Senate rejects plan for debt limit deal

posted at 2:31 pm on October 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

Most of the talk on the cable gab festivals regarding shutdown mania has focused on the interplay between House Speaker John Boehner and the President. And rightly so, since all spending bills really are supposed to originate in the House. (Of course, there are little tricks they can use in the Senate to get around inconvenient facts like the Constitution.) But the upper chamber began making noises about taking matters into their own hands this week.

“It’s been clear to me for a while we can’t wait for the House to save us,” said Richard Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Senate Democrat. “We have to find our own bipartisan path forward, and we haven’t done that yet.”

The emerging Senate talks have been focusing on a plan from Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, which faces obstacles in both parties and both chambers of Congress.

Today, they decided to take it for a test spin. A fresh proposal to extend the debt cap – at least for a little while – was brought to the floor. So how did that work out for ya?

Democratic leaders in the Senate are rejecting an offer by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to end the budget impasse, arguing it asks for too much in return for too little, senators and aides tell POLITICO.

The development comes on the same day that the Senate voted 53-45 to block a Democratic bill that would raise the debt ceiling through 2014 without any spending cuts or changes to Obamacare.

So basically there aren’t sixty votes out there to end debate on anything which involves essentially a blank check for the federal government. It makes you wonder if they could pull this off even if the House did manage to put a similar package together. The current projection we’re hearing from the Hill holds that the witching hour is going to arrive on Thursday. At that point, choices will have to be made as to what gets paid and what doesn’t. The chief danger here is that the GOP will have virtually nothing to say about those decisions. The White House will have direct control over which checks get written and you don’t need a magic eight-ball to predict where the pain will be “equally distributed” if it comes to that.

But is there some way around it at this late date which is politically viable and could attract the required votes? I certainly don’t see one.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

You cite CA’s economy??

Alrighty then.

wolly4321 on October 12, 2013 at 9:08 PM

It all started with Obamacare, but I have this strange suspicion that it isn’t going to end with it. This is JUST the beginning of the beginning.
ajacksonian on October 12, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Yeah… I’ve been gaming it out, and I don’t like the probabilities.

(That and the fact that he’s essentially going out of his way to antagonize the military.)

His arrogance, and the nature of his staff, is very problematic.

CPT. Charles on October 12, 2013 at 9:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a780LGWG7to

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM

And, to repeat what I said above, it’s hilarious to watch “Ric” blather on about “the poor” when he and his fellow lazy Obama hipsters are using food stamps to throw gourmet dinner parties and supporting multimillionaire leaders who use taxpayer-funded housing subsidies and dodge taxes in the first place for their Manhattan apartments.

In short, Ric and his fellow Obama puppets don’t want welfare for the poor; they want welfare for themselves.

Isn’t that right, Ric? Quite the little welfare queen you and your fellow Obama supporters are, aren’t you? What makes you think you deserve food stamps more than poor people do?

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM

And Ric is citing California?

Let’s run with that one.

As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.

Like medieval serfs, increasing numbers of Californians are downwardly mobile, and doing worse than their parents: native born Latinos actually have shorter lifespans than their parents, according to one recent report. Nor are things expected to get better any time soon. According to a recent Hoover Institution survey, most Californians expect their incomes to stagnate in the coming six months, a sense widely shared among the young, whites, Latinos, females, and the less educated.

Some of these trends can be found nationwide, but they have become pronounced and are metastasizing more quickly in the Golden State. As late as the 80s, the state was about as egalitarian as the rest of the country. Now, for the first time in decades, the middle class is a minority, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

Amazing, isn’t it, Ric?

You spend lavishly on welfare benefits while imposing punitive taxes on businesses and working people, and you end up with more poverty, more inequality, and more people on welfare.

Why, it’s almost as if rewarding failure and punishing success leads to more failure and less success!

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 9:15 PM

12.36 microsecond deckapes are dummies. But 6.18 microsecond tier one beaurocrats are worse.

;>)

wolly4321 on October 12, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Once again the majority of red states took more than they gave while the majority of blue states did the opposite.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 8:38 PM

You just have to laugh when ignorant libtards trot out the old red states are on welfare meme.

Seriously, phucktard are you really that phucking stupid?

CA gets 1/3 of all the welfare $ flowing from the feds to the states.

You know what the red stated get a lot of fed $ for? Oh yeah, the military including veterans. Those folks you and your black jesus hate so much. You also realize that over 50% of the fed $ going back to the states is for social security and medicare. You know entitlement programs that the recipients have paid into their entire lives. You know who typically has older populations receiving these programs? Oh yeah, red states.

You know why blue states contribute more in taxes? Oh yeah, there are more corporations head quartered in blue states. And they pay taxes on products/services they sell in all states (blue and red). And last I checked all the tax payers in blue states from these corporations vote red.

And finally, idiot. States don’t vote.

You want to get to brass tacks let’s compare blue voters against red voters and see who takes more in gov’t services and welfare than they contribute in federal taxes.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 9:36 PM

You don’t engage in battles you can’t win.

jerryofva on October 12, 2013 at 8:09 PM

False: Failing to fight because of fear of loss means not developing popular support and skills to win.

PseudoRandom on October 12, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The fact that red states have a lower cost of living than blue states should lead you to question those numbers — especially when you admit that “the poor” whom you subsidize so freely can’t afford to live in your blue-state utopias.

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Facts are stubborn things aren’t they. I’ll say it again. Red states are the real takers while blue states are the givers. Nobody yet has shown solid evidence disputing my point.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Hahahahaha poor kids not being able to eat. Its HILARIOUS!

libfreeordie on October 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I do feel bad for the folks that truly need the help. The blinged up twits tweeting on their smartphones… not so much.

ctmom on October 12, 2013 at 10:01 PM

You cite CA’s economy??

Alrighty then.

wolly4321 on October 12, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Isn’t that right, Ric? Quite the little welfare queen you and your fellow Obama supporters are, aren’t you? What makes you think you deserve food stamps more than poor people do?

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Lol your not serious person. Unless you have magic powers you have no idea how a stranger lives. But just for the record I have a job and don’t take welfare.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Facts are stubborn things aren’t they. I’ll say it again. Red states are the real takers while blue states are the givers. Nobody yet has shown solid evidence disputing my point.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 9:59 PM

You’re not dealing in facts, phucktard. And yeah, solid evidence has been presented. Your just too phucking stupid to understand it.

LOL

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

You’re wasting your time responding to this guy. He’s delusional and a indoctrinated. A lot of government workers are like that.

Vince on October 12, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Obama will not agree to anything. He wants to bring the USA to it’s knees. Can’t figure out Reid’s motive so he must just be plain crazy.

Herb on October 12, 2013 at 10:17 PM

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

Facts are stubborn things aren’t they?

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:19 PM

You’re wasting your time responding to this guy. He’s delusional and a indoctrinated. A lot of government workers are like that.

Vince on October 12, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Says the guy that asserts facts out of wishful thinking. How would you even know if I worked for the government or not? Yet you assert so just because it fits your preconceived notions of reality better. BTW I don’t work for the Federal Government.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Facts are stubborn things aren’t they?

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:19 PM

LOL..you really are a moron. Sad.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM

ROFLMAO..a krugmann article.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 10:29 PM

Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

LOL..you really are a moron. Sad.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Says the guy uses ad hominem attacks instead of actually responding to the evidence I presented. To summarize blue states, which by and large are run by liberals make more money than red states. Blue states are more educated than red states. Blue states have less obese people than red states. Blue states have lower divorce rates than red states. I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Says the guy that asserts facts out of wishful thinking. How would you even know if I worked for the government or not? Yet you assert so just because it fits your preconceived notions of reality better. BTW I don’t work for the Federal Government.

State employee Ric? Pray tell what great service do you provide? Do you date stamp the incoming mail?

alanstern on October 12, 2013 at 10:39 PM

State employee Ric? Pray tell what great service do you provide? Do you date stamp the incoming mail?

alanstern on October 12, 2013 at 10:39 PM

Seems a lot of republicans like to use magical thinking.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the “red state welfare” argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.

Fascinating storyline the liberals tried to construct. Too bad it is entirely false.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 10:52 PM

magical thinking.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

…you have your hand on it…don’t you?
Lotion?

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2013 at 10:55 PM

I’m sure we can all agree that we should work together to end the abuse, and end the generational welfare type.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

C R A C K !

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM

The budget deficients are actually gone.

I missed that. lol

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM
…C R A C K !

KOOLAID2 on October 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM

California’s finances are golden again.
After multi-billion dollar shortfalls in recent years, the state’s budget has finally straightened out. California expects to take in $2.4 billion more in revenue than it will spend this fiscal year, which ends June 30. After paying off a shortfall from last year and setting aside funds for upcoming obligations, it’s on track to end the year with a $36 million surplus.

Get out of the bubble. Embrace reality.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:05 PM

I’m sure we can all agree that we should work together to end the abuse, and end the generational welfare type.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 10:56 PM

I’ll agree with you there. There are way too many lazy people who abuse the system. But instead of cutting funding we should spend more money on prosecuting fraud and abuse.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:07 PM

To summarize blue states, which by and large are run by liberals make more money than red states. Blue states are more educated than red states. Blue states have less obese people than red states. Blue states have lower divorce rates than red states. I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

You neglect to mention that many more minorities live in Red States than Blue States.

60% of Blacks live in the South.

Mississippi has the largest obese rate in the country due to blacks being the most populous in the state.

Oh yeah…Detroit.

sentinelrules on October 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Here is the link, Ric didn’t bother to post it, since plagiarism is bad.
From the very article he plagiarized.

Don’t break out the bubbly just yet, though. California’s new balancing act is as fragile as a Jenga tower.

The state is still highly dependent on income tax revenue from the wealthy, a notoriously fickle source. The tax increases prompted grumblings from wealthy residents like golf star Phil Mickelson, and spurred other states, such as Texas, to encourage businesses to move.

“Millionaires don’t make a million dollars every year,” said Mike Genest, a consultant and former state finance director under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. “The idea that we have emerged from our historic budget shortfalls in a sustainable way is very questionable.”

All of the state’s budget figures and forecasts for the year are still guesswork. California will have a better idea of exactly how much revenue it will collect this year — and whether it will still have a surplus — when it issues its revised forecast in May.

Another risk is that lawmakers will want to restore many of the services and funding that were slashed during the Great Recession and its brutal aftermath. Brown has pledged continued fiscal constraint, but that can be difficult to accomplish politically.

If legislators don’t approve certain measures in Brown’s budget proposal, such as the continuation of some fees and taxes, the state could dip back into the red at the end of its 2013-14 fiscal year. It would run a tiny $7 million deficit, according to projections from Brown’s finance office.

And like many states, California has yet to deal with its longer-term problems. The big whammies there include unfunded liabilities associated with the teachers’ retirement system and state retiree health benefits.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Faced with a large budget deficit, California passed tax increases on the wealthy, balanced the budget, generated a surplus of more than a billion dollars, and seemingly solved its fiscal woes. But a closer look reveals this to be more hype than reality.

For example, in its budget calculations, California does not include the state’s unfunded pension liability — about $1 trillion. If California used the accounting standards private companies must use and factored in this debt, it would not appear to be in such good shape.

Another main driver of the supposed California surplus is the 50 percent increase in personal-income-tax revenues from 2012. The state used these increased revenues as the baseline for its calculations, but its tax receipts will probably fall soon, for several reasons.

$1T in unfunded pension liability doesn’t sound like heady days for CA.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:18 PM

I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Or so says the Obama puppet who is screaming about how unemployment is increasing, poverty is going up, and more and more people are on food stamps.

If liberal policies were working, the opposite would be happening.

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 11:22 PM

To show how mindless this liberal proposition is, the “red state welfare” argument appears to be entirely based only on how each state voted in the most recent presidential election. This results in entirely junk science.
Fascinating storyline the liberals tried to construct. Too bad it is entirely false.
Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Interesting read. But I think the article premise is flawed since it analyses a state’s political makeup by who it sends to congress and doesn’t look at the local statehouse partisan makeup where the state is actually governed. Since the Republican revolution in the mid 90′s most of the South has been runned by republicans on the local level. Those states are by and large moocher states. While the west coast and the north east are by and large giver states which are run by Democrats since the mid 90′s. So it’s a little more nuanced than I originally stated but I think my point stands.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:24 PM

Ric apparently is ignoring this as well.

Yet several questions hang over California’s finances. First are the state’s “hidden” obligations. During the lean years, accounting tricks and the shuffling of revenues from one fund to another created a “wall of debt” worth around $35 billion. Mr Brown says this will fall to $4.7 billion within four years. The state also owes the federal government over $10 billion for unemployment-insurance payments. And, like other states, California faces obligations to retired state workers that are not even close to being fully funded. The teachers’ pension fund, for example, wants $4.5 billion more a year. This would immediately swallow up this year’s surplus, and drain the budget for another three decades. But if politicians continue to ignore the problem, says Bill Lockyer, the state treasurer, the system will “implode”.

It’s easy to bring something into balance if you ignore your debts.

That’s typical of bankrupt liberal welfare addicts like Ric, though.

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 11:25 PM

Since the Republican revolution in the mid 90′s most of the South has been runned by republicans on the local level. Those states are by and large moocher states. While the west coast and the north east are by and large giver states which are run by Democrats since the mid 90′s. So it’s a little more nuanced than I originally stated but I think my point stands.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:24 PM

And facts once again smack Welfare Ric in the face.

As late as the 80s, California was democratic in a fundamental sense, a place for outsiders and, increasingly, immigrants—roughly 60 percent of the population was considered middle class. Now, instead of a land of opportunity, California has become increasingly feudal. According to recent census estimates, the state suffers some of the highest levels of inequality in the country. By some estimates, the state’s level of inequality compares with that of such global models as the Dominican Republic, Gambia, and the Republic of the Congo.

At the same time, the Golden State now suffers the highest level of poverty in the country—23.5 percent compared to 16 percent nationally—worse than long-term hard luck cases like Mississippi. It is also now home to roughly one-third of the nation’s welfare recipients, almost three times its proportion of the nation’s population.

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 11:28 PM

You neglect to mention that many more minorities live in Red States than Blue States.

60% of Blacks live in the South.

Mississippi has the largest obese rate in the country due to blacks being the most populous in the state.

Oh yeah…Detroit.

sentinelrules on October 12, 2013 at 11:13 PM

Sorry you can’t blames the black for this one. Remember they only make up 10% of the population. As for Mississippi whites still account 59% of the population so if all the white people were healthy and skinny then Mi wouldn’t be the fattest state.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM

Ric just can’t deal with his ignorance, can he?

In most states, non-Hispanic blacks had the greatest prevalence of obesity, followed by Hispanics, and non-Hispanic whites. In the 45 states and DC where non-Hispanic blacks had sufficient respondents, the state-specific prevalence of obesity ranged from 23.0% (New Hampshire) to 45.1% (Maine); in 40 states, prevalence was ≥30%, and in five states (Alabama, Maine, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oregon) prevalence was ≥40% (Table 2, Figure).

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 11:35 PM

Huh? They didn’t agree with RINO Snowe? I thought demorats stuck together…

Tbone McGraw on October 12, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM

You really are a reprehensible bigot. Thanks for openly confessing it.

And lol at championing your “points”

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

LOL-

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Sorry you can’t blames the black for this one. Remember they only make up 10% of the population. As for Mississippi whites still account 59% of the population so if all the white people were healthy and skinny then Mi wouldn’t be the fattest state.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM

60% of blacks live in the South (mostly Red States) and over-index on the government benefits with regards to their population.

Blacks make up 37% of Mississippi, not 10%.

Blacks have higher obesity rates than whites.

sentinelrules on October 12, 2013 at 11:37 PM

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Once again dumbass.

States don’t vote. People do.

The wealthy who pay the majority of the taxes regardless of what state they live in typically vote republican. So they are contributing to the $ those states are sending to the feds.

And again, corporations send in a big chunk of the blue states $ to the feds. Last I checked all those evil business were part of the rethuglicans domain. Blue states have larger population centers with more business than the largely agricultural red states.

Another source of the $ received by the feds from the states? Since more business are located in “blue” states they are collecting payroll taxes and sending to the feds. So yeah, they are going to contribute more..which makes the paid in to paid out ratio lower.

Out of the gate..50% of the money going to all states from the Feds is in the form of Social Security and Medicare. Programs that the recipients have paid into all their lives. If you consider that welfare…go for it. I’ll remind you that both of those are “blue” programs. And states that are “red” have older populations that receive those benefits.

The other portion is medicaid. The poor receive the $ from the feds for this program. The poor in all states tend to vote “blue”.

In fact, those on actual gov’t assistance including public housing, food stamps, welfare tend to vote 70-80% “blue”.

Military spending is the next biggest outlay for fed $. Again,scooter…there are more military bases and military and veterans in “red” states.

For pure welfare $. CA and NY get close to 40% of ALL fed $ for these programs. Regardless of what states welfare recipients live in..they overwhelmingly vote “BLUE”

So the reality is that BLUE voters regardless of where they live are more likely to be on welfare.

I know you really think you have something with your regurgitated talking point. But it’s meaningless with investigating what is behind those numbers.

Here’s some reading for you. Just one more reason your meme is idiotic.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/the_myth_of_red_state_welfare.html

Oh and one more fact for you. In actual $. The “Blue” states still received more in federal $ than the “red” states did.

And regarding obese people…guess what. The majority of obese people in “red” states…tend to vote “blue”.

Oh and here is a math problem for you. Are there more people per square mile to finance thru taxes a mile of road in NJ or MA than in WY or AK?

You whole meme is built on a faulty premise without reviewing the actual numbers. But that’s typical of libtards.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 11:39 PM

Blue states are more educated than red states.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Your Democrats lost the college graduate vote in 2012. The only reason you “won” was by increasing your share of the high school dropout vote from 70% in 2008 to 80% + in 2012.

F-

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

State employee Ric? Pray tell what great service do you provide?

alanstern

Fluid collection at various bath houses around the state.

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric

Stealing more money from tax payers doesn’t mean the economy is doing well, in fact it’s the opposite. If the economy were doing well now, the state could have reduced the deficits via taxes collected due to the increased economic activity.

But since that hasn’t happened, in order to make things look better than they are, the state had to steal an even larger percentage of taxes from it’s citizens combined with a little creative bookkeeping that would get folks in the private sector arrested. The state is still in the crapper and everyone knows it, and it most likely will be for the rest of your pathetic life.

xblade on October 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

Here is the link, Ric didn’t bother to post it, since plagiarism is bad.
From the very article he plagiarized.

Murphey I clearly marked that I was using a quote in my post. And I got news for you if I was plagiarizing then so are you since we both aren’t following MLA standards for attributing quotes.

I was responding to a post that doubts California was in the black again. It clearly is as indicated by the source. Furthermore California is the most economically powerful state in the US. If it was a world economy it would be the 7th largest. And it is now run exclusively by liberals who have gotten the budget under control. I know that drives conservatives crazy but its the truth.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Seems a lot of republicans like to use magical thinking.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:50 PM

lol

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

And it is now run exclusively by liberals who have gotten the budget under control. I know that drives conservatives crazy but its the truth.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

No, because it’s not.

Yet several questions hang over California’s finances. First are the state’s “hidden” obligations. During the lean years, accounting tricks and the shuffling of revenues from one fund to another created a “wall of debt” worth around $35 billion. Mr Brown says this will fall to $4.7 billion within four years. The state also owes the federal government over $10 billion for unemployment-insurance payments. And, like other states, California faces obligations to retired state workers that are not even close to being fully funded. The teachers’ pension fund, for example, wants $4.5 billion more a year. This would immediately swallow up this year’s surplus, and drain the budget for another three decades. But if politicians continue to ignore the problem, says Bill Lockyer, the state treasurer, the system will “implode”.

Your lies keep imploding no matter how much you scream them. But we realize that liberals like yourself are dependent on welfare checks, so you have to delude yourself into thinking that others should be forced to pay.

northdallasthirty on October 12, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Furthermore California is the most economically powerful state in the US. If it was a world economy it would be the 7th largest. And it is now run exclusively by liberals who have gotten the budget under control. I know that drives conservatives crazy but its the truth.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Detroit is the most economically powerfully city in Michigan.

sentinelrules on October 12, 2013 at 11:46 PM

California expects to take in $2.4 billion more in revenue than it will spend this fiscal year, which ends June 30.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:05 PM

ROFLMAO…you really are a moron.

Washington State expected to receive more tax revenue when it jacked up tax rates. NY expected more cig tax revenue when it jacked up cig taxes. Neither happened. They never do.

And CA still hasn’t accounted for it’s $500B + in unfunded pension liabilities.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

You really shouldn’t cut and paste crap without putting it in quotes and linking to your source. This isn’t school, and you aren’t graded, but it smacks of dishonesty. Passing off other people’s work as your own.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I was responding to a post that doubts California was in the black again. It clearly is as indicated by my cherry-picked source, which is solely based on 3-year projections and nothing more. Furthermore California is the most economically powerful state in the US, primarily due to the entertainment industry, which is based on fantasy. If it was a world economy it would be the 7th largest. And it is now run exclusively by liberals who have gotten the budget under control. I know that drives conservatives crazy but its the truth.

Governor Moonbeam on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Fixed.

F-

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM

America once had a policy of not negotiating with terrorists…but that was before terrorists and terrorist sympathizers infiltrated and took control of this nation. Now the terrorists won’t negotiate with US. Facing a possible default on our debt and the collapse of this great nation after it was entrusted to Obama, Americans are watching this scene play out.

The GOP are trying desperately to negotiate a compromise to secure and achieve what is best for this country while Obama, with his finger on the ‘Dead Man’s Switch on his ‘Suicide Belt’, is willing to destroy the entire nation unless he gets everything he wants!

easyt65 on October 12, 2013 at 11:54 PM

Blue states are more educated than red states.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM
Your Democrats lost the college graduate vote in 2012. The only reason you “won” was by increasing your share of the high school dropout vote from 70% in 2008 to 80% + in 2012.

F-

Del Dolemonte on October 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

Actually according to polls Obama won 50 to 48 of those who got got graduate and postgraduate degrees. Obama did lose to those that graduated from college to Romney but he made up for that by winning voters with postgraduate degrees 55 to 42. He also won among those that got a high school degree as well 51 to 48. So Obama did win among the educated.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:56 PM

Hey Ric

Here’s some more reading for you. Hope this clears things up for you why your meme is a joke.

http://www.youargue.com/index.php/55rd13st5

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:41 PM
You really shouldn’t cut and paste crap without putting it in quotes and linking to your source. This isn’t school, and you aren’t graded, but it smacks of dishonesty. Passing off other people’s work as your own.

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I did put it in quotes as I used the hotair quote function. I assume most hotair users are savvy enough to use control c function and then use google if they want to look at my sources.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:59 PM

wow…just

wow

Murphy9 on October 13, 2013 at 12:01 AM

ROFLMAO…you really are a moron.

Washington State expected to receive more tax revenue when it jacked up tax rates. NY expected more cig tax revenue when it jacked up cig taxes. Neither happened. They never do.

And CA still hasn’t accounted for it’s $500B + in unfunded pension liabilities.

HumpBot Salvation on October 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

This is from the business insider.

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%–and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

So you are demonstrably wrong about high taxes never working.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:04 AM

So you are demonstrably wrong about high taxes never working.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:04 AM

The reality is although the rates were sky high, so were the number of deductions one could take that effectively wiped out the rates. When Reagan created his tax cuts, the receipts to the Treasury more than doubled because he also took away many of the traditional deductions like medical and credit cards.

This was the reason the “Alternative Minimum Tax” was devised during the 1960s.

Nobody paid 90%.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM

I see Ric is using the tired, old talking point that counts military spending in Red States as some sort of welfare or something

Ric, when you give the government a product or service in exchange for money it isn’t welfare. Are you claiming that our men and women in uniform are on welfare? Good grief.

blink on October 12, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Can I see your source on that because from what I’ve read that doesn’t factor into things.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM
You really are a reprehensible bigot. Thanks for openly confessing it.

And lol at championing your “points”

Murphy9 on October 12, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Please point out this mysterious confession lol. Get out of the bubble. You can’t just assert facts because they make you feel better about yourself.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM

The reality is although the rates were sky high, so were the number of deductions one could take that effectively wiped out the rates. When Reagan created his tax cuts, the receipts to the Treasury more than doubled because he also took away many of the traditional deductions like medical and credit cards.

This was the reason the “Alternative Minimum Tax” was devised during the 1960s.

Nobody paid 90%.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM

But you agree that taxes you to be much higher on the rich then they are now and the economy did great back in the 50′s.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Please point out this mysterious confession lol.

Look at the comment of yours that I quoted.

Get out of the bubble.

I’m so far from being in a bubble, and yet you just vomit up tired olde leftist talking points.

You can’t just assert facts because they make you feel better about yourself.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM

ROFL. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this one.

Fluke off to Gehenna reprobate.

Murphy9 on October 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM

But you agree that taxes you to be much higher on the rich then they are now and the economy did great back in the 50′s.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:16 AM

You’re not reading properly.

The 90% tax rate was on people earning $300,00+, which is $3 million+ today.

However, thanks to deductions and loopholes, these people were paying far less than 90%…sometimes next to nothing for corporations.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Murphy9 on October 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM

I did, I couldn’t understand your point because it didn’t exist. Please try to because I’m interested in seeing the mental gymnastics it would require to make it intelligible.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:21 AM

However, thanks to deductions and loopholes, these people were paying far less than 90%…sometimes next to nothing for corporations.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Can you post and scholarly articles that show what the actual tax rate would be for the average rich person then? I willing to believe it was lower than 90% but I’m pretty certain that it was much higher than it is now.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Contrary to what Republicans would have you believe, super-high tax rates on rich people do not appear to hurt the economy or make people lazy: During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax rate was over 90%–and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed.

So you are demonstrably wrong about high taxes never working.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:04 AM

ROFLAMAO..BusinessInsider. LOL. And what was the tax revenue collected under those rates? I’ll give you a hint…it was next to nothing.

What is a FACT.

OR jacked up the taxes on the wealth and they lost revenue.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/12/oregons-millionaires-tax-drives-millionaires-out-of-state.html

Oh and MD as well.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/03/12-of-rich-flee.html

So I’ll stick with FACTS. Not some magical thinking about non-utilized tax rates back when the US was in economic growth due to being the sole surviving manufacturing country after WWII.

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:28 AM

Can I see your source on that because from what I’ve read that doesn’t factor into things.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM

There’s your problem right there, scooter. The whole libtard meme is built around the fed $ flowing back to the states (and that includes military spending). Like all libtard meme’s they leave out the pertinent information and boil it down so idiots like you can regurgitate it ad nauseum without even understanding it.

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM

ROFLAMAO..BusinessInsider. LOL. And what was the tax revenue collected under those rates? I’ll give you a hint…it was next to nothing.

What is a FACT.

If it such an obvious fact than cite your source.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM

There’s your problem right there, scooter. The whole libtard meme is built around the fed $ flowing back to the states (and that includes military spending). Like all libtard meme’s they leave out the pertinent information and boil it down so idiots like you can regurgitate it ad nauseum without even understanding it.

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM

Once again no source, just ad hominem attacks.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM

Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.

.
Facts are stubborn things aren’t they?

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:19 PM

.
Sounds like the Federal Government needs to STOP making ‘grants’, or “transfers” to the states.
Of course, if the states and the common citizens would STOP sending so much money to the Federal Government to begin with, there wouldn’t be any NEED for the Federal Government to send any back. The economy would go into ‘hyper-drive,’ and we’d all be better off.

ABOLISH THE IRS !

listens2glenn on October 13, 2013 at 12:35 AM

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM

.
Once again no source, just ad hominem attacks.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM

.
No sources needed for my 12:35 AM comment.

It’s all self-evident common sense.

listens2glenn on October 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Can you post and scholarly articles that show what the actual tax rate would be for the average rich person then? I willing to believe it was lower than 90% but I’m pretty certain that it was much higher than it is now.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:27 AM

Well, I don’t consider the Business Insider to be scholarly, however, there are examples.

There was the case of the multi-millionairess Marjorie Merriwether Post (I think that was her name), the heiress to the Post cereal fortune, at the time the wealthiest woman in America, who paid zero—not a cent—in income taxes for decades.

The CEO of GM paid very little tax at the time due to investing his money into stock options, avoiding the 90% income tax.

If you want to take income taxes back to 1950’s levels, then spending (especially on entitlements) should also be adjusted back to 1950’s levels.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Ric

Read up

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/04/why-we-cant-go-back-to-sky-high-1950s-tax-rates/

About 6% of the tax revenue in 1958 was collected from those in the 50% and above brackets. So the revenue collected at the 91% rate would be in-significant.

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:44 AM

ROFL. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this one.
Murphy9 on October 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM

Heh, thanks for teaching me something new… I may suffer from that myself. Always figured I knew a heck of a lot more than most people… But I never heard of that before.

Good one.

LegendHasIt on October 13, 2013 at 12:46 AM

Well, I don’t consider the Business Insider to be scholarly, however, there are examples.

There was the case of the multi-millionairess Marjorie Merriwether Post (I think that was her name), the heiress to the Post cereal fortune, at the time the wealthiest woman in America, who paid zero—not a cent—in income taxes for decades.

The CEO of GM paid very little tax at the time due to investing his money into stock options, avoiding the 90% income tax.

If you want to take income taxes back to 1950’s levels, then spending (especially on entitlements) should also be adjusted back to 1950’s levels.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM

Thanks for the example but it would be helpful to have a ballpark number what the upper bracket payed in the aggregate. Also going to call it a night. Have a good night everybody!

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM

Thanks for the example but it would be helpful to have a ballpark number what the upper bracket payed in the aggregate. Also going to call it a night. Have a good night everybody!

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM

Once again no source, just ad hominem attacks.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:33 AM

Yeah, it’s my fault your too phucking stupid to research anything yourself. LOL.

Your libtard meme itself is the source you moron. It is comparing the federal $ coming from the states and the federal $ going to the states. FEDERAL $ to the states includes money to the military…you know gov’t spending..have you even been paying attention the past two weeks. Oh yeah, it includes fed $ going to the National Parks as well. Is that welfare?

Maybe this will help.

Chit, you’re dumb.

HumpBot Salvation on October 13, 2013 at 12:53 AM

If you want to take income taxes back to 1950’s levels, then spending (especially on entitlements) should also be adjusted back to 1950’s levels.

sentinelrules on October 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM

.
Thanks for the example but it would be helpful to have a ballpark number what the upper bracket payed in the aggregate. Also going to call it a night. Have a good night everybody!

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:50 AM

.
Damn ! ….. he left before I could tell him I wanted to take income tax RATES (not numbers), and government spending RATES back to pre-1911 levels.

listens2glenn on October 13, 2013 at 12:57 AM

I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

They sure are

Schadenfreude on October 13, 2013 at 1:44 AM

Facts are stubborn things aren’t they. I’ll say it again. Red states are the real takers while blue states are the givers. Nobody yet has shown solid evidence disputing my point.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 9:59 PM

You know why “Blue” Oregon is at #15 of food stamp users (we call it the oregon trail card here)? Because the fed/state gov has been pushing the program to get more people on it. The feds and the dem run state gov tell the rural “red” areas of Oregon they can’t cut trees anymore and then rip on those “hicks” for not running their governments better and demand they raise taxes.

All while Portland/Salem/Eugene, all Dem run bankrupt the state with a bunch of wasteful spending. Portland has pushed out tons of people due to land use policies, taxes and waste on crime trains to no where as they cut off bus service that works.

oryguncon on October 13, 2013 at 1:47 AM

Get out of the bubble. You can’t just assert facts because they make you feel better about yourself.

Ric on October 13, 2013 at 12:14 AM

Facts should make everybody feel better about a discussion.

I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Any liberal policy being practiced by American people at this time is under attack by an oppressive, baby killing, pedophile party openly attacking the people with Alinsky tactics for a Stalinist ends.
A fact that doesn’t make me feel any better asserting.
You were lying saying?

onomo on October 13, 2013 at 7:27 AM

RWM has a beautiful blog post about this red state mooching meme that the left seems to want to talk about.

Perfect epitome of “say it enough and people will believe you.”

Defenestratus on October 13, 2013 at 8:22 AM

I’ve got a better idea . . . stop the pay and perks for all those “do nothing” politicians then let’s see if they can get anything done. This is insane, 500+ jerks including Obama were elected to serve the “people” but all they do is punish the people. It’s time for a really big change in this poor sick Republic. Enough!

rplat on October 13, 2013 at 8:53 AM

You’re wasting your time responding to this guy. He’s delusional and a indoctrinated. A lot of government workers are like that.

Vince on October 12, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Says the guy that asserts facts out of wishful thinking. How would you even know if I worked for the government or not? Yet you assert so just because it fits your preconceived notions of reality better. BTW I don’t work for the Federal Government.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:23 PM

I got extremely bored when this guy was posting so I went on to better things last night. I wonder though where this guy picked up that I said he worked for the government. He even thinks I was specific and said Federal government!

That’s why you waste your time responding to lazy people like this. Their reading comprehension is nil so you know everything they site for backup is suspect.

Vince on October 13, 2013 at 10:02 AM

The senate Dems have their jackboots in lockstep.

rplat on October 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM

To summarize blue states, which by and large are run by liberals make more money than red states. Blue states are more educated than red states. Blue states have less obese people than red states. Blue states have lower divorce rates than red states. I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36

PM

Oh, baby, come and see the welfare blacks and Hispanics in Cali :), not exactly Giselle Bundchen’s waistline, if you know what I mean :), heck actually these people make Kardashian’s derriere appears tiny by comparison :)…. And btw, it akes a lot of educated white people with good eating habits (a lot of them conservatives) to counteract that and to make your blue states stats look good :)….

jimver on October 13, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Really? Like where? Detroit, Chicago??

jimver on October 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM

I say liberal policies are working out just fine for the majority of Americans.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:36 PM

.
Really? Like where? Detroit, Chicago??

jimver on October 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM

.
Ok Ric, the stop-watch started at 2:08 PM, Oct 13, 2013.

I’ve got so much confidence that you will counter-respond in a timely fashion, that I’ve taken a big, deep breath and am HOLDING it, awaiting your response.

* T H U D * ……. (passed out, and fell over).

listens2glenn on October 14, 2013 at 1:45 AM

Poor Susan, she thought she’d be relevant again.

Another Drew on October 14, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Ca economy is actually doing good now. The budget deficients are actually gone. Democrats magically did this by cutting the budget and increasing taxes.

Ric on October 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Ric, our company will not extend credit to any CA governmental entity (full payment in advance only!): perhaps I can forward your name to CA as a ready source of credit?

And if you believe that CA has actually cut its budget, I have this great stone bridge in NY to sell you…

landlines on October 14, 2013 at 1:13 PM

299? nah

Murphy9 on October 15, 2013 at 8:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4