California

Watermark said:
http://www.urban.org/publications/310264.html


Yeah, it grew by thirty percent. But state government budgets would have to grow by about 500% to keep up with cutbacks...
Click to expand...
Rubbish. You are entirely misinterpreting the numbers. State government has grown hugely. And as I said, there is no rate of growth that means it must grow on a per capita basis as you seem to believe it must.

The reality is it grows, and has never shrunk.
 
For instance, from 1960 to 1990 the number of State employees in government went from 6.4 million to 15.2 million, while our population didn't increase by nearly triple in the same time period. This is huge growth, not the imaginary incredible "shrinking" government that you seem to believe in with a Faith based in nothing real.
 
Damocles said:
For instance, from 1960 to 1990 the number of State employees in government went from 6.4 million to 15.2 million, while our population didn't increase by nearly triple in the same time period. This is huge growth, not the imaginary incredible "shrinking" government that you seem to believe in with a Faith based in nothing real.
Click to expand...

State's rights. :clink:
 
Much of the "shrinking" is in military employment at the federal level...

Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998. (The number of Americans in the military declined from almost 3.6 million in 1968, when the United States was embroiled in the war in Vietnam, to 1.4 million in 1998.)
 
Damocles said:
Much of the "shrinking" is in military employment at the federal level...

Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998. (The number of Americans in the military declined from almost 3.6 million in 1968, when the United States was embroiled in the war in Vietnam, to 1.4 million in 1998.)
Click to expand...

But the federal government HANDS OUT a lot more money. Measuring labor force isn't the way to go about measuring government size.

I mean, are we not supposed to raise government budgets as the general cost of living in the US goes down? Not keep up with technology? We shouldn't equip our cops with better equipment, we should just keep buying them the same tools they had in the 60's, to keep "per capita" costs (not adjusted for inflation or cost of living) the same?
 
Watermark said:
But the federal government HANDS OUT a lot more money. Measuring labor force isn't the way to go about measuring government size.

I mean, are we not supposed to raise government budgets as the general cost of living in the US goes down? Not keep up with technology? We shouldn't equip our cops with better equipment, we should just keep buying them the same tools they had in the 60's, to keep "per capita" costs (not adjusted for inflation or cost of living) the same?
Click to expand...
You were the one measuring it by that, not me. Even by your own measure the reality doesn't match your fantasy. When the reality doesn't match the fantasy, you attempt to go off in a different direction. The Feds give away more and have more involved in actual government while cutting on the military mostly during the period you are whining that they "shrunk".

When you look at the real numbers, those in actual bureaucracy grew, the military shrunk, and state government more than made up for the loss in military jobs. About 10 times more than made up for it.
 
The military "shrunk" because we came out of WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Cold War. Then the federal government started combining trust funds and general income in the same thing, which, of course, makes military spending look like it has shrunk a lot more than it actually has.
 
Most of the current government expansion comes from failures in private markets that are subsidizied by the government at the same rate that they always have but are starting to suck up a lot more money out of the people, like Health care.
 
Watermark said:
The military "shrunk" because we came out of WWII and Korea and Vietnam and the Cold War. Then the federal government started combining trust funds and general income in the same thing, which, of course, makes military spending look like it has shrunk a lot more than it actually has.
Click to expand...
Most of the military shrinkage began after Reagan because of "Cold War Equity" or whatever they called it. When I was in, we still had nearly 3M people in Active duty, since it has dropped to about 1.2M on active duty.
 
Watermark said:
This thread is going to get huge pretty soon.

I should just delete all my comments before Dano finds them.
Click to expand...

You took a hit of speed or something and a discussion of our issues here in California morphed into discussions of federal issues having nothing to do with the 'WESTSIDE'.
 
cawacko said:
You took a hit of speed or something and a discussion of our issues here in California morphed into discussions of federal issues having nothing to do with the 'WESTSIDE'.
Click to expand...

I don't really have any idea what I was talking about and my numbers were wildly exagerated to the point of lying.

:o
 
I forget what college watergerber goes to.
BUt 7% being a low state income tax because it's lower than federal is the funniest line I've heard in weeks.
Why, Gerber gets and allowance from his rich dad!!!!
7% is steep, most states dissallow a lot of federal deductions.:clink:
 
Beefy said:
ZOMG!> That's not what it was about.

Google the other initiatives and post a uscitizen style mindless post on those as well if you have the werewithall.
Click to expand...

I remember one of them was about how to apportion California's electoral votes. The Republican party was hoping to split California's electoral votes so that the Republican Presidential candidate could get 40 to 50% of those electoral votes no matter who won, and yet, at the same time keeping, oh say, Texas' electoral votes as winner take all.

Now, other than ensuring that we never got another Democratic President in our lifetimes, what the fuck was that going to do for your budget problems??

I hope beefy or cawacko can explain this, and please, don't be afraid to be specific.
 
the california intiatives that cawacko is so excited about dealt with electoral "reform" (reallocating electoral votes), making it easier to fire teachers, making it harder for unions to make political contributions, parental consent for abortion, and I think there was one giving the governor more power to bypass the legislature to cut spending.



I'm glad they went down in flames. I voted against all of them.
 
Watermark said:
But the federal government HANDS OUT a lot more money. Measuring labor force isn't the way to go about measuring government size.

I mean, are we not supposed to raise government budgets as the general cost of living in the US goes down? Not keep up with technology? We shouldn't equip our cops with better equipment, we should just keep buying them the same tools they had in the 60's, to keep "per capita" costs (not adjusted for inflation or cost of living) the same?
Click to expand...

When Ron wins we won't need cops anymore.
 
Darla said:
I remember one of them was about how to apportion California's electoral votes. The Republican party was hoping to split California's electoral votes so that the Republican Presidential candidate could get 40 to 50% of those electoral votes no matter who won, and yet, at the same time keeping, oh say, Texas' electoral votes as winner take all.

Now, other than ensuring that we never got another Democratic President in our lifetimes, what the fuck was that going to do for your budget problems??

I hope beefy or cawacko can explain this, and please, don't be afraid to be specific.
Click to expand...

Wrong election. What you described above is something that people were attempting to put on the upcoming ballot. It did not receive the support needed to make it to the ballot. It was not one of Arnold's four initiatives.

Arnold's four measures.

Take redistricting out of the hands of the politicians and put them in a panel of non-partisan ex-judges or something like that. Oh the horror of such a measure. How would California survive??? Polls show Californian's give the legislature approval ratings in the teens and 20 percent range and think they are too partisan yet they don't want to do anything about it. Go figure. The irony though is people tend to choose to live near like minded people so even if politicians didn't redistrict themselves we probably wouldn't see a big change in the legislatures make-up as far as partisanship.

Another initiative would require unions to get employee consent before using union dues for political purposes. I can hear Cypress's heart going Dick Cheney right now. 'I feel the big one coming'. How dare workers have a say in how their money is spent.

Another regarded teachers and would extend the amount of time for a teacher to become a permanent employee from two to five years. It modified the process in how school boards (or whoever is in charge) can fire a teacher after back-to-back unsatisfactory performance reviews. Again, I don't see the problem here. I'd be interested in hearing the argument of how it is a bad thing to make it easier to get rid of poor and underperforming teachers.

The last one is about parental notification for abortion for people under 18. In retrospect I may have voted against this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top