California shows how to balance budget

[Truthmatters]

Now PROVE taxes cause fewer revenues liked you claimed

 

[DiamondDave]

If you are so confident CA will run a surplus, TDM.. but a wager on it.. like loser is banned from this board for life

 

[Truthmatters]

and why would they LIE about it when its a couple of months away?


You people will just LIE about it when it is money in the bank

Why would a politician lie. Really TM?

dear idiot,


they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.


Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?


You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real

 

[Truthmatters]

If you are so confident CA will run a surplus, TDM.. but a wager on it.. like loser is banned from this board for life

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM]Shut the Fuck up Donny - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Truthmatters]

Prove taxes CAUSE less revenue you fucking clown

 

[DiamondDave]

If you are so confident CA will run a surplus, TDM.. but a wager on it.. like loser is banned from this board for life

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM]Shut the Fuck up Donny - YouTube[/ame]

You are so SURE of yourself...

Otherwise.. you know you are doing nothing more than talking out of your ass

 

[Mad Scientist]

My wife and I still own a home in California (Yucca Valley) and now that the Dems have a Super Majority there is talk about repealing Prop 13 which limited Property taxes to 1% of home value. If tax rates go up I'm just gonna' put that on the Renters (Marine family from nearby 29 Palms) just like I did with the "Out of State Homeowner Tax" that California levied on me a few years ago.

My solution to States Budget Problems is this:

Gather all the Taxes that the Federal Gov't takes from workers paychecks and send that to the State Capitol. The State then uses ALL THAT MONEY to balance that years budget and whatever other bills are due then sends the remainder to Washington.

Budget Deficits dry up overnight.

There's no more Pork Barrel Corruption coming from Washington because the money STAYS WHERE IT IS NEEDED: IN THE STATES! Otherwise the Gov't is gonna' spend it on Welfare for Illegal Aliens and Drone Strikes in Pakistan. Who wants that?

The States then get their power back from a corrupt US Central Gov't.

 

[Antares]

You won't like any of this, but here you go.

The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.

I am sorry, I know it hurts.

President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.

In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.


THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary


FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.

 

[eflatminor]

Now PROVE taxes cause fewer revenues liked you claimed

Educate yourself...if that's possible. Plenty of examples. If you can actually read better than you write, try this one:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Prosperity-Higher-Economy--If/dp/B0064XGGVE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1357921124&sr=8-2&keywords=Arthur+Laffer]The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy--If We Let It Happen: Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore, Peter Tanous: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


You can also look to when we raised tax rates in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

Or, you could look to your own damn state! In the first month after the passage of Prop 30, revenue was DOWN. California State Controller John Chiang has announced that "total state revenue for the month of November 2012 fell $806.8 million, or 10.8%, below budget."

Oops, not off to a good start.

 

[Truthmatters]

That is opinion and not proof you idiot

 

[eflatminor]

and why would they LIE about it when its a couple of months away?


You people will just LIE about it when it is money in the bank

Why would a politician lie. Really TM?

dear idiot,


they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.


Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?


You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real

When it's in the bank and California has actually lived within its means without bullshit accounting tricks, I'll admit I was wrong. Now, will you when those revenues fail to materialize? I doubt it.

 

[Truthmatters]

You won't like any of this, but here you go.

The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.

I am sorry, I know it hurts.

President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.

In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.


url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary


FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.

dear idiot your first link is from 1998 and is the authors projects and has NOTHING to do with the REAL numbers later seen.


Your second one is right wing propaganda




I gave you a MUCH better source

 

[eflatminor]

That is opinion and not proof you idiot

California State Controller John Chiang's statement that revenues are down is an opinion?

When revenues DROPPED following the '90 tax rate hikes, that's opinion?

Whatever. Get back to that bowl of paint chips before you have another epic meltdown.

 

[Antares]

We must be pissing truth off, it is leaving nasty messages on my profile page.

 

[eflatminor]

We must be pissing truth off, it is leaving nasty messages on my profile page.

It's the paint chips. Nobody could be that stupid on their own.

 

[Antares]

Yes of course kid, Factcheck is a MUCH better source than the Treasury Depts ACTUAL numbers...you can't make this shit up.

You won't like any of this, but here you go.

The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.

I am sorry, I know it hurts.

President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.

In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.


url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary


FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.

dear idiot your first link is from 1998 and is the authors projects and has NOTHING to do with the REAL numbers later seen.


Your second one is right wing propaganda




I gave you a MUCH better source

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would a politician lie. Really TM?

dear idiot,


they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.


Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?


You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real

When it's in the bank and California has actually lived within its means without bullshit accounting tricks, I'll admit I was wrong. Now, will you when those revenues fail to materialize? I doubt it.

I am not the one here who avoids facts regualrly its you people who do that

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes of course kid, Factcheck is a MUCH better source than the Treasury Depts ACTUAL numbers...you can't make this shit up.

You won't like any of this, but here you go.

The author uses the Treasury depts actuual numbers, not clinton's "projected numbers.

I am sorry, I know it hurts.

President Clinton said today that he foresaw budget surpluses totaling $1.1 trillion over the next decade, far more than the Congressional Budget Office anticipates.

In just five months, Mr. Clinton's forecast has become much more optimistic. He now predicts that the Government will run a surplus of $216 billion in 2007, which is $49 billion more than he predicted in September.


url=http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/03/us/clinton-budget-projected-surplus-clinton-sees-1.1-trillion-excess-revenue-decade.html]THE CLINTON BUDGET - THE PROJECTED SIZE="6"]SURPLUS - Clinton Sees $1.1 Trillion in Excess Revenue in Decade - NYTimes.com[/url]

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


/the_clinton_surplus_myth/page/full/]The Clinton Surplus Myth - Craig Steiner - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary


FactCheck.org Says Clinton Had a Surplus

FactCheck.org repeats and uses the same government numbers that this article illustrates to be misleading. Further information on why the CBO's numbers (and FactCheck's numbers) are misleading is explained in my follow-up article this week.

dear idiot your first link is from 1998 and is the authors projects and has NOTHING to do with the REAL numbers later seen.


Your second one is right wing propaganda




I gave you a MUCH better source

You didnt GIVE the treasury numbers did you/

GO GET THEM YOU FUCKING LIAR

 

[eflatminor]

dear idiot,


they lie when its years down the road not when they will have to face the lie in a few weeks.


Now what will you say to me when its in the fucking bank?


You will NOT ever mention it or fucking lie about it not being real

When it's in the bank and California has actually lived within its means without bullshit accounting tricks, I'll admit I was wrong. Now, will you when those revenues fail to materialize? I doubt it.

I am not the one here who avoids facts regualrly its you people who do that

Got it, you'll never admit you were wrong. Don't worry, we'll be here to point that out.

 

[Wicked Jester]

There is not a car assembly line left in California and New England

Guess again...

Tesla Motors | Premium Electric Vehicles

They just hit the benchmark of making 100 cars in a day up from 5 per day.

Well, isn't that special......I guess that makes up for the state now losing one of it's biggest employers, Chevron, who's pulling up stakes and fleeing this loony bin.

And now another huge employer, Intel, is chirping about fleeing this loony bin.