CALIFORNIA SAYS "NO" TO EXTENDED UNEMPLOYMENT....

And guess what ? People go out and get a job !

After the California Employment Development Department made an announcement that federal benefits for as many as 400,000 unemployed Californians could end on December 29, California’s unemployment dropped in October as more Californians looked for -- and found -- work.

Why didn't Obama think of this ? He could have saved us hard working taxpayers billions in unnecessary unemployment benefits, handed out to his constituents.

California has been having serious economic problems since about 1978.

. . . You can't blame President Obama for that, but I'm sure you will anyway.

California has been having serious economic problems since about 1978.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Not continually.

Actually, they were going gangbusters in the 1990s when the dotcom bubble was minting millionaires and everybody had a well-paying job.

The problem was they keyed all of their state spending, particularly public employee compensation and benefits, to those unrealistically high numbers.

When the dot-com bubble crashed in 1999-2000, things got real tough. When the real estate bubble crashed in 2008, things got heinous.

It's the spending. Always the spending. The taxes they raise now don't come anywhere near meeting their spending targets.

so was Texas for that matter.

Naturally you libertards miss the point; or ignore it................

Not Obama personally, but his re-distributionsist Marxist governance yes.....California us to be the land of milk and honey...but 40 years of Progressive politics has ruined that once great state.

California has been having serious economic problems since about 1978.

. . . You can't blame President Obama for that, but I'm sure you will anyway.
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Not Obama personally, but his re-distributionsist Marxist governance yes.....California us to be the land of milk and honey...but 40 years of Progressive politics has ruined that once great state. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

There you have it folks, Whirly boldly proclaims that the decline of California began when Ronald Reagan was their Governor!

Ah yes, progressive politics. When Jerry Brown was first in office following Reagan, all he did was run surpluses for seven of his eight years in office (the recession year of 1981 being the exception). Also, all he did tax-wise was to (a) index the Cal. income tax brackets to the rate of inflation: i.e. if $10K was a breakpoint and inflation was 5% percent the bracket increased to $10.5K, and (b) eliminate approx. $2.4 billion in business taxes by getting rid of the business inventory tax. That is far more than Reagan did for California while he was governor.
Oh btw I lived in California from the last days of Earl Warren to the last year of Arnold Shwarzenegger. I think I know just a bit about the state of Califonia.

Ah yes, progressive politics. When Jerry Brown was first in office following Reagan, all he did was run surpluses for seven of his eight years in office (the recession year of 1981 being the exception). Also, all he did tax-wise was to (a) index the Cal. income tax brackets to the rate of inflation: i.e. if $10K was a breakpoint and inflation was 5% percent the bracket increased to $10.5K, and (b) eliminate approx. $2.4 billion in business taxes by getting rid of the business inventory tax. That is far more than Reagan did for California while he was governor.
Oh btw I lived in California from the last days of Earl Warren to the last year of Arnold Shwarzenegger. I think I know just a bit about the state of Califonia. Originally Posted by chefnerd

So, YOU'RE the one that ran it into the ground, huh?

And then you fled.

So, YOU'RE the one that ran it into the ground, huh?

And then you fled. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Absolutely. GIT while the gittin is good!!!

That is far more than Reagan did for California while he was governor. Originally Posted by chefnerd

Why?

Reagan froze government hiring and instituted tax hikes to balance the budget. When Jerry Brown took office, a balanced budget was handed over to him.

Why does he get credit for that over Reagan? Admittedly Jerry Brown gets credit for KEEPING the budget balanced, but it's not like he dug the state out of a hole to begin with.

I lived in California while Jerry Brown was governor the first time. I thought he was a pretty good governor. I even supported him in the primaries against Carter. Don't know what the hell has happened to the state since then.

Why?

Reagan froze government hiring and instituted tax hikes to balance the budget. When Jerry Brown took office, a balanced budget was handed over to him.

Why does he get credit for that over Reagan? Admittedly Jerry Brown gets credit for KEEPING the budget balanced, but it's not like he dug the state out of a hole to begin with. Originally Posted by ExNYer

Valid point sir. However, Reagan's tax hikes were also FAR beyond what was necessary to balance the budget. He also increased spending by approx. 177% while in office. Brown decreased spending and instituted cuts for business. Granted, he also did institute some other increases, but nowhere near the excess of Reagan.

I lived in California while Jerry Brown was governor the first time. I thought he was a pretty good governor. I even supported him in the primaries against Carter. Don't know what the hell has happened to the state since then. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's been a bi-party meltdown scenario for the most part. Mostly Dem. legislature with a usually Rep. governor. Apparently the Governors did not remember, or chose to forget, the fact that they have line-item veto authority on budget and appropriation bills.

Valid point sir. However, Reagan's tax hikes were also FAR beyond what was necessary to balance the budget. He also increased spending by approx. 177% while in office. Brown decreased spending and instituted cuts for business. Granted, he also did institute some other increases, but nowhere near the excess of Reagan. Originally Posted by chefnerd

Guess it depends on what the 177% was for, doesn't it?

Since he froze hiring, I imagine the lion's share of the increase went to infrastructure improvements. I don't have a problem with that as long as the budget stays balanced and the infrastructure $$ were real improvements, not "make work" projects.

I have much a bigger problem with spending increases to inflate the size and influence of government. Doubling the size of teacher's unions and not getting educational improvements is not my idea of good government, even if you raise taxes to pay for all the new unnecessary teachers.