crowd?
Yes, I do read some columnists who post on Lew Rockwell, like James
Bovard and Thomas Dilorenzo and Paul Craig Roberts and Butler
Shaffer. I have never posted at any Lew Rockwell blog and have
never even read any Lew Rockwell blog. Would you describe Bovard,
Dilorenzo, Roberts and Shaffer as you do in your post?
As for the other two sites, I have never visited. But, Upon what
basis do you characterize the Lew Rockwell, antistate and
striketheroot crowd as you do?
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:34AM|#
"Hey, did you guys know that NutraSweet is actually John
Malkovich?"
I saw a movie about that guy that really gets into his head.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:38AM|#
TAO
I didn't know you were a big fan of the military.
Myself I'm not much of a fan. I mean, I fully appreciate the
importance of having a military and think what they do is
important, but I think what most people do is important.
The culture of the military is pretty fucked up.
And it's certainly a huge pit of money for the government. A great
deal of "transfer payments" go under the military industrial
complex...
|5.22.09 @ 11:40AM|#
"Epi
Can states fail? They should just tighten their fucking belts...
Really, I guess I'm a liberal, but I'm confused at all this bailing
out stuff...If that's liberal then its certainly the worst part of
it..."
No they don't fail. It is not like there won't be a state of
California. It just means they write down their bonds. The whole
idea of "bailing out California" is a misnomer. It is not like the
state will go out of business like a private entity. What we are
really talking about is bailing out bond holders who were dumb
enough to loan money to the state.
|5.22.09 @ 11:41AM|#
John T.
Who says it is not an authoritative source? Spell it out in
detail.
Do you understand the concept of military keynesianism? If not,
learn about it and maybe you will learn something. Don't be so
ignorant.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:47AM|#
LM
I will say that while indeed a great deal of folks and wierdos who
can't or won't hack it in private life go into the military a lot
of very even keeled, competent folks do to. And a lot of them join
out for noble reasons, and a lot of them have been killed over the
years trying to do the right thing. That's what I memorialize on
memorial day. I do agree though that we spend waaaaay too much on
our military, that we defer to it too much, revere it too much, and
that militarism itself is pretty messed up. But Memorial Day
properly understood praises the people not so much the
institution...
|5.22.09 @ 11:47AM|#
If California goes bankrupt, do they have to liquidate all their assets? All the universities, desalination plants, etc. And if that doesn't raise enough money, they have to auction off counties to other states.
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Here're Jeremy Sapienza, founder of anti-state.com, senior
editor of antiwar.com and contributor to Lew Rockwell:
"[T]he only way to
neutralize [military backers'] credibility is to demonstrate to the
rest of the rational world that the military is made up of, and
backed up by, monsters."
And then there's this (looks like anti-state.com scrubbed it, but
there are screenshots for posterity)
""I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking
US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops
meet.""
Looks like that "liberty lover" sent his own post down the memory
hole.
TAO
I didn't know you were a big fan of the military.
Are there things wrong with it? I should know more than most other
posters here (other than Art POG, who's dealing with it now, and
John, I presume), but still...
|5.22.09 @ 11:49AM|#
"I will say that while indeed a great deal of folks and wierdos
who can't or won't hack it in private life go into the military a
lot of very even keeled, competent folks do to."
The military is a profession like any other. Some people out there
who seem to be complete screw ups until they find their niche. When
someone is a fuck up until they finally figure out that they really
can succeed as an artist or a car mechanic, no one says "there are
a lot of care mechanics and artists out there who are fuck ups and
can't hack it anywhere else".
|5.22.09 @ 11:50AM|#
MNG-
Guys like John and John T. and TAO probably are, at a minimum, not
conversant with the subject of military keynesianism, and more than
likely, probably ignorant of the subject.
One aspect of the subject concerns the "crowding out" of captial
ivestment in our civilian manufacturing base due to the capital
invested in grandaddy of all pork, defense spending. It is one of
the reasons why our manufacturing output has declined so
preciptiously.
I doubt that the Johns and TAO have read Seymour Melman's work on
the subject. Or Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute.
|5.22.09 @ 11:51AM|#
"If California goes bankrupt, do they have to liquidate all
their assets? All the universities, desalination plants, etc. And
if that doesn't raise enough money, they have to auction off
counties to other states"
No. They are a sovereighn. They don't have to do anything. Going
bankrupt just means they tell their bondholders to go get bent.
|5.22.09 @ 11:51AM|#
Right on, libertymike. I'm sure the militia system would have
held up just fine during WW2 and the Cold War.
Nazis and commies would have been terrified of armies whose entire
military experience came from hunting squirrels.
|5.22.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"One aspect of the subject concerns the "crowding out" of
captial ivestment in our civilian manufacturing base due to the
capital invested in grandaddy of all pork, defense spending. It is
one of the reasons why our manufacturing output has declined so
preciptiously."
Military spending is about 5% of the GDP. Only a moron of your
level could think that is crowding out private investment. You with
an economic theory is a child that has been given a chainsaw.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:52AM|#
"Are there things wrong with it?"
Well, it does kind of attract quite a bit of people who want to,
well, kill other human beings and who are quite authoritarian, but
as I noted I don't think that's a majority. But since their main
function is to kill people a pretty fucked up culture develops
there.
It also is the recipient of quite a bit of government largesse, and
has proven to be quite wasteful with what they get.
It's quite possibly the largest bureaucracy in the world...
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:55AM|#
I don't know the specific works LM is talking about but surely
the military allows governments to pump quite a bit of money into
the populace (well, certain favored chunks of it) in a sort of
Keynesian fashion.
A great deal of taxation involves A taking from B and C and giving
it to Lockheed Martin's shareholders...
MNG|5.22.09 @ 11:56AM|#
LM
Are you against having a military? I can see making it smaller and
giving it less reverence, but we kind of have to have one...
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 11:57AM|#
Yeah, LM, having not read the specific work you mention, I'm terribly skeptical about anyone stating that military displaces the amount of capital to the extent that it has significantly affected our manufacturing capability. The things affecting American manufacturing are the usual suspects: cheaper labor and lower safety and environmental standards abroad and conversely, more red tape and costs for manufacturers here.
|5.22.09 @ 11:57AM|#
TAO-
BTW, in a thread yesterday, you made the point that a man should
not have to pay child support where he favored abortion and the
mother chose otherwise. You made the point that "choice" should cut
both ways.
I agree. Thus, why should any person be forced to contribute to
such a gigantic welfare scheme like the Pentagon? You want to play
soldier, do it on your own dime.
|5.22.09 @ 11:58AM|#
"But since their main function is to kill people a pretty fucked
up culture develops there."
It has to be at least compared to the civilian world. It just can't
be the same, unless it suddenly becomes the mission of cocacola to
kill and destroy pepsi.
MNG|5.22.09 @ 12:02PM|#
John
I grant you that the fucked up culture is a function of the
necessary task the institution does.
"you made the point that a man should not have to pay child support
where he favored abortion and the mother chose otherwise"
I dunno, I guess he made the relevant choice when he ejaculated in
her...
"why should any person be forced to contribute to such a gigantic
welfare scheme like the Pentagon?"
I'm sure TAO can hit this one out of the park without my help, but
my 2 cents before I go to lunch is that it provides a public good
that you benefit from "like it or not" and so you should have to
pay. The presence of our military keeps Cubans (or whatever, I'm
just a big Red Dawn fan) from taking over your town, killing your
wife, and such, whether you approve of it or not...
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 12:03PM|#
I agree. Thus, why should any person be forced to contribute to such a gigantic welfare scheme like the Pentagon? You want to play soldier, do it on your own dime.
yeah, ok, those things are definitely equivalent.
Even though you're not going to be convinced, there are legitimate
functions of the state and there are illegitimate ones. Of course,
the whole reason you frame this as Keynesianism and as a giant
welfare program is that you're trying to set the tone for the rest
of us to "come over to your side".
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Let's try this a different way: say that a man and a woman contract
that they will jointly raise whatever child arises from their
sexual relationship. The man reneges. What happens next, LM, and
why?
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 12:04PM|#
I dunno, I guess he made the relevant choice when he ejaculated in her...
Not to go off-topic, but that isn't where the relevant choice is
made. If it was, then sperm donors should be able to be on the hook
for child support as well.
Brandon|5.22.09 @ 12:13PM|#
I'm a bit surprised reasonoids are so quick to defend America's military and defense policy. I have also understood mainstream libertarianism to be skeptical of the need for a military as large and engaged as we have.
|5.22.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Thus, why should any person be forced to contribute to such
a gigantic welfare scheme like the Pentagon? You want to play
soldier, do it on your own dime.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Show of hands for adding libertymike to the "Shut the fuck up, X"
list after this little outburst?
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Brandon - it is not the same thing to defend current military policy, engagements and spending when one defends the military as a general institution against the outrageous spewings from LM.
|5.22.09 @ 12:16PM|#
How about we just secede and take our tax revenue with us?
This
report is old, but it shows the huge outflow of cash from
California to the feds over the years.
California is a cash cow for the feds. It's time they cough up some
of the dough and lend us a hand. Sure, California spends too much
and needs to cut back - maybe we're all too busy generating wealth
and growing your food to participate in politics.
|5.22.09 @ 12:21PM|#
"How about we just secede and take our tax revenue with us? This
report is old, but it shows the huge outflow of cash from
California to the feds over the years."
Maybe if you dumb motherfuckers haven't voted for every tax and
spend liberal you could find over the last 30 years, we wouldn't
have such a progressive federal tax structure and those outflows
wouldn't be so great.
|5.22.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"Like Reagan? :D"
If the California of 2009 was the same California of 1984 that
voted for Reagan, they wouldn't be going broke. California changed
in the 80s and 90s and for the worse. I don't see how any state
that consistently elects people like Henry Waxman, Barbara Boxer
and Nancy Pelosi can bitch about having a high federal tax
burden.
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 12:38PM|#
I was just saying that you did say 30 years, John.
and just to bring the thread all the way 'round, any idea, jasono,
if that study included the large amounts of military spending in
California?
Mike Laursen|5.22.09 @ 12:56PM|#
In the long run, having its bond rating trashed and not being able to borrow would be the best thing that ever happened to California. I'm not even sure it would be painful in the short run.
Mike Laursen|5.22.09 @ 1:06PM|#
If the California of 2009 was the same California of 1984
that voted for Reagan, they wouldn't be going broke. California
changed in the 80s and 90s and for the worse. I don't see how any
state that consistently elects people like Henry Waxman, Barbara
Boxer and Nancy Pelosi can bitch about having a high federal tax
burden.
First of all, the party of Reagan is not known for its fiscal
restraint, either. Note that California's current governor is from
the party of Reagan.
Secondly, California is in a budget crisis because of a long
history of constitutional amendments and court decisions that go
back to the 1970s that mandate spending on various areas. The
legislature has little discretion over spending.
JB|5.22.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Democrats want bailouts for every man, woman, child, state,
rodent, and cockroach.
I have an idea: let's tax the fucks at 80-90% and give all their
money to me.
Wow, do I fucking hate Democrats.
|5.22.09 @ 1:07PM|#
I'm from California, and I say don't bail out California. I don't live there anymore, but maybe it will become affordable if instead of prices being driven up with borrowed money everybody in the state had to live within their means.
jasno|5.22.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I did a quick scan through that document and, yes, military
spending is included.
I think you fuckers need to stop and ponder for a second how big
the California economy really is. And, sure, we elect a bunch of
democrat douchebags, but socially we're pretty damn liberal.
Maybe if you dumb motherfuckers haven't voted for every tax and spend liberal you could find over the last 30 years, we wouldn't have such a progressive federal tax structure and those outflows wouldn't be so great.
Really? MAYBE if we hadn't, the douchebags we financially support
in the North Central-North East would have done it for us.
I miss joe. You're just not the same without him.
In the long run, having its bond rating trashed and not being able to borrow would be the best thing that ever happened to California.
But how the fuck am I going to get a high-speed rail line with that
kind of credit? I want my goddamn rail line!
I don't eat raisins.
But, being a libertarian, you're probably a fan of our #1 cash
crop...
|5.22.09 @ 1:35PM|#
"Well, it does kind of attract quite a bit of people who want
to, well, kill other human beings and who are quite
authoritarian"
I thought we were talking about the military not home owners
association boards?
|5.22.09 @ 1:49PM|#
Are there things wrong with it? I should know more than most
other posters here (other than Art POG, who's dealing with it now,
and John, I presume), but still...
I feel sooo left out. ;-)
|5.22.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Hey, why the gangup on libertymike? He's right, the single biggest part of the Federal budget is military spending. If you look at a pie chart, you'll see tiny slivers for medicare, education, DEA, etc. Then there's this huge red blob called "military".
wayne|5.22.09 @ 2:39PM|#
I live in California and I don't support a federal bailout;
however, let me defend the golden state just a little.
California is a net tax payer, i.e. Californians pay more in
federal taxes than the state receives back from the feds, IIRC CA
pays about $1.20 for every $1.00 received back from the feds. In
this light, CA has been subsidizing many of the other 49 states for
years.
Most ballot initiatives have lived or died based on fiscal
conservativism, just like the last batch a few days ago, i.e. tax
hikes usually get voted down on the ballots. Remember prop 13,
which rolled back property taxes, that was the original modern tax
revolt in the union.
On the down side, I am deeply embarrassed that CA has sent Barbara
Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Waxman to
Washington. I am deeply embarrassed at the idiot legislators at the
state level as well; Cruz Bustamante is an utter fucking moron, and
yet he rose to Lt. Governor; he may still hold office, I can't bear
to look. Arnold got elected by pretending to be fiscally
conservative; he lied.
Final point: CA is in big financial trouble and it is the biggest
state (population and economy) in the US, hence this is THE
"troubled economy story". You all should be aware, however, that CA
is not the most distressed state in the union. Many others have
deficits that are much higher (per capita) than CA; they are going
to begging to the Dems in Washington as well.
Don't bail any of them out, including CA.
|5.22.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Brandybuck-
Yeah, you know me, I am a big fan of the "slivers" that go to
medicare and DEA.
|5.22.09 @ 2:53PM|#
Wayne,
There is no "bailing out" California. Yeah, the feds can send them
a few hundred billion and call the dogs off for a while. But there
is every reason to believe the state will blow through that money
and be broke again in a few years. Califnorian is going to go
bankrupt and the political culture is going to radically change.
There are no other alternatives. Like Herb Stein used to say, "if
something can't go on forever, it won't".
T|5.22.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Don't bail any of them out, including CA.
Word. Of course, I live in the state with the second highest
population. We're also a net donor state, and yet, strangely, we've
managed to stay solvent without needing a federal bailout. Hmm.
Maybe Cali's problems are self-inflicted and the rest of us
shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their stupidity.
|5.22.09 @ 2:59PM|#
It is just infuriating that a state that routinely elects federal office holders who advocate high marginal taxation can now whine that its federal tax burden is too high and that it is a "donor state". If we had a flat tax, people in high cost of living states like California wouldn't be paying such a disproportionate share of taxes. But last I checked, the majority of Californians wouldn't support that. So what the hell is your bitch?
wayne|5.22.09 @ 3:04PM|#
" Like Herb Stein used to say, "if something can't go on
forever, it won't"."
Amen.
wayne|5.22.09 @ 3:07PM|#
I wonder if the costs of feeding, educating, and medicating a substantial number of illegal aliens contributed to CA's problems?
kinnath|5.22.09 @ 3:07PM|#
If you look at a pie chart, you'll see tiny slivers for
medicare, education, DEA, etc.
The problem is that these slivers are zero.
The Angry Optimist|5.22.09 @ 3:16PM|#
Brandybuck - well done sir!
I don't get the "Let's focus on the (admittedly not-small) amount
of DoD spending and call all of the members of that organization
leaches, but we'll ignore the massively regressive and horribly
expensive FICA program."
|5.22.09 @ 3:19PM|#
TAO-
I guess you can say with a straight face that you have not read a
post from me where I have criticized the drug war and the trillions
that have been wasted, just flushed down the toilet, have you?
|5.22.09 @ 3:23PM|#
TAO-
FICA? Oh, yeah, like you have never read a post where I have had
something to say about income taxes? Ask Brandybuck if he can
remember a post or two where I focused on income taxes.
Mike Laursen|5.22.09 @ 3:31PM|#
I wonder if the costs of feeding, educating, and medicating
a substantial number of illegal aliens contributed to CA's
problems?
We covered this on a thread yesterday. May have contributed, but
not enough to account for most of California's deficit. Bigger
culprits to take a look at are unions for teachers, prison guards,
and other public employees.
Mike Laursen|5.22.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Oh, and you'd want to also take a look at some of the sweet relationships between politicians and firms specializing in school and prison construction. And generate wastefulness and lack of expense tracking throughout the system.
Declaration of Independence|5.22.09 @ 7:26PM|#
... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. ...
|5.22.09 @ 8:03PM|#
Hey, why the gangup on libertymike?
Might've had something to do with his dissing those honored by
Memorial Day, and his claim that the armed forces are just a
welfare program for people who want to play soldier.
BTW, defense would consume a huge fraction of our federal
government's expenditures even if they followed the Constitution.
Yes, defense spending is too high. But so is every other area of
federal spending, and most of the other areas aren't even
justifiable wrt the Constitution.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245