it's the end of the great experiment. this govt has been bankrupt since the 30's. we've just been living on credit ever since.
and I think we've reached the limit.

What about the other 27 states?

The "deficit" threatened in Massachusetts every year is the difference between the 15% spending increase the politicians want and the 5% increase that they get after raising taxes and fees.

The deficit in California is due to the fact that the Democrats just spend like crazy, nevermind that revenues here in CA are actually UP 40% since 2003. California has a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem.

Um, the Big Government the GOP's been lying about reducing is the Federal Government

.

Democrats to the rescue! All we have to do is to take money from the people responsible enough not to have run a crippling deficit! They're rich, right? They can afford it, and they should support the rest of us poor shlubs.

can we sell them to China?

SushiJoe: can we sell them EatHam to China?

Better for everyone.

2wolves: SushiJoe: can we sell them EatHam to China?

Better for everyone.

Another liberal advocating slavery and human trafficking. Morally superior indeed.

2wolves: SushiJoe: can we sell them EatHam to China?

Better for everyone.

but, I'm torn. EatHam makes me laugh, but Eatham says douchebag things...EatHam or EyeHate, we can only keep one

EatHam:

Another liberal advocating slavery and human trafficking. Morally superior indeed.

Who claims you're human?

oh. i can see this is personal. i'm staying out of this

2wolves: Who claims you're human?

I see your point, Mr. Wolf.

SushiJoe: oh. i can see this is personal.

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

I live in Maryland, which is an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

This doens't have to do with R or D politics, its the economy.

Alabama's solution was to rape the college budget. Thanks GOP!

These are "crippling" deficits in the same way a boozehound is "crippled" by alcohol. These states can quit running deficits any time they want to. They just don't want to. Instead, they rope the rest of us into compensating for their addiction.

You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have." Cut accordingly. Learn the power of the word "no." Don't promise what you cannot deliver. Really, it's not that hard.

EatHam:

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

I thought you were a 'bot.

MasterThief: You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have." Cut accordingly. Learn the power of the word "no." Don't promise what you cannot deliver. Really, it's not that hard.

But how else are you going to pay off the unions that keep you in office?

You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have."

Need to have: police, schools, bridges, roads.

Nice to have: sports stadiums, arts funding

GAT_00: Alabama's solution was to rape the college budget. Thanks GOP!

I should actually explain just how much of a hatchet they took. I go to probably the 4th biggest school, and we had to raise tuition 20%, fire 50 staff, and consolidate classes. UA and Auburn got away with only ~10% increases due to size.

MasterThief: These are "crippling" deficits in the same way a boozehound is "crippled" by alcohol. These states can quit running deficits any time they want to. They just don't want to. Instead, they rope the rest of us into compensating for their addiction.

You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have." Cut accordingly. Learn the power of the word "no." Don't promise what you cannot deliver. Really, it's not that hard.

The batches of unfunded mandates haven't helped the situation either. States have been reeling for a while with their budgets as a lot has come down the pike over the last few years, and the housing bust is going to hurt them even more.

Is it a chance to trim some fat? Certainly, but lets face it, education is going to take a hit. Infrastructure, like the crisis in Mass with roads and bridges, those are going to take a hit as well. Greater regulation of utilities--you're going to see that too. It's going to be ugly for a while, and a lot of contractors are going to take deep hits--which is going to have fallout for a while too.

hubiestubert:

The batches of unfunded mandates haven't helped the situation either. States have been reeling for a while with their budgets as a lot has come down the pike over the last few years, and the housing bust is going to hurt them even more.

Is it a chance to trim some fat? Certainly, but lets face it, education is going to take a hit. Infrastructure, like the crisis in Mass with roads and bridges, those are going to take a hit as well. Greater regulation of utilities--you're going to see that too. It's going to be ugly for a while, and a lot of contractors are going to take deep hits--which is going to have fallout for a while too.

In California, we're up 40% in revenues from 4 (5?) years ago. There's no excuse for running a deficit or needing bonds/borrowing. Increases in spending outstripped increases in revenue. So, there's no excuse for the mess we're in here.

MasterThief: You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have." Cut accordingly. Learn the power of the word "no." Don't promise what you cannot deliver. Really, it's not that hard.

Don't forget, the goal is to get re-elected. Your job security relies on keeping these people who would 'like to have' happy, and they are only happy with those 'nice to have' things. If you do not provide, they vote in someone who will. The problem is not the government officials, but the rest of us, because none of us want to admit those things we want to have are only 'nice to have,' instead of necessary.

EatHam: SushiJoe: oh. i can see this is personal.

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

nom nom nom

SushiJoe: EatHam: SushiJoe: oh. i can see this is personal.

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

nom nom nom

Hey, that sushi ate the ham. Now it's SushiHam.

nom nom nom

/spits

Be careful, there are bits of Joe in here.

om nom nom

Talon: Don't forget, the goal is to get re-elected. Your job security relies on keeping these people who would 'like to have' happy, and they are only happy with those 'nice to have' things. If you do not provide, they vote in someone who will. The problem is not the government officials, but the rest of us, because none of us want to admit those things we want to have are only 'nice to have,' instead of necessary.

All too true. But even so, this is where the need for real, no-kidding leadership comes in. The first part is telling your constituents that there's no way that everyone is going to get everything they want, but everyone's going to get the basics - infrastructure in good condition, emergency services that work, school funding for the basics, etc. etc. After that, you go and try to spread the pain around so that everybody takes a hit with the cuts. Hell, maybe you offer to go without part or all of your salary as an elected official if you can afford it, just to show you understand what they're going through.

At least, that's the way I'd do it...

Doctor Funkenstein: SushiJoe: EatHam: SushiJoe: oh. i can see this is personal.

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

nom nom nom

Hey, that sushi ate the ham. Now it's SushiHam.

nom nom nom

/spits

Be careful, there are bits of Joe in here.

om nom nom

i'm putting this in my profile lolol

dj_bigbird: hubiestubert:

The batches of unfunded mandates haven't helped the situation either. States have been reeling for a while with their budgets as a lot has come down the pike over the last few years, and the housing bust is going to hurt them even more.

Is it a chance to trim some fat? Certainly, but lets face it, education is going to take a hit. Infrastructure, like the crisis in Mass with roads and bridges, those are going to take a hit as well. Greater regulation of utilities--you're going to see that too. It's going to be ugly for a while, and a lot of contractors are going to take deep hits--which is going to have fallout for a while too.

In California, we're up 40% in revenues from 4 (5?) years ago. There's no excuse for running a deficit or needing bonds/borrowing. Increases in spending outstripped increases in revenue. So, there's no excuse for the mess we're in here.

True enough. Y'all have got some farked up shiat--and the mess with utilities didn't help things. Other states are going to be in a bind as well. Mass' Big Dig has hardly helped matters--the money spent on that one project has put back road and bridge maintenance across the state years, and infrastructure is one of the biggest concerns facing most states.

dj_bigbird: In California, we're up 40% in revenues from 4 (5?) years ago. There's no excuse for running a deficit or needing bonds/borrowing. Increases in spending outstripped increases in revenue. So, there's no excuse for the mess we're in here.

You're right about the increase in revenues in the time period you're describing. However, you're assuming the demand for state services has remained static, when in fact that has not been the case at all.

Take for instance, the prison system. While total population is up modestly, our forced commitment to it by the federal government represents an increase in expenditure (keep in mind, this is just so that it doesn't violate the 8th Amendment). That is an increasing need that requires more spending.

Our water system is inadequate. We need to build infrastructure to accommodate rising population figures and get water where it needs to be. We've started doing this, and we need to do more. Even the Republicans acknowledge this, althought the way they want to go about it is different than Democrats'.

As the cost of health care has gone up (much faster than inflation), more and more people find that they require state assistance for basic medical care. This is an increased demand that requires increased spending.

Our highway network is inadequate. Ask anyone driving in Southern California, or for that matter anyone driving in the Bay Area, and even friggin' Sacramento now. We also need more public transit systems, as those are proving inadequate to meet increasing demand.

These and other things like it are not frivolous things. These are services that are absolutely essential to the economy and well-being of the State. Of course there are areas where cuts will have to be made, and could be made. But to say that all we have is a "spending problem" is overly simplistic and misleading.

Florida is responding to it's budget crisis in the only way that makes sense: Cut funding for educational institutions as much as 20%. Because what good does all that book-learnin' do anybody?

Kome: Florida is responding to it's budget crisis in the only way that makes sense: Cut funding for educational institutions as much as 20%. Because what good does all that book-learnin' do anybody?

It makes some folks "uppitty" after all...

SushiJoe: Doctor Funkenstein: SushiJoe: EatHam: SushiJoe: oh. i can see this is personal.

No it's not, I'm not a person, I am a meat popsicle.

nom nom nom

Hey, that sushi ate the ham. Now it's SushiHam.

nom nom nom

/spits

Be careful, there are bits of Joe in here.

om nom nom

i'm putting this in my profile lolol

Hehe - too bad ginger ninja wasn't around. Would have been a nice compliment to the SushiHam

/off to find make me some tea to wash this down

Legalize and tax pot, gambling, and prostitution, and empty the jails of such offenders. Not only would you have more revenue, you'd become a tourist destination.

dj_bigbird: The deficit in California is due to the fact that the Democrats just spend like crazy, nevermind that revenues here in CA are actually UP 40% since 2003. California has a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem.

As I understanding California is paying off their debt. That counts as spending, though. So they can just lower those payments and it will work out.

vernonFL: You don't want to be in a deficit? Easy. Prioritize between the spending that is "need to have" versus "nice to have."

Need to have: police, schools, bridges, roads.

Nice to have: sports stadiums, arts funding

If only that actually worked.

As I understand it* ^^^

As someone who lives in a city with 11% sales tax, I'm smugly looking down on you who will soon enough join me.

EatHam: Democrats to the rescue! All we have to do is to take money from the people responsible enough not to have run a who elected the people who caused this crippling deficit and benefitted the most from their deficit-inducing policies! They're rich, right? They can afford it, and they should support the rest of us poor shlubs.

I'll bill you later.

IL does not have a deficit problem. We have a governor and legislator problem.

On NPR the other day they had a story about a 13yo kid who lived on a farm and he was trying to make some money raising chickens, the first year he sold his 100 chickens for 5 bucks a piece and spent like 480 bucks on feed. so what does the kid do? He finds a clever way to cut his feed expense by grinding his own corn and now his feed costs are like 150 bucks.

The government just trudges on with their exact same inefficient method of operation on every last expense and then they whine that they need more money...can't they "grind their own corn" or something, I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no way to lower operating costs across the board.

Pension plans alone are killing state and local governments. For example, under current benefits, a San Diego city employee hired at age 35 can retire at 55 with two-thirds of his last salary. The mayor is trying to change pensions to where employees would no longer be able to collect pensions that exceed their annual salaries and they would have to work longer to reach the top benefit level.

Good. Starve the beast.

dj_bigbird: The deficit in California is due to the fact that the Democrats just spend like crazy, nevermind that revenues here in CA are actually UP 40% since 2003. California has a SPENDING problem, not a REVENUE problem.

KFI FTW.

Cagey B: But to say that all we have is a "spending problem" is overly simplistic and misleading.

They should just say 'social welfare programs' and be done with it like they used to instead of taking this pick-and-choose, pseudo-libertarian stance to avoid not looking like racists or class warriors.

Snarfangel: Legalize and tax pot, gambling, and prostitution, and empty the jails of such offenders. Not only would you have more revenue, you'd become a tourist destination.

That sounds like East St. Louis to me.

How ironic would it be if these states have record gaps due to the high cost of energy. The same energy issues that GOP members can be cleared away by simply drilling for more oil overseas, which wouldn't hit the markets for about 10 years.

So, when do we finally dissolve all the states and replace everything with total federal control?

/it just seems to be the direction we've been heading in for the past 150 odd years.

Headso: On NPR the other day they had a story about a 13yo kid who lived on a farm and he was trying to make some money raising chickens, the first year he sold his 100 chickens for 5 bucks a piece and spent like 480 bucks on feed. so what does the kid do? He finds a clever way to cut his feed expense by grinding his own corn and now his feed costs are like 150 bucks.

The government just trudges on with their exact same inefficient method of operation on every last expense and then they whine that they need more money...can't they "grind their own corn" or something, I find it extremely hard to believe that there is no way to lower operating costs across the board.

I consulted to DFAS for a few years (Defense Finance & Accounting Service). They really thought that the planned financial system would help with their problems. They absolutely refused to examine their processes and practices -- they just wanted us to consolidate the whole mess on a single IT platform.

Your government at work: spending more money to perpetuate crappy and inefficient processes.

Not surprised at all, politicians are having the hardest time stopping spending. There are so many solutions to cut back government spending and are perfectly acceptable but it seems both the politicians (and some of their respective voters) are afraid that if we scale back government we'll dive into a world of chaos. That could not be farther from the truth.