[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for taking the time to outline your political philosophies.

You're welcome.  That was the spur of the moment abreviated version.

I'll respond with an observation.

It would seem that our only political difference is party allegiance.

It might interest you to know that I am not a Republican at this time.  I am a Reform party member.  I cast my first non-republican vote for a presidential candidate in the year 2000, when I voted for Buchanan.  It was my first, and probably my last throw away vote.  Illegal immigration and some personal internalized perceptions caused me to vote that way in the year 2000.  I doubt that I'll ever do it again.    

I'm a registered Republican with absolutely no loyalty to the party. I believe our only political power is centered around the Second Amendment. I would sacrifice Republican control of the California executive in a heartbeat if it would solve our financial problems. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a conservative regardless of political affiliation.

Well, if that candidate was close to viable, I would probably join you.

With regard to Schwarzenegger's fiscal decisions: saying no was exactly what Schwarzenegger should have done. He knew he couldn't control the legislature but failed to remove their power to tax and spend. He could have declared an emergency or defacto turned over state finance control to the lenders.

Well I disagree with you here.  We're in a financial mess to be sure, but I am not as inclined to lay this at the feet of Schwarzenegger as you are.  As for turning over financial control to lenders, what makes you think their decisions would be based on what's best for California?  Their self-interest would not necessarily guarantee a positive outcome for the state IMO.

The lenders would certainly have raised taxes but they would have also forced deep cuts in spending. Schwarzenegger has increased taxation and increased spending.

Have your taxes gone up?  Will you pay a higher tax rate next April?  No.  You won't.  Taxes were not increased.  You will pay the same tax rate until that tax rate is either increased or decreased.  Schwarzenegger's floated bond aleviated the true need to raise taxes.  While it may take considerable time to pay off that series of bonds, and our tax rate may have been reduced more easily if that bond had not been floated at some point, it is not accurate to state that a bond sale is a raised tax.  It's just not true.  We would have been paying this same tax rate for the forseeable future.  The idea that our kids or granchildren will have a larger burder placed on them than we have, isn't really accurate either.  As inflation reduces the value of this loan, our kids and grandchildren will pay it off with wages that are more than you and I make.Thus, the burden on them will actually be less percentage wise than it was on us.

California is one of the few political institutions that could benefit from IMF oversight. The situation is that bad and grows worse with each fiscal policy Schwarzenegger negotiates and/or approves.

While I don't like California's indebtedness, I do think we should keep things in perspective as we discuss it.  As a state, California's indebtedness is larger than any other that I know of, percapita.  It's present debt is roughly 35 to 50% of California's yearly state budget.  You and I can agree that is rediculous.  The fact is though, that our federal government services a debt that is at least three times it's yearly budget. This means that California's indebtedness is anywhere from one-tenth to one sixth as bad as the national debt.  California's GNP is significant enough to make it one of the top five governments in the world, if it were sovereign in it's own right.  While I don't like this deficit budget situation, California is very capable of servicing this debt.  Obviously we want to see that debt retired ASAP.  For that reason I agree with you that cuts do need to be made, and I hope they are made right away.

As for the IMF, I do not support the need for it in any way.  The IMF is a conduit to your and my tax dollars being stolen and redistributed outside our borders on a massive scale.  IMF loans are NOT always repaid.  You can take the IMF and toss it down the same rabit hole with the UN, the ICC, NAFTA, the FTAA and the WTO.

Thanks for taking the time to outline your political philosophies.

You're welcome.  That was the spur of the moment abreviated version.

I'll respond with an observation.

It would seem that our only political difference is party allegiance.

It might interest you to know that I am not a Republican at this time.  I am a Reform party member.  I cast my first non-republican vote for a presidential candidate in the year 2000, when I voted for Buchanan.  It was my first, and probably my last throw away vote.  Illegal immigration and some personal internalized perceptions caused me to vote that way in the year 2000.  I doubt that I'll ever do it again.    

I'm a registered Republican with absolutely no loyalty to the party. I believe our only political power is centered around the Second Amendment. I would sacrifice Republican control of the California executive in a heartbeat if it would solve our financial problems. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for a conservative regardless of political affiliation.

Well, if that candidate was close to viable, I would probably join you.

With regard to Schwarzenegger's fiscal decisions: saying no was exactly what Schwarzenegger should have done. He knew he couldn't control the legislature but failed to remove their power to tax and spend. He could have declared an emergency or defacto turned over state finance control to the lenders.

Well I disagree with you here.  We're in a financial mess to be sure, but I am not as inclined to lay this at the feet of Schwarzenegger as you are.  As for turning over financial control to lenders, what makes you think their decisions would be based on what's best for California?  Their self-interest would not necessarily guarantee a positive outcome for the state IMO.

The lenders would certainly have raised taxes but they would have also forced deep cuts in spending. Schwarzenegger has increased taxation and increased spending.

Have your taxes gone up?  Will you pay a higher tax rate next April?  No.  You won't.  Taxes were not increased.  You will pay the same tax rate until that tax rate is either increased or decreased.  Schwarzenegger's floated bond aleviated the true need to raise taxes.  While it may take considerable time to pay off that series of bonds, and our tax rate may have been reduced more easily if that bond had not been floated at some point, it is not accurate to state that a bond sale is a raised tax.  It's just not true.  We would have been paying this same tax rate for the forseeable future.  The idea that our kids or granchildren will have a larger burder placed on them than we have, isn't really accurate either.  As inflation reduces the value of this loan, our kids and grandchildren will pay it off with wages that are more than you and I make.Thus, the burden on them will actually be less percentage wise than it was on us.

California is one of the few political institutions that could benefit from IMF oversight. The situation is that bad and grows worse with each fiscal policy Schwarzenegger negotiates and/or approves.

While I don't like California's indebtedness, I do think we should keep things in perspective as we discuss it.  As a state, California's indebtedness is larger than any other that I know of, percapita.  It's present debt is roughly 35 to 50% of California's yearly state budget.  You and I can agree that is rediculous.  The fact is though, that our federal government services a debt that is at least three times it's yearly budget. This means that California's indebtedness is anywhere from one-tenth to one sixth as bad as the national debt.  California's GNP is significant enough to make it one of the top five governments in the world, if it were sovereign in it's own right.  While I don't like this deficit budget situation, California is very capable of servicing this debt.  Obviously we want to see that debt retired ASAP.  For that reason I agree with you that cuts do need to be made, and I hope they are made right away.

As for the IMF, I do not support the need for it in any way.  The IMF is a conduit to your and my tax dollars being stolen and redistributed outside our borders on a massive scale.  IMF loans are NOT always repaid.  You can take the IMF and toss it down the same rabit hole with the UN, the ICC, NAFTA, the FTAA and the WTO.

[SierraWasp]

Hi D1. CA being in debt for ANYTHING other than "Infrastructure" is blatantly un-constitutional! So is running any kind of a "deficit!" Thus, if it is un-constitutional, it is extra-legal (against the highest law of the state and the will of the people) and totally illegal, immoral and fattening of future taxation levels as an illegal debt service!!! CA cannot print money like the Feds and has no mints, breath, or otherwise.

By the way... since you mentioned "Emergency Powers" being invoked, did Gray Davis ever rescind his declaration of "Emergency Powers?" Has Arnold???

We've simply Recalled one Governor that exceeded his constitutional authority and replaced him with another that has already exceeded his and convinced to voters that the illegal credit card has been "cut up" which isn't being honest with us. He engaged in more borrowing for this budget deficit just exactly as Davis did and the courts stopped Davis. They will probably stop AS in exactly the same way. This is NOT succeeding, or "success" by any definition, is it?