Re: Things might be changing folks...
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in news:6afi15tbjcr6mj4odqrp6bdhd6ipq3a5dl@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 17:01:37 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Or that barney fag weirdo?
>>
>> One of the smartest people in congress.
>
>Yeah right. His fingerprints are all over the mortgage meltdown.
>
>Unless you think a legislator selling his or her support in exchange for
>campaign donations is smart. Then he fits the bill.
Barney Frank hardly headed up the rethugs that demanded & passed
things when they controlled congress or the executive or both.
And guess who told the States that they could not regulate.
Rush, as usual, lied to you again.
See efforts to stem predatory lending:
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&q=barney+frank+subprime+predatory+lending&spell=1
Yep, Barney Frank leading the charge ... but a no-no per the rethugs
in power & their $$ lobbiests ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> the state will throw 940,000 poor
>children off its health-care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of
>teachers.
And gummer's hopes for welfare are doomed. They are likely
to be coming for their pounds of flesh & foot rot.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>
>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in message
>news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The general agrement by the
>>>> "talking heads" and "chattering class" is that the California
>>>> voters said no because they did not understand the proposed
>>>> measures. On the contrary, it appears they understood these
>>>> perfectly and could spot the tax increases a mile off. They were
>>>> not buying any [more] funding BS, including the liberal areas
>>>> such as SF.
>>>
>>>We already collect more than enough money in taxes here in California
>>>George. California alone pays roughly 14 percent of federal taxes.
>> =======
>> Indeed you do.
>>
>> The Gann amendment that limited increases in state expenditures
>> to a constant level, adjusted for inflation and population growth
>> controlled things for a while, along with Prop 13 (Jarvis).
>> Unfortunately this was operationally revoked/evaded, and the
>> state budgets again continued their climb. If the Gann amendment
>> had been retained and enforced, California would now have a
>> budget surplus.
>> http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2871
>> http://www.caltax.org/member/digest/July2000/jul00-9.htm
>>
>> The problem does not appear to be that there was any actual
>> criminal intent to rip off the taxpayers for the most part, but
>> rather the desire to "do good" and improve things. The problem
>> is that there is an infinite amount of good things to be done,
>> and a finite pool [and now shrinking] of money available to do it
>> with. Almost every cent that is cut will indeed hurt someone, but
>> the money is simply not there.
>>
>How the Golden State Got Tarnished
>
>By Harold Meyerson
>Thursday, May 28, 2009
>
>
>
>To understand why the woes of California's economy threaten the nation's, we
>must understand the state's road to insolvency. The Age of Reagan did not
>commence with the Great Communicator's inauguration in 1981. For its real
>beginning, we need to go back to June 1978, when Californians went to the
>polls and enacted Proposition 13.
>
>By passing Howard Jarvis's malign initiative, California voters reduced the
>Golden State to baser metal. Under Republican Gov. Earl Warren and
>Democratic Gov. Pat Brown, California epitomized the postwar American dream.
>Its public schools, from kindergarten through Berkeley and UCLA, were the
>nation's finest; its roads and aqueducts the most efficient at moving cars
>and water -- the state's lifeblood -- to their destinations. All this was
>funded by some of the nation's highest taxes, which fell in good measure on
>the state's flourishing banks and corporations.
>
>Amid the inflation of the late 1970s, however, the California model began to
>crumple. As incomes and property values rose, Sacramento's tax revenue
>soared -- but the parsimonious Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, neither
>spent those funds nor rebated them. With the state sitting on a $5 billion
>surplus, frustrated Californians grumped to the polls and passed Proposition
>13, which rolled back and then froze property taxes -- effectively
>destroying the funding base of local governments and school districts, which
>thereafter depended largely on Sacramento for their revenue. Ranked fifth
>among the states in per-pupil spending during the 1950s and '60s, California
>sank to Mississippi-like levels -- the mid-40s -- by the 1990s.
>
>Since 1978, state and local government in California has been funded chiefly
>by personal income taxes. Bank and corporation taxes have been steadily
>reduced. In the current recession, with state unemployment at 11 percent,
>tax revenue has fallen off a cliff.
>
>But the problem with Proposition 13 wasn't merely that it reduced revenue.
>It also made it very difficult to increase revenue. Raising taxes now
>requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature, though in 47 other states a
>simple majority suffices. California has become overwhelmingly Democratic in
>the past two decades, but Republicans have managed to retain footholds --
>representing just over one-third of the districts -- in both houses of the
>legislature.
>
>The conservative backlash of 1978 also swept into the legislature a new,
>proto-Reaganistic generation of Republicans, who dubbed themselves "the
>Neanderthals." Compared to today's GOP state legislators, though, the
>Neanderthals look like Diderot's Encyclopedists. The current Republican crop
>has refused in good times as well as bad to raise business or other taxes
>(increasing the tobacco tax, for instance, has failed each of the past 14
>times it has come up for a vote). Abetted by little local Limbaughs who
>inflame Republican brains, they protest that the state already has the
>nation's highest taxes. In fact, California ranks 18th among the states in
>percentage of personal income paid to state government, and its presumably
>beleaguered wealthiest 1 percent, according to Citizens for Tax Justice,
>pays just 7.4 percent of their income to the state, while the poorest
>Californians pay 10.2 percent.
>
>But the myth of soak-the-rich high taxation persists among Republicans -- so
>much so that the GOP front-runner to succeed Arnold Schwarzenegger in next
>year's gubernatorial election, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, is calling for
>cuts in business tax rates even though the state is staring at a $21 billion
>deficit that it somehow has to close. In short order, unless the federal
>government steps in with a bridge loan, the state will throw 940,000 poor
>children off its health-care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of
>teachers.
>
>Because California is so much larger than any other state, and its
>unemployment rate among the nation's highest, the collapse of its capacity
>to spend will counteract some of the effect of the federal stimulus and
>retard the nation's recovery -- much as its aerospace slump retarded the
>recovery of the mid-1990s. The Obama administration ignores California's
>plight at its own -- and the nation's -- peril. The nation's banks are stuck
>with so much bad paper from California mortgages gone awry that a huge
>contraction in state spending would make their assets even more toxic. In
>the short term, the only way to avoid a further downturn may be a federal
>loan to the state.
>
>A more permanent, homegrown solution to California's woes (and it may take a
>state constitutional convention to get it) would require the state to
>eliminate the two-thirds threshold for enacting taxes, to repeal Proposition
>13's freeze on the value of commercial properties (some of which are still
>assessed at their 1978 levels) and to end the process of ballot-box
>budgeting through the initiative process, which is now more dominated by
>monied interests than the legislature ever was. In Washington, the Age of
>Reagan may have shuddered to an inglorious end, but we also need action from
>state governments -- and Sacramento in particular -- to move us toward a
>more sustainable economic future.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052702904.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
>
>
>
>JC
>
Well worth the xposting IMHO.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
A very one-sided article. In 1978, when the property taxes were soaring,
the elderly and infirm were forced out of their houses and new buyers
were locked out of the American Dream. Without Proposition 13 California
would have self destructed 25 years ago.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$13,300,000,000,000.00, Angry Yet? Arrest Bush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
And the property that Gummer transferred to others hoping to escape
paying for his debts.
John R. Carroll
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
Little old lady's losing their homes have nothing to do with commercial
property assesments.
What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
JC
Bill Noble
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:tvgv15pfli1rebsft...@4ax.com...
today's announcement - all summer classes in Los Angeles are cancelled.
we shall see soon enough if the vote really meant "no taxes" as the wingers
claim, or if it meant "do your job and quit asking us to do it for you"
Curly Surmudgeon
Commercial property accessments have nothing to do with the elderly
losing their homes either.
> What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
>
> JC
What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
homeowners by career politicians.
John R. Carroll
They have everything to do with Prop13.
>
>> What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
>>
>> JC
>
> What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
> homeowners by career politicians.
No it didn't, and worse yet, it destroyed Californias tax base because it
was so poorly written.
That's the problem with most of California's ballot initiatives.
This is the very thinking that parents use to transfer their
responsibilities as parents to the schools.
That doesn't work either.
JC
Curly Surmudgeon
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:35:55 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:18:46 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
>>>>>>message news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>> Little old lady's losing their homes have nothing to do with
>>> commercial property assesments.
>>
>> Commercial property accessments have nothing to do with the elderly
>> losing their homes either.
>
> They have everything to do with Prop13.
Do does losing your home at end of life due to excessive taxation.
>>> What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
>>>
>>> JC
>>
>> What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>> homeowners by career politicians.
>
> No it didn't, and worse yet, it destroyed Californias tax base because
> it was so poorly written.
It was very well written, it just goes against your wishes. It saved the
elderly from losing their homes and put the costs where they belong, on
investors and new development.
Taxing existing homeowners for new development is the principle cause of
rampant property taxation we incurred in the 1970's and it is simply
wrong to tax people, in existing dwellings, for the infrastructure
expansion for developers and new home buyers. And new commercial
projects as well.
> That's the problem with most of California's ballot initiatives. This is
> the very thinking that parents use to transfer their responsibilities as
> parents to the schools. That doesn't work either.
>
> JC
Straw man, we are not speaking of parents or irresponsibility but the
opposite. Responsibility for new costs is of the new owner/developer,
not established, often elderly, homeowners.
Proposition 13 worked very well. I understand you do not like the
outcome but that is not an argument against the proposition.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>homeowners by career politicians.
It certainly created some outrageous inequities as well. Example from
CA 15 years ago - two people I knew with near million-dollar homes.
One purchased an existing place for about $900K, was assessed at full
market value, and charged upwards of $10k per year in property taxes.
The other custom-built, spending about $600K (250 for the land alone),
carried his prop 13 exemption over from his previous place, and was
charged about $1400 in property taxes. Obviously the second guy wasn't
in danger of losing his place. I know he voted for the 3 strikes
thing, and dollars to donuts he voted against the recent budget as
well. In my neck of the woods, I know a whole bunch of people who are
paying less than $500 per year in property taxes, but they're lobbying
to have a 30 mile gravel road paved. It's the same on the federal
side. Something's gotta' give, but most likely all we'll see anytime
soon is a longer list of scapegoats and more school cuts.
Wayne
Ed Huntress
"John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote in message
news:hgWTl.30819$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
Direct Democracy, our Founders' worst nightmare. <g>
It isn't that voters are stupid, it's just that they think everyone but
themselves is an "elite" who's out to get them. Or they think they're
entitled to something they aren't getting.
It's like asking your kid where he thinks the family's cookie jar should be
kept. His answer is, next to his bed. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:05 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>>What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>>homeowners by career politicians.
>
> It certainly created some outrageous inequities as well. Example from CA
> 15 years ago - two people I knew with near million-dollar homes. One
> purchased an existing place for about $900K, was assessed at full market
> value, and charged upwards of $10k per year in property taxes. The other
> custom-built, spending about $600K (250 for the land alone), carried his
> prop 13 exemption over from his previous place,
How does that work? Each time I've sold, or bought, a home in California
I've lost my Prop 13 basis.
> and was charged about
> $1400 in property taxes. Obviously the second guy wasn't in danger of
> losing his place. I know he voted for the 3 strikes thing, and dollars
> to donuts he voted against the recent budget as well. In my neck of the
> woods, I know a whole bunch of people who are paying less than $500 per
> year in property taxes, but they're lobbying to have a 30 mile gravel
> road paved. It's the same on the federal side. Something's gotta' give,
> but most likely all we'll see anytime soon is a longer list of
> scapegoats and more school cuts.
>
> Wayne
--
John R. Carroll
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:05 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>>>homeowners by career politicians.
>>
>> It certainly created some outrageous inequities as well. Example from CA
>> 15 years ago - two people I knew with near million-dollar homes. One
>> purchased an existing place for about $900K, was assessed at full market
>> value, and charged upwards of $10k per year in property taxes. The other
>> custom-built, spending about $600K (250 for the land alone), carried his
>> prop 13 exemption over from his previous place,
>
> How does that work? Each time I've sold, or bought, a home in California
> I've lost my Prop 13 basis.
Swaps that avoid a taxable event.
JC
John R. Carroll
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:56:36 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:35:55 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:18:46 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
>>>>>>>message news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>> Little old lady's losing their homes have nothing to do with
>>>> commercial property assesments.
>>>
>>> Commercial property accessments have nothing to do with the elderly
>>> losing their homes either.
>>
>> They have everything to do with Prop13.
>
> Do does losing your home at end of life due to excessive taxation.
That has never happened Curly.
The problem isn't excessive taxation, it's insufficient income.
A properly formulated tax policy, coupled to well written laws is the
solution, not a feel good ballot initiative with a downside that kills
everyone in the long run.
>
>>>> What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
>>>>
>>>> JC
>>>
>>> What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>>> homeowners by career politicians.
>>
>> No it didn't, and worse yet, it destroyed Californias tax base because
>> it was so poorly written.
>
> It was very well written, it just goes against your wishes. It saved the
> elderly from losing their homes and put the costs where they belong, on
> investors and new development.
Those costs are funded by municipl bonds Curly, not existing revenues.
The NEW owners pay the bonds off through their tax payments, which is fair,
because they are the ones getting the services.
>
> Taxing existing homeowners for new development is the principle cause of
> rampant property taxation we incurred in the 1970's
Nonsense.
Where do you get this stuff from?
Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
They greatly out paced inflation and the sane thing to have done was limit
indexed assesment increases to inflation.
We also could have exempted increases on certain classes of owners.
Of course, you couldn't have sold that at the ballot box.
What Californian's have done is debase the legistlative proces by allowing
the moneyed interests to target the mentally incompetent.
It isn't professional and it's a miserable failure. There isn't, and never
will be, a substitute for an informed and motibvated electorate.
What we have now is the absolute worst of both worlds. Incompetent and
innefective legistlators and an ignorant public that is ill served.
JC
John R. Carroll
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4a2036d7$0$31277$607e...@cv.net...
>
> "John R. Carroll" <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote in message
> news:hgWTl.30819$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:35:55 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:18:46 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
>>>>>>>message news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>> No it didn't, and worse yet, it destroyed Californias tax base because it
>> was so poorly written.
>> That's the problem with most of California's ballot initiatives.
>> This is the very thinking that parents use to transfer their
>> responsibilities as parents to the schools.
>> That doesn't work either.
>>
>> JC
>
> Direct Democracy, our Founders' worst nightmare. <g>
>
> It isn't that voters are stupid,
Thinking that you can get something for nothing or that tax policy can be
written on the back of a post card is my definition of stupid.
California's low voter turnout is stupid and lazy as well.
Just look at Proposition 187. The thing never had a proper legal review and
when passed, didn't last six months.
A six year old could have, and probably did, write the thing and as a
result, nothing happened on an issue where intelligent reform is necessary.
This is beyond stupid.
JC
Ed Huntress
I don't know what that proposition is, but the fact that there is a
proposition numbered 187 is enough to tell me what I need to know. <g>
What I don't know, however, but would like to, is who in the hell writes
these propositions.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
No kidding.
LOL
187 was a ballot initiative to restrict public services to legal residents,
either citizens or documented immigrants.
Any constitutional smell test, at either the Federal or State level, would
have disqualified it.
In the end, the courts did just that and IIRC it took about a week to have
them rule on and throw out about half of 187's provisions.
The authors and supporters went ona real rampage about activist courts when
the actual truth was that the cranks that wrote the thing hadn't completed
sixth grade.
Darrel Issa, an auto sound millionaire, is another one constantly proposing
ballot initiatives.
Mind you, this is a kook that made his money installing dash board radios
and speaker systems.
>
> What I don't know, however, but would like to, is who in the hell writes
> these propositions.
Anyone can write one.
The test is the ability to get enough signatures to get it on a ballot.
There is no other review process.
JC
Ed Huntress
<snip>
>>
>> What I don't know, however, but would like to, is who in the hell writes
>> these propositions.
>
> Anyone can write one.
> The test is the ability to get enough signatures to get it on a ballot.
> There is no other review process.
>
>
> JC
Yeah, that's the way most referenda work in most places in this country, but
my question really is (and I think I know the answer, or I wouldn't ask [g])
is, why is it that the most rabid cranks and kooks tend to be the ones who
produce them?
Oh, I suppose the answer to that is no mystery, either: The people who get
that involved and who will put that much personal effort into an issue are
probably the ones who are foaming at the mouth and at the risk of a stroke,
to begin with. That's a sad thing. You have to be almost certifiable to get
involved to that degree. And the results reflect it.
Viva la republica.
--
Ed Huntress
Jeff Mc
Or there are private financial interests, often operating behind the
scenes, who stand to reap substantial monetary rewards.
John R. Carroll
There are those, and it's the largest portion, and then there is Ahnald, who
ran his first campaign on a promise to "Go over the HEads" of the
legistlature. Ballot initiatives have always been part of his
administrations idea of governance.
JC
John R. Carroll
"Jeff Mc" <NoS...@NoThanks.org> wrote in message
news:P8YTl.3911$Xl4...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
Commercial real estate developers were the big inpetus, and money, behind
Prop 13.
In fact, they are the source for most of Howard Jarvis's funding.
JC
Curly Surmudgeon
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 11:56:36 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 06:35:55 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 07:18:46 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
>>>>>>>>message news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> Little old lady's losing their homes have nothing to do with
>>>>> commercial property assesments.
>>>>
>>>> Commercial property accessments have nothing to do with the elderly
>>>> losing their homes either.
>>>
>>> They have everything to do with Prop13.
>>
>> Do does losing your home at end of life due to excessive taxation.
>
> That has never happened Curly.
It was happening regularly in 1976-78. That is the reason for
Proposition 13.
> The problem isn't excessive taxation, it's insufficient income. A
> properly formulated tax policy, coupled to well written laws is the
> solution, not a feel good ballot initiative with a downside that kills
> everyone in the long run.
Of course people should earn more but not at the end of their lives when
on a fixed income. Prior to the runup in property taxes these people
were living decently but when property taxes increased 3-fold in 5 years
they were no longer able to afford the house they'd worked their adult
lives to pay for.
>>>>> What Prop 13 did was build in a decided bias against new companies.
>>>>>
>>>>> JC
>>>>
>>>> What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>>>> homeowners by career politicians.
>>>
>>> No it didn't, and worse yet, it destroyed Californias tax base because
>>> it was so poorly written.
>>
>> It was very well written, it just goes against your wishes. It saved
>> the elderly from losing their homes and put the costs where they
>> belong, on investors and new development.
>
> Those costs are funded by municipl bonds Curly, not existing revenues.
> The NEW owners pay the bonds off through their tax payments, which is
> fair, because they are the ones getting the services.
Now they are, for the most part. That wasn't the case prior to
Proposition 13.
>> Taxing existing homeowners for new development is the principle cause
>> of rampant property taxation we incurred in the 1970's
>
> Nonsense.
> Where do you get this stuff from?
From experience. Throughout this period I was buying fixer-uppers in the
Bay Area and encountered these poor folk all the time.
> Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
That is a large part of the equation however that does not make it right
to tax people out of their homes which were purchased for much less.
> They
> greatly out paced inflation and the sane thing to have done was limit
> indexed assesment increases to inflation.
That might have worked too but we cannot rewrite history. The actions of
Proposition 13 did what it was supposed to.
> We also could have exempted
> increases on certain classes of owners. Of course, you couldn't have
> sold that at the ballot box.
Good, that's a non-starter. Creating different classes of "equality" is
an invitation to political graft and corruption.
> What Californian's have done is debase the legistlative proces by
> allowing the moneyed interests to target the mentally incompetent.
Howso?
> It
> isn't professional and it's a miserable failure. There isn't, and never
> will be, a substitute for an informed and motibvated electorate.
When have we had an informed and motivated electorate? Certainly no in
our lifetimes or we wouldn't have had the last nine presidents nor the
Congress we are saddled with.
> What we
> have now is the absolute worst of both worlds. Incompetent and
> innefective legistlators and an ignorant public that is ill served.
Agreed but that is a different argument.
> JC
Curly Surmudgeon
I disagree, you'll have to provide cites for that claim. I was heavily
involved with the passage of Proposition 13 and know from personal
experience that it enjoyed widespread public support including that of
the Libertarian Party of California.
> In fact, they are the source for most of Howard Jarvis's funding.
I don't care about the HJ foundation, they are not pushing the bill nor
were they in 1978. Howard Jarvis and ? Gann were.
> JC
BottleBob
John R. Carroll wrote:
> 187 was a ballot initiative to restrict public services to legal residents,
> either citizens or documented immigrants.
John:
I think you are either misremembering Prop 187, made a grammatical
error in your statement above.
It wasn't to restrict public services to LEGAL residents, citizens, or
documented immigrants - it was designed to restrict public serviced to
ILLEGAL aliens - UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
============================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prop_187
California Proposition 187 (1994)
California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State
initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal
immigrants from using social services, health care, and public
education in the U.S. State of California.
============================================================
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
John R. Carroll
Well dude, you can start here, at the time of Prop. 13 he was employed by
the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association.
> I was heavily
> involved with the passage of Proposition 13 and know from personal
> experience that it enjoyed widespread public support including that of
> the Libertarian Party of California.
>
>> In fact, they are the source for most of Howard Jarvis's funding.
LMAO.
You'll have to do better than that if you want to make things up as you go
along Curly.
>
> I don't care about the HJ foundation, they are not pushing the bill nor
> were they in 1978. Howard Jarvis and ? Gann were.
Paul Gann.
Prop. 13 addressed one specific problem - property tax assessments were
growing faster than wages. But grafted onto the measure designed to slow
down that growth were a series of proposals - shifting the balance of power
from local to state government, capping commercial property with
residential, and establishing the 2/3 requirement for revenue ( along with
Props 1 and 16 of old) - that have gradually but steadily eroded the quality
of life that previously made the state the envy of the nation and the world.
In 1978 the state had enough of a surplus to paper over the immediate
effects of Prop. 13. The measure was practically designed to drain that,
and put an end to effective governance in the state. Today, businesses and
homeowners benefit from public investment in infrastructure - sewers, roads,
electrical lines, freeways, mass transit - without having to contribute to
the improvements.
Jarvis, and you apparently, are littler more than selfish old men Curly.
Here is a direct exchange that exemplifies Jarvis' attitude:
Into the volatile political atmosphere parachuted Howard Jarvis, the
irascible co-author of Prop. 13 and the cranky embodiment of the tax cut
movement. Jarvis and his posse came to Sacramento on June 7, the one-year
anniversary of the measure; 30 years later, the episode offers a look back
in time at some hints of what was to follow.
Jarvis, a burly and profane spud of a man, had come to deliver 150,000
computer-generated letters sent by tax-cut supporters to warn the
Legislature, "We're not going to let anybody get away with a new plot to
circumvent Proposition 13."
One target of his ire was Assembly Bill 8, which radically restructured
California's system of public finance and sent $5 billion from Sacramento to
local jurisdictions. Still in effect in 2009, it cast the framework for many
of today's structural budget problems, by putting the state in the permanent
business of financing schools, cities and counties.
Surrounded on the east steps of the Capitol by dozens of boxes containing
the letters, Jarvis accused then-Speaker Leo McCarthy of a "plot" to
undercut Prop. 13, and got into a beef with a reporter who asked him to be
specific about the alleged conspiracy.
As a daily report of the incident had it: "Jarvis snapped angrily: 'I'm not
going to list all of them. I don't carry the bill numbers around in my
pocket.'" [...]
As Jarvis spoke, a group of mothers who'd come to Sacramento to lobby for
more spending for pre-schools began shouting at him: "What about the
schools? They're ending programs to help," a woman from Azusa hollered.
"That would be your problem, not mine," Jarvis yelled back. "It's absolutely
not so. Prop. 13 didn't have any effect on the schools at all."
Jarvis then walked into the Capitol, where he and his backers dropped off
boxes of letters in legislative offices. All went well until he called on
Assemblyman, later Congressman, Doug Bosco, who was meeting with a county
supervisor and three fire chiefs from his district.
"We were discussing why there isn't enough money to put out the fires,"
Bosco said later. "In walked Howard Jarvis and I said, 'Good, you can
explain it to them.'"
JC
John R. Carroll
"BottleBob" <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fc2dnaWQrK__-L3X...@earthlink.com...
>
>
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>
>> 187 was a ballot initiative to restrict public services to legal
>> residents, either citizens or documented immigrants.
>
> John:
>
> I think you are either misremembering Prop 187, made a grammatical error
> in your statement above.
> It wasn't to restrict public services to LEGAL residents, citizens, or
> documented immigrants - it was designed to restrict public serviced to
> ILLEGAL aliens - UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
Restricting the use of public service to legal residents means they would be
the only ones elgible Bob, but I could have been more clear.
I'd be surprised to learn that anyone in California didn't understand the
purpose of 187.
JC
Half-Nutz
> John R. Carroll wrote:
> > 187 was a ballot initiative to restrict public services to legal residents,
> > either citizens or documented immigrants.
>
> John:
>
> I think you are either misremembering Prop 187, made a grammatical
> error in your statement above.
> It wasn't to restrict public services to LEGAL residents, citizens, or
> documented immigrants - it was designed to restrict public serviced to
> ILLEGAL aliens - UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
>
>
> California Proposition 187 (1994)
>
> California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State
> initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal
> immigrants from using social services, health care, and public
> education in the U.S. State of California.
> ============================================================
>
> --
> BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Bob,
You do realize the ambiguities in those sentances???
They can be interpreted either way..
As in restricting services (just) to (il)legal residents.
or
restricting services (from) (il)legal residents.
Jeff Mc
I was commenting on the referendum/ballot initiative process in the
various states, generally, not CA or Proposition 13, specificcally.
BottleBob
John:
Opps Sorry, I read your original statement incorrectly.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:14:57 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:05 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What Proposition 13 did was to halt the rape and pillage of small
>>>homeowners by career politicians.
>>
>> It certainly created some outrageous inequities as well. Example from CA
>> 15 years ago - two people I knew with near million-dollar homes. One
>> purchased an existing place for about $900K, was assessed at full market
>> value, and charged upwards of $10k per year in property taxes. The other
>> custom-built, spending about $600K (250 for the land alone), carried his
>> prop 13 exemption over from his previous place,
>
>How does that work? Each time I've sold, or bought, a home in California
>I've lost my Prop 13 basis.
http://www.realtown.com/DawnOneal/blog/retain-1978-property-tax-basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978) (see:
negative effects)
There's no getting around it, prop 13 was exactly as well thought out
as prop 184. Both are elements of what's wrong in CA today. John hit
the nail on the head when he wrote "There isn't, and never
will be, a substitute for an informed and motivated electorate.
What we have now is the absolute worst of both worlds. Incompetent and
ineffective legislators and an ignorant public that is ill served".
I'll add that all signs point to the coming generations being even
less rational. Lately, when people bend my ear about macroeconomics, I
ask them how many thousands are in a million. If they start guessing,
then I don't care much about their opinion on how they want a new
streetlight, much less a new stadium or a new war or a mission to
fu*king Mars.
Wayne
BottleBob
HN:
Well, I do NOW. <g>
I misread it as restricting the public services *OF* legal residents,
citizens... etc.
>
> As in restricting services (just) to (il)legal residents.
> or
> restricting services (from) (il)legal residents.
>
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Ed Huntress
>
>> 187 was a ballot initiative to restrict public services to legal
>> residents, either citizens or documented immigrants.
>
> John:
>
> I think you are either misremembering Prop 187, made a grammatical error
> in your statement above.
> It wasn't to restrict public services to LEGAL residents, citizens, or
> documented immigrants - it was designed to restrict public serviced to
> ILLEGAL aliens - UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
It works either way, Bottle. "Restrict to" can be ambiguous -- meaning
either "confined to those who are," or "prohibited to those who are."
It needs a different word, or an additional word or two, to clear it up.
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
No biggie.
I guess Cliff must have contributed his wisdom to this thread at some point?
JC
BottleBob
BottleBob wrote:
> I misread it as restricting the public services *OF* legal
> residents, citizens... etc.
Cripes, that's not right either. I think I'll just put down my
fingers and back away from the keyboard.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
John R. Carroll
>
>
> BottleBob wrote:
>
>> I misread it as restricting the public services *OF* legal residents,
>> citizens... etc.
>
> Cripes, that's not right either. I think I'll just put down my fingers
> and back away from the keyboard.
Can you do that?
Put down your fingers I mean.
LOL
JC
Half-Nutz
At least you know you are being listened to...
BottleBob
John R. Carroll wrote:
> "BottleBob" <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> Cripes, that's not right either. I think I'll just put down my fingers
>> and back away from the keyboard.
>
> Can you do that?
> Put down your fingers I mean.
> LOL
John:
Well, I can let them dangle and my sides and turn around and watch an
episode of Enterprise on TV. And I think that's just what I'll do. <g>
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Curly Surmudgeon
Uhm, you're responding to your own words...
>> I don't care about the HJ foundation, they are not pushing the bill nor
>> were they in 1978. Howard Jarvis and ? Gann were.
>
> Paul Gann.
> Prop. 13 addressed one specific problem - property tax assessments were
> growing faster than wages. But grafted onto the measure designed to
> slow down that growth were a series of proposals - shifting the balance
> of power from local to state government, capping commercial property
> with residential, and establishing the 2/3 requirement for revenue (
> along with Props 1 and 16 of old) - that have gradually but steadily
> eroded the quality of life that previously made the state the envy of
> the nation and the world. In 1978 the state had enough of a surplus to
> paper over the immediate effects of Prop. 13. The measure was
> practically designed to drain that, and put an end to effective
> governance in the state. Today, businesses and homeowners benefit from
> public investment in infrastructure - sewers, roads, electrical lines,
> freeways, mass transit - without having to contribute to the
> improvements.
That's an opinion piece, I can supply equally biased hit-pieces on the
other side of the argument. Both sides should be ignored and an unbiased
view of reality taken.
> Jarvis, and you apparently, are littler more than selfish old men Curly.
Ah, I thought we were having a dialog. Has your defense run out so
quickly?
Good for Howard! So what? Pinning the problems of society on one piece
of legislation which levels the playing field is ridiculous. To abandon
Prop 13 would again throw the elderly and fixed income out of their homes.
I will not go back to that era where property owners are taxed for every
program under the sun at the risk of their homes. If you want to fund
the fire department then use the traditional method, municipal taxes. If
you want to fund schools then do so from income tax or better yet a tax
on the number of children in the family. You want to fund new
infrastructure for developers from public funds? I don't. I won't. Let
the developers pay their own way and not suck at the public trough
through mandatory, confiscatory, taxation.
Curly Surmudgeon
------snip--------
> I was commenting on the referendum/ballot initiative process in the
> various states, generally, not CA or Proposition 13, specificcally.
I've edited out some text to highlight your text and agree
wholeheartedly. Pre-Prop 13 special interests were making fortunes in
the booming California economy by transferring much of the cost of their
projects to the public treasury, sewage, water projects, electrical
upgrades, natural gas, roads, parks, and schools.
That is a large measure of the massive property tax increases of the 70's
that precipitated Proposition 13, people were sick of paying for new
development enrichening the favored few.
Paying taxes isn't voluntary. To increase taxes _should_ be difficult,
the 2/3rds requirement, in my estimation, is too low. I'd go for 3/4rs
or 4/5ths, a massive majority. When taxation is determined by a mere
majority propaganda money can buy the result. Only when a demonstrable
need can be made to a vast majority should taxes be increased.
In fact I'd like to see legislation that reduces the taxes every year by
some small percentage until a public vote, by vast majority, raises them
again.
Curly Surmudgeon
That is a separate argument, one which I agree with so let's not go there.
I still disagree about Proposition 13 being a bad idea. Go past your
negatives in the link about to the positives:
-----------begin----------
Positive effects
Supporters argue that Proposition 13 has provided predictability for
property owners, and increased community stability. They argue that,
while the progressive income tax take higher incomes, property taxes take
a higher percentage of lower incomes, for those people who own a highly
valued property but have lower incomes. Supporters[who?] argue that state
income tax and sales tax were started during the Great Depression, when
taxpayer resistance movements started due to property taxes that
unemployed workers could not pay. The largest tax protest in the history
of Los Angeles County occurred in 1957 over rising property taxes .
According to the Center for Governmental Analysis, between fiscal years
2000 and 2005 property tax revenue has increased 22.11%, while personal
income per capita has increased 13.80% and general per capita revenue
21.93%. [10]
In addition, supporters[who?] state that the passage of Proposition 13
had the immediate impact of bringing the state out of stagflation, with
California outperforming the national economy. State and local spending,
in constant dollars, has continued to grow, although much of that is due
to increases in income, sales, and excise taxes enacted by the State
Legislature.[citation needed]
In addition, contrary to predictions by opponents[who?], the restriction
of tax increases for previously owned property has decreased volatility
of funding for municipalities. Property tax revenue has continued to
increase the inflation rate as a result of property changing hands.
[citation needed]David Doerr argues that the "acquisition value system"
acts as a control to overspending due to high real estate values, while
permitting a source of revenue growth in times of recession. Local
governments would then have to have cut spending more severely when the
housing market came down.[11]
According to the California Building Industry Association, construction
of a median priced house results in a slight positive fiscal impact, as
opposed to claims that housing does not "pay its own way". The trade
association argues that this is because new homes are assessed at the
value when they are first sold[clarification needed]. In addition, due to
the higher cost of new homes, the trade association claims that new
residents are more affluent and may provide more sales tax revenues and
use less social services of the host community.[12]
Proposition 13 remains popular among Californian likely voters, who are
mostly homeowners.[13] Among likely voters, 53% described Prop 13 as
"mostly a good thing" while 33% claimed that it was "mostly a bad thing"
in a 2006 Public Policy Institute of California survey. For adults who
are not likely voters (mostly renters), Prop 13 was unpopular -- only 29%
approval to 47% disapproval. Among California adults, overall approval
was 47% approval to 38% disapproval.[14]
Others argue that the real reason for the claimed negative effects is
lack of trust for elected officials to spend their money wisely[by
whom?]. [15] Business improvement districts are one means where property
owners have chosen to tax themselves for additional government services.
Property owners find that these targeted taxes are more palatable than
general taxes.[16]
--------------end--------------
>
> I'll add that all signs point to the coming generations being even less
> rational. Lately, when people bend my ear about macroeconomics, I ask
> them how many thousands are in a million. If they start guessing, then I
> don't care much about their opinion on how they want a new streetlight,
> much less a new stadium or a new war or a mission to fu*king Mars.
>
> Wayne
Again, that is a different argument. One that we can agree on. Let's
stay focused on Prop 13.
John R. Carroll
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:djr0251vk4mkrc36d...@4ax.com...
Fortunately, reality eventually intrude until it can't be avoided.
It's just a matter of how third world you believe people are willing to
become first.
>Lately, when people bend my ear about macroeconomics, I
> ask them how many thousands are in a million. If they start guessing,
> then I don't care much about their opinion on how they want a new
> streetlight, much less a new stadium or a new war or a mission to
> fu*king Mars.
That's the funniest damned thing I've heard today, even considering Curly's
nonsense - which is pretty wierd when you get down to it.
JC
John R. Carroll
>
>
> John R. Carroll wrote:
>> "BottleBob" <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
>>> Cripes, that's not right either. I think I'll just put down my fingers
>>> and back away from the keyboard.
>>
>> Can you do that?
>> Put down your fingers I mean.
> > LOL
>
> John:
>
> Well, I can let them dangle and my sides and turn around and watch an
> episode of Enterprise on TV. And I think that's just what I'll do. <g>
Broadcast Channel 56 is running two episodes of the original every night.
It's one of my regular stops! I'd forgotten what a terrible actor Shanter
was.
JC
brew...@aol.com
wrote:
> it was designed to restrict public serviced to
>ILLEGAL aliens - UNDOCUMENTED immigrants.
Seeing as some cities have declared themselves "sanctuaries" they
won't follow these types of rules or laws. City employees will be
fired if they report illegal's to the proper authorities.
In these cases where cities declare themselves as sanctuaries, city
employees are not allowed to even ask a person if they are a legal
resident let alone ask them to prove it. They even extended it to
CRIMINALS who are here illegally and could be deported.
Curly Surmudgeon
How is it weird? You keep issuing personal insults and opinion pieces
instead of substantive dialog. And have failed to present your case
sufficiently to change my opinion.
Note that 2/3rds of Californians voted in Proposition 13, a super
majority who were fed up with escalating taxation which rose at a
multiple of COL and inflation.
The problem is not inadequate taxation but excessive spending. For
instance the "3-strikes" law has exploded the prison population requiring
enormously expanding facilities and the notorious prison guards and their
politically connected union where many guards now earn six-figure incomes.
A life sentence for marijuana possession is insane but Proposition 13 has
been blamed. When Polly Klass was kidnapped, who was blamed?
Proposition 13. The list goes on, Proposition 13 is the whipping boy for
every political disaster since. Convenient, even if untrue.
Some facts:
in the aftermath of Prop 13 passing, California outperformed the rest of
the nation in nearly every conceivable measure including personal income
growth, employment growth, and real estate appreciation values.
While state and local property tax revenues fell from $11 billion in
Fiscal Year (FY) 1978 to $6 billion in FY 1979, higher revenues in other
categories largely offset them. For example, sales tax revenues grew 14.6
percent over the same time period. Total state and local revenues fell by
only $1.2 billion in total. Local government direct expenditures did not
even decline. The tax reduction which had invigorated the state's economy
so profoundly imposed no significant reduction in government services. If
anything, Proposition 13 and other tax limitation and tax reduction
measures which soon followed, benefited California's private sector and
California's public sector by giving incentives to workers to earn and
keep more money and grow the economy. Tax revenue increased as a result
of this economic growth. The California tax revolt of the late 1970's
more than paid for itself.
Despite Prop 13's restrictions, today's government in California collects
the same 16% of personal income in taxes, fees and assessments that it
collected before Proposition 13 passed. Today, the government in
California collects and spends per capita in constant dollars — that is,
incorporating population growth and inflation growth — more than it taxed
and spent per capita in 1978.
But then why don't we get the quality of services we use to get? The
answer is expanded government including not only increased government
spending on many programs, but also the expansion of government employees
wages and benefits, the largest portion of any budget.
---------end copy--------
So if your argument is based on nothing more than personal insults simply
say so. It will save us both time.
California's economic problem, outside the Bush debacle, is not a tax
income problem but an out-of-control spending problem. Proposition 13
prevents the lack of political fiscal responsibility from turning
homeowners out onto the street for bad governance.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$13,300,000,000,000.00, Angry Yet? Arrest Bush
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now it's time for War Crime Trials at the Hague for Bush/Cheney
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Carroll
>
>> <wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:djr0251vk4mkrc36d...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 19:28:48 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:14:57 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:05 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
> Note that 2/3rds of Californians voted in Proposition 13,
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
You're out Curly.
You might have been honest and said two thirds of the vates cast were in
favor of Prop13 and then cited the percentage of voters at the polls, but
you didn't.
Proposition 13 passed because Californians were convinced that their
considerable surplus was the result of an onerous tax burden.
"Wasteful Government excess", is what I recall.
>a super
> majority who were fed up with escalating taxation which rose at a
> multiple of COL and inflation.
>
> The problem is not inadequate taxation but excessive spending. For
> instance the "3-strikes" law has exploded the prison population requiring
> enormously expanding facilities and the notorious prison guards and their
> politically connected union where many guards now earn six-figure incomes.
And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative fiasco.
The only important facts at this point are the services that will be cut.
California's budget will have to shrink from last years 103 billion down to
about 87 billion to be balanced.
Good luck with that, especially in this economy.
JC
Brother Lightfoot
> >
> >> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
> >>>
> >>>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> >>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"F. George McDuffee" <gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote in
> >>>>>>>message news:6q8h15l8slbtmkhoc...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:47:41 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> >>>>>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>> Little old lady's losing their homes have nothing to do with
> >>>> commercial property assesments.
> >>>
> >>> Commercial property accessments have nothing to do with the elderly
> >>> losing their homes either.
> >>
> >> They have everything to do with Prop13.
> >
> > Do does losing your home at end of life due to excessive taxation.
>
> That has never happened Curly.
> A properly formulated tax policy, coupled to well written laws is the
> solution, not a feel good ballot initiative with a downside that kills
> everyone in the long run.
>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> JC
> >>>
> >>> homeowners by career politicians.
> >>
> >> it was so poorly written.
> >
> > It was very well written, it just goes against your wishes. It saved
the
> > elderly from losing their homes and put the costs where they belong, on
> > investors and new development.
>
> Those costs are funded by municipl bonds Curly, not existing revenues.
> The NEW owners pay the bonds off through their tax payments, which is
fair,
> because they are the ones getting the services.
>
> >
> > rampant property taxation we incurred in the 1970's
>
> Nonsense.
> Where do you get this stuff from?
> indexed assesment increases to inflation.
> Of course, you couldn't have sold that at the ballot box.
>
> the moneyed interests to target the mentally incompetent.
> will be, a substitute for an informed and motibvated electorate.
> What we have now is the absolute worst of both worlds. Incompetent and
>
>
Id be happy have it all go back to mexico let me know if my signature will
help
cavelamb
>> Lately, when people bend my ear about macroeconomics, I
>> ask them how many thousands are in a million. If they start guessing,
>> then I don't care much about their opinion on how they want a new
>> streetlight, much less a new stadium or a new war or a mission to
>> fu*king Mars.
I can't tell who wrote this part...
But I really like it!
Curly Surmudgeon
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2009.05...@live.com...
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:14:14 -0700, John R. Carroll wrote:
>>
>>> <wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:djr0251vk4mkrc36d...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 19:28:48 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:14:57 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:04:05 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>>>>>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> Note that 2/3rds of Californians voted in Proposition 13,
>
> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!
>
> You're out Curly.
> You might have been honest and said two thirds of the vates cast were in
> favor of Prop13 and then cited the percentage of voters at the polls,
> but you didn't.
Oh cut the shit, colliquilisms are fine for discussion. You understood,
Prop 13 was supported by 2/3rds of the Californians voting. Like that
better? Pedantry won't mask the overwhelming number of people fed up
with property taxes being used as a bottomless pit for political
spending. Other states followed suit copying Prop 13 it was so popular
and successful.
> Proposition 13 passed because Californians were convinced that their
> considerable surplus was the result of an onerous tax burden. "Wasteful
> Government excess", is what I recall.
"Surplus?" That was a very minor issue, the overwhelming complaint was
that people were being taxed out of their homes. Especially fixed income
homeowners, those who had homes free and clear but couldn't afford
tripling of taxes in five years. Their pensions and retirements COL
didn't match that by half.
>>a super
>> majority who were fed up with escalating taxation which rose at a
>> multiple of COL and inflation.
>>
>> The problem is not inadequate taxation but excessive spending. For
>> instance the "3-strikes" law has exploded the prison population
>> requiring enormously expanding facilities and the notorious prison
>> guards and their politically connected union where many guards now earn
>> six-figure incomes.
>
> And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative fiasco.
>
> The only important facts at this point are the services that will be
> cut. California's budget will have to shrink from last years 103 billion
> down to about 87 billion to be balanced.
> Good luck with that, especially in this economy.
>
>
> JC
I notice that you snip out the parts you can't debate...
John R. Carroll
Can and have but there isn't much point in continuing on with you.
Search the thread back to the post before Kooktard Cliff cross posted it to
the group you are posting from.
Your original response half way through the thread didn't indicate any
factual errors, only that my conclusions were not correct.
Here is the thing, I really didn't draw any conclusions so much as
observations. California's ballot initiative has grown to a monstrosity that
has produced more than 500 ammendments to the States Constitution. Prop13 ws
one and one of the poorest and least well conceived.
The same is true of Iraq.
When we went in I stated that it was stupid and that the unforseen
consequences of ignorance would be debilitating.
The only thing I'd change is "would" to "have been".
I'll repeat myself and then bow out - this is way to tedious for me -
"There isn't, and never will be, a substitute for an informed and motivated
electorate.
What we have now is the absolute worst of both worlds. Incompetent and
ineffective legislators and an ignorant public that is ill served".
JC
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
And cutting property taxes leads to inflation of property
prices.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>Proposition 187
>
>This is beyond stupid.
It's probably republican or winger then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187
"Proposition 187 was introduced by California State Assemblyman Dick Mountjoy
(Republican, from Monrovia, California) as the "Save Our State" initiative."
"A number of legal challenges led to the law being eventually overturned in
federal court."
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>
>BottleBob wrote:
>
>> I misread it as restricting the public services *OF* legal
>> residents, citizens... etc.
>
> Cripes, that's not right either. I think I'll just put down my
>fingers and back away from the keyboard.
What if they moved there from another US State?
--
Cliff
Cliff
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> I'd forgotten what a terrible actor Shanter
>was.
Both he & Nimoy were classical Shakespearean
stage actors IIRC.
--
Cliff
Cliff
And if they stop you for a traffic violation
outside their jurisdictions ... ?
They don't have the jurisdiction, if anybody does.
Show us the US Constitution ..
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In my neck of the woods, I know a whole bunch of people who are
>paying less than $500 per year in property taxes, but they're lobbying
>to have a 30 mile gravel road paved.
To save tax money some areas are changing paved roads
to gravel roads.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
> taxes
Talking heads on Faux "news" seem to be hinting that
people should not pay their taxes (probably til wingers
come back with guns).
Plus they have Rush showing what a racist he is .. guess
he's still in NYC...
--
Cliff
Cliff
> Democrats are ok, it's just the party they belong to, a group of people
>with similar beliefs doing their thing. Pukes of course, but no different
>than the other pukes. Now if your mentioning far left liberals that's
>different, they should be strung up for stealing my grandkids beer money.
Idiot.
Who created this mess?
The rethugs, wingers & bushco.
Who runs up the deficits? Rethugs.
Who pays them down? The Dems.
Who both deregulated & failed to enforce
regulations? The rethugs, wingers & bushco.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>While state and local property tax revenues fell from $11 billion in
>Fiscal Year (FY) 1978 to $6 billion in FY 1979, higher revenues in other
>categories largely offset them.
You cannot claim cause & effect.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
> in the aftermath of Prop 13 passing, California outperformed the rest of
>the nation in nearly every conceivable measure including personal income
>growth, employment growth, and real estate appreciation values.
How did that later work out?
Could anybody not owning a home afford one?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>"Surplus?" That was a very minor issue, the overwhelming complaint was
>that people were being taxed out of their homes. Especially fixed income
>homeowners, those who had homes free and clear but couldn't afford
>tripling of taxes in five years.
Could those very same people afford to buy in 2006?
Not counting next door to gummer.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:4i22255k8b00jv04d...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:06:26 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>>
>>> YOU GUYS fired your last governor...cause he was a fiscal idiot? Then sat
>>>back and watched another idiot do it worse.
>>
>> The current one is a repub.
>> One of yours.
>>
>> HTH
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>DOOD, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, how many times do I have to tell you that.
Your words speak for you.
>I only voted for clinton, and ross perot,making me technically a democrat or
>an independant.
> Right now I'm pissed because there's no balance of power in 2 of the three
>branches, and everytime a liberal gets nominated to the supreme court we get
>one step closer to all three branches being from one party, and thats as bad
>as it gets.
You had no complaints when the repubs & wingers had everything,
marching in lockstep.
Except for them being too "liberal", right?
BTW, The dems don't march in lockstep.
We don't even need any repubs at all to find conservatives
in the dems. They are all over the map.
> I'm super pissed at the spending, the growth in the federal government,
The place has not collapsed totally, has it?
And were were you with free money from the rethugs that ran up
the deficits?
Had your hand out I expect.
>and
>uncle sam taking over decisions usually made by the free market.
Like what just happened?
Buyer beware stuff & it's now all YOUR fault?
>We are in trouble,
How did that happen with the rethug dereguation & "free economy"?
>and every day there's some new gimmic to grow the federal
>government in some kind of way. "daily"
What's today's problem?
> I hate both extreme sides of both parties. they both push their views
>without caring what the rest of America thinks. Bush was a puke, I didnt
>vote for him either time, he executed more people in prison than any
>governor in existance.
Probably danced little jigs too.
>And you can be sure at least "one" person was
>innocent, making him technically a murderer. Iraq was bullshit, the patriot
>act made me sick to my stomach.
> But I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for gore or kerry either. I was
>pretty depressed at both times.
>
>The media is 99% far leftist, and that makes me sick.
In the US it's almost all right-wing.
> You bitch about fox all the time, but damn man, what if fox wasn't around,
>there would be absolutely no balance whatsoever.
Faux just lies a little more.
> My local government is republican, and they are trashing florida as fast as
>the libs are trashing america.
You could try to move to China.
>And the libratarians are friggen nutcases.
>
>Reagan...a puke who almost got us into ww3. Carter...GOOD LORD that was a
>mess.
A very decent person.
>Bush jr got the whole world to hate us, got us deeper in debt.
>
>Bush sr, pretty lame, but did the job.
>Clinton, did the job if the republicans would of laid off him we would be
>way better off now. His wife needed to stfu, but he kicked ass. Was he
>perfect, hell no. But those two presidents didn't screw things up beyond
>repair like the rest.
>Obama....biggest growth in government prolly in American history over 4
>months. he's not so high on my list.
Bushco grew the government. The rethug way.
>I am an independant.
And a nutcase.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
No. Nor could they have afforded to buy in 1978, they'd been priced out
of the market and were on a fixed income.
A fixed income is not reason to take away their home.
> Not counting next door to gummer.
--
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sat, 30 May 2009 04:48:22 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> in the aftermath of Prop 13 passing, California outperformed the rest
>> of
>>the nation in nearly every conceivable measure including personal income
>>growth, employment growth, and real estate appreciation values.
>
> How did that later work out?
Pretty well and for a very long time. There is no definitive comparison
as there is no comparable state but the nation as a whole did not do as
well as California until Bush43.
> Could anybody not owning a home afford one?
Of course not. Nor can anyone not owning a home afford one anywhere else.
Curly Surmudgeon
How so? Correlation is not proof...
Too_Many_Tools
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 05:28:52 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>
> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> > the state will throw 940,000 poor
> >children off its health-care rolls and lay off tens of thousands of
> >teachers.
>
> And gummer's hopes for welfare are doomed. They are likely
> to be coming for their pounds of flesh & foot rot.
> --
> Cliff
You are correct on this point.
With revenues way down, cases like Gunner's will be getting extra
special treatment to trim the dead weight off the public tit.
Gunner will likely then lose Internet access he has to pay for.
He could always use the libraries computers...but the library will
likely be closed to lack of funds.
TMT
cavelamb
>
> With revenues way down, cases like Gunner's will be getting extra
> special treatment to trim the dead weight off the public tit.
>
> Gunner will likely then lose Internet access he has to pay for.
>
> He could always use the libraries computers...but the library will
> likely be closed to lack of funds.
>
> TMT
If it gets to that point, there will be more important things to worry
about...
vinny
Well, your comment on the fact that our media is right wing pretty much says
it all.
Curly Surmudgeon
Gunner once made a comment about stealing wifi from a neighbor.
Cliff
wrote:
>On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:43:34 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:45:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
>>
>> And cutting property taxes leads to inflation of property
>> prices.
>
>How so? Correlation is not proof...
Given X dollars per year for housing the cost of taxes
plus payments = X.
Increase taxes & the payments (and thus the cost)
drop (free market stuff).
Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
housing so prices rise.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:8sf225dujc3utsm7t...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 09:18:15 -0400, "vinny" <vi...@vp3d.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The media is 99% far leftist, and that makes me sick.
>>
>> No, it's almost all right-wing (in the US).
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>OH COMON!! Give me a freaking break!
> I want others to reply to this.
> Jeese man, theres fox news totally right, and all the rest totally left,
>even pbs.
>There's nobody in the middle.
> All the newspapers are leftist.'
> If you deny this your just trolling for effect.
>Right wing news media, oh that's rich, name just one other than fox news.
>Just one.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/cnn-f18.shtml
"right-wing purge continues in US media"
[
18 February 2005
The February 11 resignation of CNN Executive Vice President Eason Jordan is
another scalp for the right-wing campaign to purge the American mass media of
even the slightest criticism of the Bush administration�s policy ....
]
"Right Wing Media News Sections"
See list: http://uspolitics.einnews.com/category/us-right-wing-media
Etc.
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
connotations.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:16:23 -0400, Cliff wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:52:39 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> > <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:43:34 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
> >>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:45:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> >>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
>
> >>> And cutting property taxes leads to inflation of property
> >>> prices.
>
> >>How so? Correlation is not proof...
>
> > Given X dollars per year for housing the cost of taxes
> > plus payments = X.
> > Increase taxes & the payments (and thus the cost)
> > drop (free market stuff).
> > Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
> > housing so prices rise.
>
> That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
> "Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
> connotations.
Unfortunately, all Cliffie postings are burdened by negative
connotations.
Scott
news:ab30486d-d636-4ada...@t21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> Unfortunately, all Cliffie postings are burdened by negative
> connotations.
It's not unfortunate at all, it is very deliberate.
Let him wear it in all it's glory.
F. George McDuffee
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>> Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
>> housing so prices rise.
>
>That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
>"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
>connotations.
======
On the contrary, "inflation" appears to be exactly the correct
word. The increased "value" of the house does nothing for the
owner-resident except increase their taxes, thus shifting more of
their income, which most likely did not increase, to the
government through higher taxes. If they sell their house to
take advantage of the "appreciation," they still must live
somewhere, and the price of "somewhere else" just went up.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
F. George McDuffee
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
<snip>
>And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative fiasco.
<snip>
----------
How is this part of a fiasco?
The problem is that the correct question is not how much does "3
strikes" cost (its plenty), but how much does "3 strikes" cost
compared to the cost of not having "3 strikes." An important
follow-on question is why does it cost so much more to keep a
career felon behind bars in California than in Texas or Florida?
Assume a very low standard of living for the career criminal on
the outside, say 20k$ per year. [Most likely it will be *MUCH*
higher] The typical cash pay-off for stolen goods, cars, etc. is
5 to 10%. Assume the high of 10%. This means that the typical
career criminal must steal at least 200k$ per year. To this add
the cost of the damage they cause, the repair costs, the costs to
investigate and prosecute, the insurance costs, etc. These
overhead costs are more than likely 100% of the base 200k$, but
assume only 50%. Thus the total aggregate cost to society per
*SINGLE* year of allowing a *ONE* career full-time criminal to
run loose is at least 300k$ per year.
Even with the inflated imprisonment costs, the yearly tab to keep
the career/habitual criminal behind bars is far less, (possibly
not in max or super-max but this is not generally required) and
as there is little likelihood of rehabilitation, that cost can
also be saved.
While dated the following gives an good estimate of the costs.
Texas c. 14k/yr, Florida c. 20k$/yr, California c. 25k$/yr.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:09:07 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>> Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
>>> housing so prices rise.
>>
>>That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
>>"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
>>connotations.
> ======
> On the contrary, "inflation" appears to be exactly the correct word.
> The increased "value" of the house does nothing for the owner-resident
> except increase their taxes,
Putting aside the inflation disagreement, appreciation could be said to
suffer the same problem if you narrow the field that closely.
Appreciation does nothing for the owner-resident except increase their
taxes.
However in the state we were speaking of, California, Proposition 13
exists and which was designed specifically to prevent this theft by
government.
Note: JRC began this thread. He and I are/were California residents.
Dick 'Tater
> On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:58:05 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative
>> fiasco.
> <snip>
> ----------
> How is this part of a fiasco?
It's an unfunded mandate. Another one actually and we are in the process of
undoing it.
There was an excellent panel discussion broadcast today by the Milken
Foundation about all of this.
>
> The problem is that the correct question is not how much does "3
> strikes" cost (its plenty), but how much does "3 strikes" cost
> compared to the cost of not having "3 strikes."
The cost is significant George but I don't have a number for you.
I do know that 38,000 non violent offenders might be released shortly and
that three strikers have been having their sentences modified for a couple
of years now. Some are just being released.
--
John R. Carroll
brew...@aol.com
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>There was an excellent panel discussion broadcast today by the Milken
>Foundation about all of this.
Cheese wiz a criminal working against the three strikes rule.....LOL.
Michael Milken co-founded the Milken Family Foundation in 1982
[
Milken was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud
in 1989 as the result of an insider trading investigation. After a
plea bargain, Milken pled guilty to six securities and reporting
violations.
He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but was released after less
than two years. As part of his plea, Milken agreed to pay $200 million
in fines. He agreed to a settlement with the SEC for $400 million to
be paid to shareholders who had been hurt by his actions. He also
accepted a lifetime ban from any involvement in the securities
industry.
]
John R. Carroll
> On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:28:43 -0800, "Dick 'Tater"
> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>
>> There was an excellent panel discussion broadcast today by the Milken
>> Foundation about all of this.
>
> Cheese wiz a criminal working against the three strikes rule.....LOL.
Good old Mike.
The panel discussed the States budget dilemma.
I don't remember three strike being a topic, per se, but it was mentioned
because of the anticipated prison release.
Man, it's great to have a spell checker again!
--
John R. Carroll
Scott
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:E7JUl.17989$jZ1....@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
John My Man,
You have been a great help to me in past years.
I took your advice, tried to pass it on and was shot down by suits that
never turned a handle.
Three strikes has a ring of utility, but is really just a hole in the
forehead, covered with a Band-Aid.
Lets apply three strikes to congress and the house.
People commit crimes because they have mental problems, are addicted, or are
simply greedy pricks that think they are smarter than everyone else and
think they can get away with slipping an inch in.
Randy Cunningham was one of my heroes as a kid. Three MIG's in one op. He
hit DC and was perverted in a blink of an eye, and now is doing time
(rightfully so).
Cant run between the raindrops.
Clinton bangs the office help, lies on national TV and to the congress and
walks, and Obama puts her in a cubical where she cant threaten him.
WTF?
See the House and Congress.
Divide and conquer.
America *allegedly* wants to lock it's drug problem up so no one (at least
none of the drunks like Ted Kennedy) to have to see it.
Our prisons are full, the drug smuggling, money, murders and crime hasn't
dropped one one hundredth of one per cent since Reagan declared his War On
Drugs; in fact, it only accelerated, but now the idiots are focusing on
guns. Again. Guns from America going to Mexico. Jeezus Fucking Chroist.
*That*, without googling is being generous.
Meanwhile, rapists, child molesters and the rest of the creeps that should
have the door welded shut are sprung to "re-offend".
Kids spin in circles to get buzzed. Alcohol is older than recorded history,
marijuana and opium probably older.
I gotta pee in the jar to get a job, and be subjected to "randoms" as if I
could program and run a CNC machine stoned.
District attorneys, lawyers, judges, cops and fucking senators, congressmen
and school teachers suffer no such insult.
Three strikes is a Band-Aid, it is a lollipop.
What "three strikes" does is fill prisons and give bearuercrats jobs at the
expense of young people who simply need a boot in the ass.
For many crimes, *one* strike should be enough.
I spent the last year of my life, lost my home, my job, and every dime I had
dealing with the cancer brought on to elders of mine who smoked for 30+
years.
I am supposed to give a fuck about Obama and the UAW?
Anyone who has never had to feed someone you love through a PEG tube, or
drive and walk them to chemo and radiation every fucking day because they
are on Fentanyl patches and liquid Vicoden should thank Mother Nature and be
happy to have what you have.
The bickering here and on most newsgroups doesn't add up to a fart in a
hurricane.
People need to pull their heads out of their asses and just stop for a
minute and look around.
It's all there in plain sight.
True freedom, America, human spirituality and love of life are circling the
drain.
brew...@aol.com
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>brew...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:28:43 -0800, "Dick 'Tater"
>> <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>>
>>> There was an excellent panel discussion broadcast today by the Milken
>>> Foundation about all of this.
>>
>> Cheese wiz a criminal working against the three strikes rule.....LOL.
>
>I don't remember three strike being a topic, per se, but it was mentioned
>because of the anticipated prison release.
I seem to have trimmed the post too much. Here is more detail for what
I was responding to;
[[[[[
On Sun, 31 May 2009 20:28:43 -0800, "Dick 'Tater"
<nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote:
>F. George McDuffee wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:58:05 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative
>>> fiasco.
>> <snip>
>> ----------
>> How is this part of a fiasco?
>
>It's an unfunded mandate. Another one actually and we are in the process of
>undoing it.
>There was an excellent panel discussion broadcast today by the Milken
>Foundation about all of this.
]]]]]
John,
I may have misunderstood your context. I thought you were calling
"Three Strikes Your Out" an un-founded mandate. One that the Milken
Foundation is against it. Hearing it come from that foundation who's
founder SHOULD be spending life in prison seemed.........
--
Tom
Scott
news:voq6259t5p9or5f4g...@4ax.com...
> I may have misunderstood your context. I thought you were calling
> "Three Strikes Your Out" an un-founded mandate. One that the Milken
> Foundation is against it. Hearing it come from that foundation who's
> founder SHOULD be spending life in prison seemed.........
Come on man, he gave away a very small decimal of a percentage of what he
stole...
brew...@aol.com
>stole....
I know...I know....he stole it fair and square......
He is using a small portion of the billions he got away with and for
years has been successfully marketing himself as a Philanthropist.
Lessons learned from robber barons of the past it seems.
Cliff
wrote:
>On Sun, 31 May 2009 09:16:23 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 May 2009 16:52:39 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
>> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 30 May 2009 05:43:34 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 May 2009 12:45:21 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
>>>> <jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Property tax valuations skyrocketed because property VALUES did.
>>>>
>>>> And cutting property taxes leads to inflation of property
>>>> prices.
>>>
>>>How so? Correlation is not proof...
>>
>> Given X dollars per year for housing the cost of taxes
>> plus payments = X.
>> Increase taxes & the payments (and thus the cost)
>> drop (free market stuff).
>> Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
>> housing so prices rise.
>
>That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
>"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
>connotations.
It's none of the above.
It's just how the housing money can be split up.
If people pay lower for taxes they can pay more for
the very same house, right? The sellers know this. So
do the buyers.
So prices rise (or fall) just on that alone.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Simple concepts confuse wingers so.
How about a pretty chart?
http://follownobody.duckweedmafia.com/pictures/pacman%20chart.jpg
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
I doubt even a pretty chart would help ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Sun, 31 May 2009 17:09:07 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>> Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
>>> housing so prices rise.
>>
>>That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
>>"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
>>connotations.
>======
>On the contrary, "inflation" appears to be exactly the correct
>word. The increased "value" of the house does nothing for the
>owner-resident except increase their taxes,
But in this specific case they capped taxes IIRC.
>thus shifting more of
>their income, which most likely did not increase, to the
>government through higher taxes. If they sell their house to
>take advantage of the "appreciation," they still must live
>somewhere, and the price of "somewhere else" just went up.
>
>
>Unka' George [George McDuffee]
--
Cliff
rangerssuck
> >> Decrease taxes & there is more money for the same
> >> housing so prices rise.
>
> >That would be more intelligible had you called it "appreciation."
> >"Inflation" isn't the appropriate descriptor and is burdened by negative
> >connotations.
>
> ======
> On the contrary, "inflation" appears to be exactly the correct
> word. The increased "value" of the house does nothing for the
> owner-resident except increase their taxes, thus shifting more of
> their income, which most likely did not increase, to the
> government through higher taxes. If they sell their house to
> take advantage of the "appreciation," they still must live
> somewhere, and the price of "somewhere else" just went up.
>
> Unka' George [George McDuffee]
In what way does the increased value increase taxes? When the market
improves and the value of my house increases, so will the values of
all the houses in the neighborhood. If the tax levy remains constant,
the portion paid by each homeowner remains constant. Only the tax rate
would be lowered.
It also is simplistic to think that housing prices across the country
remain proportional. Right now, prices in my area (northern New
Jersey) have held fairly well, while a couple of hundred miles from
here, they have fallen considerably. Now would be a GREAT time to make
a move away from here, if one was solely concerned about housing
costs.
Just sayin' is all.
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:58:05 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
><jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>And like Prop 13 Three Strikes was part of the ballot initiative fiasco.
><snip>
>----------
>How is this part of a fiasco?
>
>The problem is that the correct question is not how much does "3
>strikes" cost (its plenty), but how much does "3 strikes" cost
>compared to the cost of not having "3 strikes." An important
>follow-on question is why does it cost so much more to keep a
>career felon behind bars in California than in Texas or Florida?
I'm curious how someone at a "Charter School" earns $261,732 ....
http://www.koaa.com/aaaa_top_stories/x812774754/Questions-over-charter-school-execs-pay
"Meantime, the school has been implementing furloughs and salary freezes."
>Assume a very low standard of living for the career criminal on
>the outside, say 20k$ per year. [Most likely it will be *MUCH*
>higher] The typical cash pay-off for stolen goods, cars, etc. is
>5 to 10%. Assume the high of 10%. This means that the typical
>career criminal must steal at least 200k$ per year. To this add
>the cost of the damage they cause, the repair costs, the costs to
>investigate and prosecute, the insurance costs, etc. These
>overhead costs are more than likely 100% of the base 200k$, but
>assume only 50%. Thus the total aggregate cost to society per
>*SINGLE* year of allowing a *ONE* career full-time criminal to
>run loose is at least 300k$ per year.
I sort of doubt that most of those "career criminals" were
actually doing much theft.
>Even with the inflated imprisonment costs, the yearly tab to keep
>the career/habitual criminal behind bars is far less, (possibly
>not in max or super-max but this is not generally required) and
>as there is little likelihood of rehabilitation, that cost can
>also be saved.
>While dated the following gives an good estimate of the costs.
>Texas c. 14k/yr, Florida c. 20k$/yr, California c. 25k$/yr.
>http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spe01.pdf
>
>
>Unka' George [George McDuffee]
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>People commit crimes because they have mental problems, are addicted, or are
>simply greedy pricks that think they are smarter than everyone else and
>think they can get away with slipping an inch in.
Lots of them are just stupid, wingers, got drunk, ... and in
some cases it's cultural.
How many laws are there? How many can you break just
by accident on any given day? How many do YOU know
inside & out?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>Clinton bangs the office help, lies on national TV and to the congress and
>walks, and Obama puts her in a cubical where she cant threaten him.
Even for a winger you seem exceptionally braindead.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I spent the last year of my life, lost my home, my job, and every dime I had
>dealing with the cancer brought on to elders of mine who smoked for 30+
>years.
So NOW you are for national health care plans?
Gummer will be thrilled.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Anyone who has never had to feed someone you love through a PEG tube, or
>drive and walk them to chemo and radiation every fucking day because they
>are on Fentanyl patches and liquid Vicoden should thank Mother Nature and be
>happy to have what you have.
>
>The bickering here and on most newsgroups doesn't add up to a fart in a
>hurricane.
>
>People need to pull their heads out of their asses and just stop for a
>minute and look around.
>
>It's all there in plain sight.
>
>True freedom, America, human spirituality and love of life are circling the
>drain.
Because you have/had a sick relative?
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
I seem to remember a news article a year or two ago reporting that the
California prison population of non-violent drug related inmates had
crossed the 50% mark. Add to that the petty theft and it would seem that
the majority of the prison population shouldn't be there but working and
paying restitution.
Cliff
wrote:
Probably a good time for retirees to move to Ohio or Michigan or any
big US auto state.
--
Cliff
F. George McDuffee
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I sort of doubt that most of those "career criminals" were
>> actually doing much theft.
>
>I seem to remember a news article a year or two ago reporting that the
>California prison population of non-violent drug related inmates had
>crossed the 50% mark. Add to that the petty theft and it would seem that
>the majority of the prison population shouldn't be there but working and
>paying restitution.
=====
This appears to be accurate.
There is indeed a difference between a "career criminal" and a
"dumb s**t." There is little hope of rehabilitating the career
criminal, thus "warehousing" them until they get too old and
feeble to continue stealing appears to be the only option to
letting then prey on society.
It is possible that the "dumb s**ts" can be
resocialized/relocated and with intrusive monitoring, i.e. no
drugs, no alcohol, no association with known criminals, etc, can
lead at least semi-productive lives on the "outside." This
"close and constant supervision" is also expensive and time
consuming, but appears to cost less than locking them up. In
effect this is involuntary psychotherapy and a personality
transplant, however "rehabilitation" of petty criminals with a
drug problem [i.e. stealing to support a habit] has a very low
success rate no matter what method is tried, other than keeping
them locked up until they reach middle age and "burn out." The
down economy and the problems of finding gainful employment
exacerbate this.
rangerssuck
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 06:57:05 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck <rangerss...@gmail.com>
Dude, I'm a big time hockey fan. Don't think it hasn't crossed my mind
to pull up stakes here and buy a nice house for fifty grand in
Hockeytown (Detroit). I can take my business anywhere I can get an
internet connection and fedex. There certainly are some bargains to be
had.
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:42:51 GMT, Curly Surmudgeon
><CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>> I sort of doubt that most of those "career criminals" were
>>> actually doing much theft.
>>
>>I seem to remember a news article a year or two ago reporting that the
>>California prison population of non-violent drug related inmates had
>>crossed the 50% mark. Add to that the petty theft and it would seem that
>>the majority of the prison population shouldn't be there but working and
>>paying restitution.
><snip>
>=====
>This appears to be accurate.
>
>There is indeed a difference between a "career criminal" and a
>"dumb s**t." There is little hope of rehabilitating the career
>criminal, thus "warehousing" them until they get too old and
>feeble to continue stealing appears to be the only option to
>letting then prey on society.
For many/most a term in jail ends all chances of ever doing better.
But they end up with a new culture & new friends.
>It is possible that the "dumb s**ts" can be
>resocialized/relocated and with intrusive monitoring, i.e. no
>drugs, no alcohol, no association with known criminals, etc, can
>lead at least semi-productive lives on the "outside."
Just relocation (far) away from their current social circle
(plus a living wage job) would probably help most.
>This
>"close and constant supervision" is also expensive and time
>consuming, but appears to cost less than locking them up. In
>effect this is involuntary psychotherapy and a personality
>transplant, however "rehabilitation" of petty criminals with a
>drug problem [i.e. stealing to support a habit] has a very low
>success rate no matter what method is tried, other than keeping
>them locked up until they reach middle age and "burn out."
Legalize cheap drugs & let doctors & pharmacists monitor.
> The
>down economy and the problems of finding gainful employment
>exacerbate this.
>
>
>Unka' George [George McDuffee]
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jun 1, 11:54�am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
Probably lots of good places outside Detroit too now.
http://masterbidinc.com/auctions/2905_Bonnell/
--
Cliff