Ahhh, but the pertinent question for YOU is: Do those paid servants wash their hands after they scratch their ass?

__________________

I will be glad when our elected representatives to government Regulate commerce and generate revenue that can lower our tax burden.

I'll be even gladder when people begin demanding far less of government services, rather than continuing to whine about wanting something for nothing. Supply/demand, and all that. Our tax "burden" (rather light in comparison to what we receive, and the society we enjoy) is merely payment for services we increasingly demand to consume.

All that said, I know eight year olds that could manage basic finances better than most government officials. We continue to elect wealthy people, who've never actually worked a day in their lives, and for some odd reason, we expect them to spend other people's money wisely?

California didn't "lose" 8 billion. They just continued to spend despite being in the negative, because they don't have the cajones to say "Well, folks, you have a choice: no municipal police protection on Tuesdays, or perhaps shut down all of the parks for the year. Let us know what you wish us to cut".

__________________
Government's proper role should be that of an impartial referee, maintaining a fair and competitive playing field, with basic, tough regulations so capitalism can work best. Sure, everyone loves to hate the refs, but an NFL game would be a disaster if the players themselves were in charge of self-regulation.

I agree. We should stop wasting taxpayer money on the useless "services" of wars on abstractions. Commerce could be regulated better while generating revenue and lowering our tax burden.

While I do agree with you on the need for stricter regulation, the real difficulty is ever increasing demand by the people for services, along with serious resistance to increasing tax revenues to pay for them.

Take a look at any city, state or Federal budget, and I guarantee you, you will find massive resistance to cutting ANYTHING. Everything is a need: roads, schools, police, etc. How do you convince anyone that X is unnecessary and Y stays? People take past provision of services as guaranteed givens.

I hear people on here screaming that the government tries to be all things to all people, but it's the PEOPLE who demand it be so. It's rarely the government who just decides to do things -- they are lobbied to. "Dear Congress, do this, do that for me!" I am not saying that the government isn't a problem, it certainly is, but the people making demands upon it share the blame, as well.

__________________
Government's proper role should be that of an impartial referee, maintaining a fair and competitive playing field, with basic, tough regulations so capitalism can work best. Sure, everyone loves to hate the refs, but an NFL game would be a disaster if the players themselves were in charge of self-regulation.

Can we really afford a drug or terror war during a recession? Wouldn't those monies be better allocated to helping real persons stay out of poverty in our republic?

Of course not, but think about who is doing the "affording". Certain interest groups can't make money out of a "war on poverty", like they do during a drug "war". Maybe that's overly cynical, but I think it's a big reason why spending money to actually improve the quality of life of the citizens is never as sexy as inventing a terror threat.

Big Oil doesn't make a dime when a school is built. Nobody's able to graft much when a bridge is completed.

__________________
Government's proper role should be that of an impartial referee, maintaining a fair and competitive playing field, with basic, tough regulations so capitalism can work best. Sure, everyone loves to hate the refs, but an NFL game would be a disaster if the players themselves were in charge of self-regulation.

My own view of "interest groups" is that can be considered analogous to other for-profit ventures of the business sector.

A point to consider, though, is that with a hypothetical public policy scheme of zero percent official poverty poverty in our republic, more people would have access to a disposable income. Why wouldn't that stimulate more forms of "entrepreneurship"?

Not sure what you mean, here. Are you talking about the completely discredited "trickle-down" theory, that rich people will have a magical change of heart and help others altruistically?

More people certainly do NOT have access to a disposeable income. Real wages and purchasing power haven't kept up with inflation for quite some time. Some even say that this generation will be the first not to do better than their parents.

Entrepreneurship is great IF you have access to venture capital, and IF you pretty much already have the means to quit your job to try it. I can't see that as any sort of large-scale solution.

No, it's better that both citizens and governments begin to get used to a far more realistic spending paradigm. This much taxes will purchase this much services, and if you want more, you'll need to pony up. Like weight loss, there's really nothing magical about it.

__________________
Government's proper role should be that of an impartial referee, maintaining a fair and competitive playing field, with basic, tough regulations so capitalism can work best. Sure, everyone loves to hate the refs, but an NFL game would be a disaster if the players themselves were in charge of self-regulation.

If California wanted to actually make a surplus, they could...easily. They just don't want to.

If they opened up their OCS for drilling, they alone could probably pay for the most of the deficits faced by state governments.

We imported 20% of our oil in the 70's. Now we import over 70%. Half of California's demand for oil comes from foreign suppliers.

__________________
This is why democrats are worse than Republicans.

Except nobody every actually put forward any such theory. That was a liberal strawman put up to misrepresent supply-side economics. Nobody every believed the rich would magically start giving away money out of altruism. Rather, by lowering marginal tax rates, it would remove disincentives to investing and entreprenurialship, which is absolutely essential to create jobs. In otherwords, rather than punishing the rich for their success, supply-side economics realizes that the economy is not a zero sum game where for one person to become rich, it must come at the expense of others. In liberal-land wealth is something that is merely moved around rather than created from human ingenuity and risk taking.

First of all, this is utter nonesense and is a result of a fundamental flaw in using CPI to make the calculations. The CPI numbers do a dismal job of reflecting increases in quality and the impact of new technologies.

Furthermore, much of the medium- to long-term problem is a result of having a savings rate which is too low. Once you abandon the ingrained notion of liberals that the economy is a zero-sum game and you realize that wealth can be created, you neccesarily come to the economic fact that current consumption comes at the expense (or "opportunity cost") of greater future consumption that would be possible if consumption were delayed and the resources invested into things which expand economic capacity.

And there you have it, totally ignoring what economists call externalities. Do you know how many people Bill Gates has made rich? Virtually every early EMPLOYEE of Microsoft, who did not "quit" their jobs, and did not invest anything up front, but rather got stock in microsoft as part of their compensation. And even beyond them. Every single person who currently works for microsoft benefits tremendously fron entrepreneurship even though they personally have not engaged in it.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

If it is only a question of priorities, the drug and terror wars are forms of socialism that do not provide for the general welfare of the republic.

Maybe California just needs a wife in the right place.

I think the several States should request that the general government of the Union pay any debts from state unemployment accounts, in order to eliminate official poverty. It should also be considered a State's right.

Of course, that all depends on what you mean by "disposable income".

To people in most countries in the world, things we take for granted are definately luxuries.

How many out there own a car? 2 cars? More then 2 cars? A car built in the last 2 years? 3 years? 5 years?

How many people have a bedroom for every child living in their house? Take 2-4 week vacations a year? Have cable tv, sattelite dish, VCR, DVD, BluRay players? A fridge and a chest freezer (or 2 fridges)? Cell phones? High speed internet? A computer? 2 computers? Computers and laptops? High speed internet? Celular internet?

I bet if most of you took out your luxuries, you would find that there really is quite a lot of disposable income. But most Americans are so driven to possess meaningless items, they do not consider these "Luxuries".

And to answer your question, that is where the "disposable income" has gone. It is still there, it is just already taken up on things that are not needed.

PS: To give an idea what my lifestyle is back in the states, my wife and I rent a 3 bedroom house. Between the 2 of us we have 3 TV sets (1 a big screen), 4 computers, and 2 cars. We have 3 refrigerators, a 1999 Silverado and a 1990 Lincoln Towncar. And when I get back after my year in paradise, I plan on getting a Honda Goldwing.

Most of that is not needed, but it is how we live. We have lived in the past in a ghetto 2 bedroom apartment in Compton, with 3 other people. And our only transportation was a 20 year old station wagon and a 15 year old motorcycle. But we have the income to live more comfortably, so we do. But it is not a requirement.

And we still save around 10% of my check every month. Of course, things are a bit easier, since I am not paying income tax at the moment.