I got one - how come the NBC nightly news failed to cover the fact that GE paid no income taxes?

Please include a little blurb about journalistic integrity and the problem that occurs when a gianormous and very EEEVVIIILL corp owns a highbrow news organization such as yourselves.

Great. I'll be over here holding my breath.

Spanky,

Your Question has about as much Chance of being Choosen as mine. Dont hold your breath my friend

And there goes your disingenuous argument about American corproate taxes being too high. The effective tax rate is what matters and you know as well as anyone else here at a political blog that the loopholes are written into the tax laws at the paid lobbyists' requests. Paid by corporations to gut the corporate tax code.

Here's My Question to ANY so-called reporter/journalist.

When are any ofya gonna do an Expose on what these Governor's are doing when comeing into office,i.e. slashing Taxes on Businesses, then turning around several days later, Only to say we're BROKE!

It's wortha Shot!

No Bob, not That kinda Shot!

SteveO, that question is a Simple One. When Motels & Hotels across America do away with thier cable packages that Only include FOX NEWS, then other's will see thier Ratings BOOM. But not until then.

WhenObama decides to arm the rebels [like he hasn't already] will they have to adhere to the same waiting periods to get guns as do the good citizens of California?

Why are Libyans entitled to better treatment than Californians, people from Ill, DC or New York?

And we de we get to buy surface to air missiles or rpgs? I mean christ the cartels around here got them, why can't we?

If you want a gun faster, join the Libyan rebels.

I'll consider that Paul...when and if President Obama makes a decision to arm them.

Rick, KY...last evening Rachel Maddow did a great job of explaining the 'bait & switch' that the newly elected Teaparty Governors are doing.

She highlighted the Governors of Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan........

It would have been funny if it weren't so seriously pathetic what those Governors are doing...to fix the 'we're broke' problem.

What will have to happen to PREVENT a government shutdown?

Reason and sanity prevails. Don't hold your breath till that tax refund arrives.

Uh-oh...

Feisty...

Collapsed again.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL Comment collapsed by the community

Remember, he didn't like the word compromise

Speaker Weeper sounded like a cat coughing up a hairball trying to say compromise!

C..C..Co..Com...

My question is this: When are the staff at FR going to start seriously addressing the fact that many here, mostly on the right, are flagging and getting posts collapsed that have no business being collapsed other than the fact that the ideas and thoughts posted do not agree with their agenda? What penalties can be imposed on those people who indiscriminantly flag posts that are not attacks, advertising or inflammatory?

Funny Mixed, I would swear that YOU are one of the leading Feisty Flaggers...else why would you gloat so??

Perhaps we can get FR to ban your account and IP for a while so that you start using that button RESPONSIBLY, rather than just flagging PEOPLE that you dislike??

I'm not flagging Feisty's posts, B. Honest.

As usual, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Feisty's posts are the best argument for conservatism imaginable.

Great Amy, but is it possible that maybe the speech was not so good?

Any chance you might be on the wrong end of this.

But hey about the news we are going to start flat out bombing Kaddafi for here on in. Humanitarian mission be damned - you are cool with that Amy?

And come on Amy, why so serious - Obama is "winning!"

You also good with arming the rebels?

Amy, it's what the cable media does these days, create controversy where there is none. Yesterday, they were all talking about how great the speech was, that President Obama answered the questions, explained it and people were quite happy. Today, it's nitpick day. The print media is filled with partisan op eds, it's how they sell papers and get ratings--stir the pot. The only speech they haven't nitpicked was after the Tucson shooting and the only reason was it would have been impolite and tacky.

Amy B. Portland, ME

Thank you Jody. It's good to keep things in perspective. Hope I don't get deleted for saying "poop!"

If that were the case, Amy B.-

Feisty Redhead would be banned forever.

I think you'll be OK.

Poor Amy.

You mean pundits like those at that "right wing rag", The New York Times?

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/the-presidents-credibility-gap/?emc=eta1

See, Amy, all you focused on was Obama speaking. Everyone else focused on what he said- and what he left out.

Did you know he has already signed a directive allowing the arming of the Libyan rebels? He has- did it two or three weeks ago, according to Reuters...

Did you further know that the CIA has already been deployed to Libya? Cause, they have. So, maybe Qaddafi et fils days are numbered, after all.

Which would be great.

Anyway, Amy- the problem you have is that you are one of the few still caught in his thrall. I'm thinking even the wife and Mom in law are only kept there because of the goodies we taxpayers so unwillingly lavish on them. He will be out of office soon, Amy- no more taxpayer funded tins. No more weekend trips to the Big Apple costing a small fortune. I'm thinking life will be pretty difficult when the wife and Mom in law no longer get to live like billionaires on the taxpayer dime.

Maybe he could give you a call then. Give that old ego a boost.

No We will not Support Arming Al Qeada, and we already have Marines on the Ground in Libya. but the Govt will never admit that Special Forces are on the ground already.

So SteveO, You personally know that Al-Quida is in Lybia, & You Personally know that US Marines are on the ground there also, & You personally know US Special forces are on the ground too.

You are a man in the Know! Are you Nic Roberson (CNN) Richard Engel(NBC) or the Fox Cameraman that is given the Reporter's tag, so the Fox reporter can stay in the Hotel & Report on what He has'nt seen or Does'nt Know?

See Camp Lejeune Libya. The Marines are on the way and I read on Twitter the way to get by the "NoBoots on the ground" is to issue sneakers. I would imagine there are lots of angry people in the US today.

Devie- here is the answer to your question

http://nationaljournal.com/cia-deploys-to-libya-as-white-house-authorizes-direct-assistance-to-rebels-20110330

Please note this has also been reported by Reuters- and the New York Times.

We are all in, folks.

Yeah, and why can't i find Tastee Cakes in the Midwest?

Thankfully, Moon Pies are available through out the entire country! ;o)

And for crying out loud, what's a guy gotta do to get some Utz Potato Chips or a freakin' Krispy Kreme donut in South Florida?????

Grimey -

I can get you Utz by the ton - and freshly packaged at the farmer's market, not those mass-produced bags, either - but trust me, Middleswarth's are infinitely better. So far the closest place I've found them is still 60 miles away, though..... :(

Okay, serious question(s) for the Boiler Room- what's your take on WHY the Republican "candidates" are taking so long to actually declare? Is it lack of money? Are they all competing for the same funds from the same base? Are they re-thinking 2012 vs. 2016? Has the media just pushed them into over-thinking the whole process (i.e., should I announce on Facebook or Twitter?)? Or - as I suspect - are half of them just milking the publicity and the money on the rubber chicken circuit and they have no intention of ever seriously running at all?

Jody,

I notice that in your listing of states, they're all under Republican Governors. I'd like to add two big names to your list, my favorite state of all, California with Jerry Brown at the helm, and the world famous Empire State, New York, with Andrew Cuomo at the helm. Both of these fine gentlemen are Democratic Governors, and both are dealing with the issues of collective bargaining by public unions, tax policy, and unemployement. It's not a one sided coin Jody, no matter how appealing it is to look at it that way.

In contrast to lowering taxes, the fine Governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, has, regardless of the effect, raised taxes on business in the midst of this "slump". Oddly enough, the President of Caterpillar Industries tells Quinn that his firm is being courted by several other states, and Governor Quinn basically says, so what. Not sure how many people are employed by Caterpillar in Illinois, but I'd guess it's quite a few. That doesn't really seem like a good idea does it? When Caterpillar leaves (if it does) what happens to the (newly) unemployed in Illinois? What's the downstream effect of 20K+ unemployed on other business entities within the state?

It's not an issue (entirely) about your political party, but just for fun, let's include both sides of that coin, rather than using a "heads I win, tails you lose", rationale.

Living in L.A. - if caterpillar is 'threatening' to leave Illinois, it is only because they are looking out for themselves. If they were a 'Good' Corporate neighbour, then they would reconsider how their presence - or lack there of - will look to others in their neighbourhood.

If the CEO of Caterpillar is willing to spend the millions of dollars to move (and is opposed to spending some millions of dollars to stay), then I am with the Governor of Illinois - let them go.

The bottom line is this - the money is going to be spend ANYWAY, so why not spend it wisely so that you at least seem like a good corporate neighbour?

C'mon Pietro,

Caterpillar isn't threatening, they're being courted. Caterpillar's President expressed his concern to Governor Quinn, and Quinn's response was basically, "so what". That response has since been modified to "We want to talk", but again, the cost of doing business in Illinois was the issue, not good corporate citizenship. And yes, as every profitable firm is likely to do, Caterpillar is looking out for themselves, they're not a non-profit firm. I'm not sure what millions of dollars you're speaking of, is it the cost of the move? What would you like to bet that Caterpillar has a bunch of folks just like me, doing a cost benefit analysis to see if the move is a viable option for them. If it works, they're gone, if not, then the "courters" might pony up some more money, just to make it worthwhile.

I think that the Governor is mistaken, it's not just the loss of the 20K jobs, it's also the downstream effect of the losses to ancillary business within the state. Money isn't always "spent anyway" Pietro, as you no doubt know. In this particular instance, I think the costs of the move will be offset almost entirely by the courting state, and Caterpillar will benefit immensely, or Governor Quinn will make a deal, and Caterpillar will stay. My point in this series of communications really isn't Caterpillar, it was to open Jody's eyes with respect to the perceived "Republican" problem. The problem exists, and it's not limited to a "one party rule".

Good to see you here.

Caterpillar isn't threatening, they're being courted. Caterpillar's President expressed his concern to Governor Quinn, and Quinn's response was basically, "so what". That response has since been modified to "We want to talk", but again, the cost of doing business in Illinois was the issue, not good corporate citizenship.

Living in L.A. - I am sure that we both understand the realities of the business world. However - if a company 'allows' itself to be courted, then it was never a 'good' corporate neighbour in the first place. CEOs do not just 'move' their companies on a whim; both of us know that.

In this particular case, Catepillar is one of those companies (like International Harvester, Case, Kubota) that is VERY sensitive to economic anamolies, so although I am taking a position that Catepillar is not being a 'good' Corporate neighbour, I understand the CEO's desire to push down his operating costs.

They COULD have gone to the Governor and negotiated this OUTSIDE of the public view; somehow, that was not done. I still take the position that Gov. Quinn is taking by saying 'so what'. As far as the millions to be spent is concerned, yes, I am talking about the cost to move to company to a 'new' location. It has to be worth their while for them to even consider a move.

I think you are right though - Gov. Quinn will make a deal.

It is good to see you as well, Living in L.A.

Pietro,

Have you ever picked up and moved? Did you ever get a phone call from a headhunter, and go on an interview on the off chance that it would improve your lot in life? Did you worry about what your neighbors would think, or did you make the best decision that you could for yourself and your family. It's not about corporate or neighborly citizenship, it's about the best decision for the family or business, you might miss the ones that you leave behind, but over time, if it was the best decision available, then it was the best decision.

Here's the next step, if Governor Quinn makes a deal with Caterpillar, then who's next? If Governor Quinn rolls over once, then he'll probably roll over again, depending upon what the firm means to the state. That doesn't bode well for the average firm, but hey, as they say, size matters.

Okay, so much for levity. I agree with you regarding the publicity on the negotiation, but I think in this case, the information was provided privately to Governor Quinn via a letter. I'm not sure where it leaked, but leak it did, just as sensitive information almost always does.

Living in L.A. - actually, yes, I have picked up and moved. Several times. That is how a person born and raised in the Bronx ends up in Columbus, Ohio via Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

However, in this case, I am not a multi-national Corporation, am I? What I am saying is that Caterpillar seems to always be looking for the Bigger Better Deal and is NOT concerned about being a good Corporate neighbour.

What if Companies like Microsoft decided to chase every good 'deal' that came along? They would be moving constantly. In the case of Microsoft, no matter how much all of us may LOATHE their business practices, they are literally anchored in Redmond, WA. Redmond is the better for it as well, and Microsoft does all they can to be a good corporate neighbour. Everyone wins in this case. People from around the world visit Redmond because Microsoft is there. Microsoft provides a good, stable work environment for the people that live in Redmond.

THAT is what being a good corporate neighbour is all about.

THAT is my point.

So if Caterpillar decides to chase the deal, then let them. They will ALWAYS chase the deal(s), and it may say more about their corporate philosophy and leadership than it does about being a good Corporate neighbour.

Pietro,

See "Boeing", formerly of Washington, currently of Chicago. It's in the nature of the beast to look for the best deal, if you're a shareholder of Caterpillar, Boeing, Microsoft, I H, Kubota, whomever, you can't fault the firm for looking to improve the bottom line.

Caterpillar has been in Illinois since roughly 1930, they're by definition what you would call a "good corporate citizen". What the CEO was doing, was letting Governor Quinn know that the policies being promulgated in Illinois are bad for business. He didn't threaten to move the firm, he didn't even say that he was moving the firm, he said that he was being courted by other states.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on Caterpillar, and presuming that they aren't a good corporate neighbor. They put the Governor on notice that other states were courting them, the CEO identified the states, and included the offers in his communication with the Governor. Not sure exactly what more they could do to be a good corporate neighbor, oh wait, yesterday, the CEO said that he had no intention of moving the firm out of state. How much more can you ask of a firm that's been domiciled within the state for 80 years?

On a separate note, look at this, fourteen hours of communication, and nary a bad word said (okay, granted, some of it was downtime for sleeping). What is this board coming to? I feel almost obligated to throw in some sort of nasty comment, just to make the sponsors happy.

Have a good day Pietro.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on Caterpillar, and presuming that they aren't a good corporate neighbor. They put the Governor on notice that other states were courting them, the CEO identified the states, and included the offers in his communication with the Governor. Not sure exactly what more they could do to be a good corporate neighbor, oh wait, yesterday, the CEO said that he had no intention of moving the firm out of state. How much more can you ask of a firm that's been domiciled within the state for 80 years?

Living in L.A. - you may be right - I MAY be barking up ther wrong tree. However, even in the snippet of your post, you stated that "the CEO said that he had no intention of moving the firm out of state". Now, if the CEO is 'entertaining' other offers, why would he say that? Why would the CEO send out mixed signals like that?

Of course the short answer is that the CEO is probably wanting to apply some pressure to the Governor for a deal of some sort. I do not discount your assessment about the companies looking for the best deal - that's what they do. But these same companies ALSO want to be known as a 'Good Corporate neighbour' because THAT is also good for business.

I think that we are looking at the same tree from two different sides. However, we both agree that we are looking at a tree!!

Concerning your separate note - we can discuss issues (like we did here) and not be disagreeable. You bring a differing perspective that I do find fresh and interesting (and I hope that I do to you as well). We will not always agree, but from our conversations, you do give me pointsto think about that I may not have considered.

I thank you for that, Living in L.A.

Buchanan should have been given the heave-ho a long time ago.

Now MSNBC even brings back that snake Dana Milbank (who was fired years ago), for commentary.

Where's my guy Keith O?

Last time I saw K.O. he was pounding Hillary Clinton and poor Geraldine Ferraro.

Scott Brown, too...but Jon Stewart called him out for that, didn't he?

Keith's an equal opportunity offender. Wrong, is wrong. CurrentTV..............

Grimey

Early in January before a Single Republican had Announced that they were running for President MSNBC/NBC announced they would be holding the first Debates. They tried early to Get Republicans into announcing The Republicans are Striking back at MSNBC/NBC and will not allow this Media Outlet to try and set the tone for when people should or shouldnt Announce

Steve...

I hear ya! I think everyone thinks that 2008 should be the norm now.

My take on it Grimey is their embarrased by the current crop of candidates...

I mean COME ON - Bachmann? Newt? Barbour? lmao!

C'mon, Feisty-

Mr. Grimes is far more capable of telling us all what he thinks than you are.

Can we all agree on that, if nothing else?

thetotas - looks to me like California has some choices to make, doesn't it?

Just because a Union asks for the moon DOES NOT mean that they should get the moon. Maybe if, whomever is negotiating these deals, knew what they were doing, California would not be in the mess they are in, don't you think?

We already know that the state revenues are frozen at a level that is unsustainable, so why NOT ask for the most you can get?

Pietro,

You seem to be in my crosshairs today (oops, that might be taken badly). The unions in California, (and every other state/municipality that has public unions) negotiated with elected officials, that benefited directly from conceding virtually every issue to the unions. They benefited directly by giving in, in return for assistance in the next electoral cycle. This is true of California, New York, New Jersey, pick a state that allows public unions, and you'll see the same theme. It partially speaks to the lack of integrity of public officials, but it also speaks directly to the ongoing concern of having an arm's length relationship in negotiations. If I'm the owner of a business, I have a vested interest in controlling the cost of labor because it directly impacts my profit. My labor has a vested interest in my profits, because without my profit, I won't keep the business open, and my labor will need to find a new job. The exact opposite exists in the negotiations between public unions and elected officials. Elected officials have no skin in the game, they're playing with taxpayer money. Public unions have no concern with respect to the failure of the business, as the business has (apparently) unlimited funding in the form of supplemental taxes, and lets be honest, how many municipalities have actually declared bankruptcy, which is I think, the only way out for them. I can think of the City of Costa Mesa here in Ca, which coincidentally, managed to get back in trouble again, and recently laid off approximately 40% of its workforce, and New York City many years ago.

Before it becomes Prop 13's fault, that proposition was passed in 1978, 32 plus years ago. If we as a state can't learn to live within our means in 32 years, then shame on us, and shame on our elected officials for failing miserably in their fiduciary duties.

I'm looking at your last comment, and wondering what that means. Are you saying that the public unions were justified in asking for everything under the sun, knowing that the elected officials on the other side of the table will do anything to retain their elected positions? If that's what you're saying, then it's okay to be a money grubbing union negotiator, but it's not okay to be a money grubbing private business owner, who tries to make as much money as is possible (for him or her)? Seems like the proposition that you retain an arms length relationship in the negotiation makes a world of sense to me, and that's not what a public union does.

Your first comment is absolutely true, California has some very difficult choices to make, and no one will be happy at the outcome. My personal viewpoint is that the legislators here in California were elected to make difficult choices, make them, and take responsibility for them. Jerry Brown wants to take this to a public referendum, an admirable goal, but when less than 40% of eligible voters routinely turn out here in California for a general election, and this would be a special election, which normally has an even lower turnout, then do you truly have a representative sample of the population making a choice that everyone has to live with? Get with it Jerry, get with it Assembly, get with it Senate, make some choices and earn your pay.

No matter what, it's going to get ugly (politically) here in California. On the upside, the sun still shines, the beach has waves, and there's still some snow on the local mountains.

LA,

You explained that perfectly.

Thanks!

Before it becomes Prop 13's fault, that proposition was passed in 1978, 32 plus years ago. If we as a state can't learn to live within our means in 32 years, then shame on us, and shame on our elected officials for failing miserably in their fiduciary duties.

I'm looking at your last comment, and wondering what that means. Are you saying that the public unions were justified in asking for everything under the sun, knowing that the elected officials on the other side of the table will do anything to retain their elected positions? If that's what you're saying, then it's okay to be a money grubbing union negotiator, but it's not okay to be a money grubbing private business owner, who tries to make as much money as is possible (for him or her)? Seems like the proposition that you retain an arms length relationship in the negotiation makes a world of sense to me, and that's not what a public union does.

Living in L.A. - we are just chatting here, so I do not mind being in the 'crosshairs'. I think that you would not have posted this if you felt that I would have taken offence to that. I do not. I know that there is a bullseye on my back every time I post on here, but I am willing to endure some pretty inane arguments to make my point(s).

With that being said, I took two snippets from your post that I would like to expound on. The first snippet states that if a State cannot live within its means for 32 years, then shame on it.

My opinion differs with yours.

My feeling is this - it was foolhardy to think that California was going to be able to survive on 1978 revenues in 2001, and California was set up to fail - and fail miserably - even though this was good politics in 1978. We are seeing the effects of that today. It was a very short-sighted and foolish law that was passed. If I make an analogy, it is like a person retiring in 1978 on a pension that is broke now because the cost of living has risen. Many retirees have to find supplemental income to make ends meet, as they literally outlive their pensions.

California is NO different.

In other words, Living in L.A., California is living in 2011 on 1978 revenues. There is NO WAY that California DOESN'T go into debt when their revenues do NOT keep up with their expenses. As we can see with the budget fight in the House, just cutting expenses does NOT work. You have to simultaneously cut expenses AND raise revenues to balance the budget; California FAILS on all accounts. You will see that all of the budget cutting in the world will NOT solve this problem. Increase the revenues and you will see some movement in the budget.

I know that taxes cannot be raised by law there in California, and the only other way to raise revenues is to increase the population density (of working individuals). The trick to this is to make sure there is an increase in jobs, and because of the budget impasse, there are not. it is catch-22 that will literally bankrupt California UNLESS this stalemate can be broken.

The second snippet deals with the conduct of the unions and the officials that are negotiating with the unions. When you are negotiating, you ALWAYS ask for the moon, and then when the dust settles, you have an agreement that is somewhere in-between. A good negotiator will ALWAYS ask for as much as they can get, and the Union negotiatiors are probably the BEST in their field. The problem is that the city/state/municipality negotiators are LOUSY negotiators, and are willing to agree with something that is politically advantageous, but fiscally stupid. They then kick the 'can' down the road so that if there is a catastrophe, it is not on THEIR watch. Never mind that the decision was idiotic; never mind that the people will be harmed in the long run; never mind that the city/state/municipality will go broke - it is not their problem once they are out of office.

This is where the disconnect is with the union officials and the city/state/municipality managers.

So no, I do NOT fault the unions at all for what they negotiate. The city/state/municipality managers could say 'NO' but they don't. Why is that? Why don't they have a plan B ready?

It is because they are short-sighted, and that short-sightedness is KILLING America.

Thanks for the chat, Living in L.A.

Living in L.A.-

Don't expect Pietro to understand.

He doesn't live in California...he doesn't understand that Prop. 13 allows many middle-class folks (like me, for example) to be homeowners in a state like California.

Me...?

I'm leaving, in large part because I no longer believe that I can still afford to live in California. If Prop. 13 is repealed, I know for a fact that I can't afford to own a home here. I can't take that risk...I'm moving on and selling my home while I still can.

Pietro...?

He'll believe what he believes.

MB,

That's my fear as well. I was born and raised here, but its becoming to expensive. Now with the

renewable energy legislation that Jerry Brown will most certainly sign, that's just another hit that I cant live with.

Mixed bag - you really need to step back and take a breath. You are saying that I don't understand - I do. I have lived in Los Angeles for 14 years and I'll be damned if I let you spout your drivel when you don't know SQUAT.

I know EXACTLY what goes on in California - with the attitudes, the politics, and knuckleheads like you who think that they know it all.

It is because of the short-sightedness of your 'elected leaders' you have to make the choices you do. When I lived in California, many people just abandoned their houses because they could not afford to sell them. many who were lucky enough to get some money for their houses moved to Las Vegas, where they bought 2-3 houses for the same price as the 1 house in California. The locals in Las Vegas HATED Californians because that practice caused the cost of living to rise in Las Vegas, and many in Las Vegas were living on pensions.

It is the short-sightedness of the electorate there as well as the elected leaders that are causing you pain. When a 2-bedroom bungalow costs $1.2 MILLION, then there are issues (this was years ago in San Mateo).

California will survive this crisis, but it will be a lot more expensive to live there. At some point, once the revenues are raised to balance the expenditures, there will be an equilibrium reached that will be a little higher than it is now, but somewhat affordable for most.

Think of the California economy like gas prices. At one point, paying $4.00/gallon of gas was 'outrageous', unheard of'. Now, when you see gas at $3.27/gallon, you are happy to pay it.

California will survive paying a little more; the electorate has no choice.

Mixed bag - you really need to step back and take a breath

There isn't a conversation out there Pietro, that, MB won't stick his Cheetos sniffing nose into!

He's a legend in his own warped little mind...

The Full Moon - fools no one...

Feisty - we can disagree on what conclusions we reach, and we can disagree on the 'facts' - but don't make the mistake of thinking that I do NOT know what I am talking about when I post. Mixed bag was being a knucklehead and got what he deserved.

Pietro, COLUMBUS, OHIO and Feisty, ROSELLE, IL

Are either of you actually homeowners and taxpayers in California? (lol)

I am both a California homeowner and taxpayer.

But...I'll defer to your expert opinions.

Agreed Pietro -- I was so enjoying your conversation and then the 'hey l@@k at me a@@ had to interject with the OH SO usual condescending snark?

Ain't the information highway a wonderful thing? Someone who's so inconsequential in every day life gets to fulfill what the attention deficit that's so obviously lacking in his every day life on the web! LMAO

In the spirit of trolls - FREE CHEETOS to all...

Feisty, yeah, I see that. Just because I NOW live in Columbus, Ohio does NOT mean that I do NOT know about California. If Mixed had asked, I would have told him that I spent MANY years in the Southland (los Angeles). But no - he ASSumed that I didn't so now he is looking pretty stupid.

Pietro-

You shouldn't make ASSumptions...

Some might actually regard current California homeowners and taxpayers as better informed about conditions in California than those who reside elsewhere.

Some...not all, Pietro.

lol

By the way, Pietro...having Feisty in your corner isn't a plus.

They keep collapsing her posts at First Read...

And she's always playing a home game, isn't she, Pietro?

Mixed Bag - it is typical - you can not stop digging a hole when you have been outed. I walked the walk, so I can definitely talk the talk, no matter what you think.

I have been there, done that, got a raggedy t-shirt to prove it.

And as far as Feisty is concerned, what business is it of yours who I have in my corner? I am a grown-azz man and I definitely do not need your permission for SQUAT. And SO WHAT if I do have Feisty in my corner? She is DEFINITELY better than the likes of you.

Thank you, Pietro.

An emotional response...but unquestionably honest.

Nice talking to you.

You too, Feisty!

Good show, Pietro! Poor guy is on the run. Prop 13 was the death knell of CA. You can trace the decline of CA directly to Howard Jarvis. And MY family goes back in CA for generations.

Pietro -I am a grown-azz man and I definitely do not need your permission for SQUAT. And SO WHAT if I do have Feisty in my corner? She is DEFINITELY better than the likes of you.

I am sorry grown-azz man you lost your composure, I thought more of you, what a disappointment. I like reading your comments and I take them to heart, but now, not so much.

To be honest I'am pretty disappointed in most of the people who post here. People here are so obsessed with their beliefs that they have no problem disrespecting others to prove their point. Its so ugly.

Seriously, does anyone here realize that you are the fringe. Or should I say, the extreme.

"I am pretty disappointed in most people that post here..." The solution to that theotas, is to not read and post here yourself. Since you are as boring as you are, predictable as you are, and as facile as you are, you will not be missed.

I am sorry grown-azz man you lost your composure, I thought more of you, what a disappointment. I like reading your comments and I take them to heart, but now, not so much.

Well, thetotas, I am sorry you feel the way you do about me. I wasn't even talking to Mixed Bag about anything; I was talking with Living in L.A., who I talk with all of the time and we RARELY agree. I value Living in L.A.'s rebuttals a LOT more than I do Mixed Bag's.

Posting on this blog is NOT a popularity contest, and I do not feel I must live up to your expectations or anyone elses.

Have a good day, thetotas.

Pietro,

One comment stands out in your response:

"There is no way California doesn't go into debt when their revenue doesn't keep up with expenses".

Being a bean counter by trade, the answer to that statement is :

Keep your expenses in line with your revenue, and you won't have that problem.

We (California) have, arguably, the worlds worst budgetary process. We accomodate every special interest group, and give everyone what they want. Because of that, we are unable to make a balanced budget that does anything other than borrow from the future to pay expenses that we have committed to in the flush times. Until we come to terms with the concept that we can't afford everything that everyone wants, we will be in the same situation, that of a pauper begging for scraps from someone, whether it be the federal government, or some other entity that wants to buy our debt. Prop 13 worked, what didn't work was our elected officials, they don't know what the term "fiduciary responsibility" means, nor do they care.

Gotta disagree with you with respect to the electorate, my take is that the state is not going to vote in favor of Jerry Brown's proposals, and the budget will be balanced entirely by cuts, not a continuance of the existing "special" taxes. The upshot of that, will be that Jerry and the Assembly, and the Senate, are going to have to make a series of decisions, which no one will like, and may end in the "union busting" by Jerry Brown, of the public unions.

One comment stands out in your response:

"There is no way California doesn't go into debt when their revenue doesn't keep up with expenses".

Being a bean counter by trade, the answer to that statement is :

Keep your expenses in line with your revenue, and you won't have that problem.

Living in L.A. - as an EX-bean counter, now an analyst, I can see where your focus is and why you would come up with the conclusion(s) you do. I submit that my view is a little more broad than yours; my world has many more variables that need to be considered before a determination is made.

Although it is convienent to say that 'we must live within our means', we do have external stimuli that force the fiscal curve upward (or downward). Our standard of living (also known as operating expenses) has continually risen over the years, and arguments can be made as to why this is the case.

The difference between the rate of increase of expenses and the rate of increase in revenues has gotten larger over the years. At this point, even if you cut everything - you would still be running a deficit because your revenues are insufficient to cover even your base operating expenses.

I believe this is where we are today. I believe that is where California is today, and if California doesn't get it's revenues to a point where they cover the base operating expenses, they will fail.

The Federal government is fast approaching the quandry that California is facing. there is too much emphasis on CUTTING and NO/LITTLE emphasis on REVENUES.

As for your view of the electorate - 55% of the electorate in California are uninterested anyway, no matter what happens. I do not think that the referendums will work or do anything because there will be no interest.

You and I agree that the California Legislature will have to make some tough decisions, but I do not see them doing so. I see this can being kicked down the road even further because of the political component in California's governance.

Let's just hope I am wrong in my assessment, Living in L.A.

Pietro,

I'm screwed regardless of the decision, or lack of decision, by my elected officials. You are a little presumtuous with respect to world views, mine is pretty broad, but I'll quote my (late) father on that one, "We're each entitled to our own wrong opinions".

I don't question the need for additional revenue for the state, my question is what have the elected officials been doing for the past five plus years, that put us in such an enormous hole. The answer to that question is pretty simple, nothing with respect to responsible governance, and yet everything, when it comes to giving out some goodies. I don't necessarily blame the Democrats that have had control of both houses of the legislature (seems like forever), nor do I blame the Governors, either Republican or Democrats, I blame them all inclusively. Certainly California is not unique in it's problems, it may only be unique in the magnitude of it's problems.

Last comment, you are being too generous in your assessment of the electorate. This particular process would be one of our "special" elections, I think the last one (2009) ended up with roughly 35% turnout, and they rejected all the propositions on the ballot, if I recall correctly. Quite an example of voter apathy, and I expect that this time, it will be no different. On the upside, that means my vote counts more as a percentage of the total, maybe I'll actually be on the winning side one day.