Californication

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/02/should_we_let_california_go_ba.html

Get ready as the largest state economy begins prostrate itself before Unlce Sam.

"A public employee in California with 30 years of service can already retire at 55 with more than half of his salary as pension, and public-safety workers can get 90 percent of their salary at age 50. "

When will they learn that you cannot fund someones retirement for 35-45 years. Why does ANY pension plan allow for ANY type of pension prior to age 65? They wonder why this causes problems. As the article states, this is very similar to the problems the automakers face.

"Another budget buster is California’s spending on social services, clocking in at about 70 percent more per capita than the national average. Leading the way is state spending on cash assistance programs (that is, welfare), where the state expends nearly three times more per resident than other states. There’s a good reason for this rich budget. California’s legislature has only reluctantly embraced federal welfare reform, and for years the state has had one of the worst records in moving people from welfare to work because state law limits the ability of welfare administrators to sanction those who refuse to participate in work programs. "

This is what happens when you do not provide an incentive to get off of welfare.

"When tax revenues spiked in the national economic recovery that started in 2004, California politicians went on another spending spree, increasing expenditures by $34 billion, or 32 percent, in just four years before revenues slumped again. "

Such great foresight by the idiots in California... It is the same philosophy that led many into the housing mess. 'gee, it will keep going up, so we can afford to spend more and save little'

"even though the prospect has now sunk California’s bond rating lower even than Louisiana’s. "

That is pretty sad. Louisiana has some legitimate reasons for the low rating they have received, a large part due to Katrina. Cali did this to itself.
 
California used to be a great state to live in, until the Socialist Democrats took it over.

sad to watch it's decline.
 
California may have problems but being able to retire before one is 60 is not a bad thing, IMO. By all accounts I should be able to retire at 52. I plan to. A person shouldn't have to work all his healthy life. I always thought this was the American dream. Of course, I think a person needs to have his ducks in a row and be responsible enough to get them there.

Oh, and isn't the title of the thread a show of some sort on Showtime? :)
 
California may have problems but being able to retire before one is 60 is not a bad thing, IMO. By all accounts I should be able to retire at 52. I plan to. A person shouldn't have to work all his healthy life. I always thought this was the American dream. Of course, I think a person needs to have his ducks in a row and be responsible enough to get them there.

Oh, and isn't the title of the thread a show of some sort on Showtime? :)

I dont have a problem with people retiring early... but like SS, they should not be planning on using pensions for their income needs until they are at least 65. If you work 30 years (age 20-50) you should not be getting a pension for 35+ years (age 50-85). The math doesn't work. It bankrupts the pension plan.

People can be healthy well into their 70's and 80's. I have clients who are still working at age 70. The broker in the office next to mine is 74. That said, obviously health issues can arise at any time from bad genetics or from bad personal care over the years.

Not sure what Channel it is on... but yes, it is a TV show. Though I was alluding to the Chili Peppers song.
 
I dont have a problem with people retiring early... but like SS, they should not be planning on using pensions for their income needs until they are at least 65. If you work 30 years (age 20-50) you should not be getting a pension for 35+ years (age 50-85). The math doesn't work. It bankrupts the pension plan.

People can be healthy well into their 70's and 80's. I have clients who are still working at age 70. The broker in the office next to mine is 74. That said, obviously health issues can arise at any time from bad genetics or from bad personal care over the years.

Not sure what Channel it is on... but yes, it is a TV show. Though I was alluding to the Chili Peppers song.

Great math, SF. Yeah, the average lifespan of the average American is 85!
 
You'd need to go back farther than that, start with the second Brown, Reagan, the senior Brown. While I didn't like Jerry too much, the state has seen a steady decline since the day Deukmejian took office.

Deukmejian was a Republican. He was governor for 8 years. His successor was a Republican and was governor for 8 years. Are they the Socialist Democrats in question?

A Democrat has been governor of CA for only 24 of the last 110 years and only 4 of the past 25 years.
 
You are fudging the numbers slightly to exaggerate your point. It robs you of credibility.

LMAO... please explain how I fudged the numbers....

I am pretty sure 85-50 is 35 years.

Pretty sure 50-20 is 30 years.

Seems like basic math.

Using 85 (which as you said is the AVERAGE life expectancy) seemed like a good number to use to project the average age a person might be expected to live to.
 
Coming from the Newsweek I was surprised at the quality of this article but while long this is a great read on the current state of California and how it got to where it is today. For those willing to read it all I'd be really curious as to your feedback if you agree with the author or not.

Here are three lines from the second paragraph that jumped out at me...

"California has returned from the dead before, most recently in the mid-1990s. But the odds that the Golden State can reinvent itself again seem long. The buffoonish current governor and a legislature divided between hysterical greens, public-employee lackeys and Neanderthal Republicans have turned the state into a fiscal laughingstock."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/185791
 
Deukmejian was a Republican. He was governor for 8 years. His successor was a Republican and was governor for 8 years. Are they the Socialist Democrats in question?

A Democrat has been governor of CA for only 24 of the last 110 years and only 4 of the past 25 years.

I'm sure your numbers are correct. My guess is that the "Socialist Democrats" in question are the ones who make up the majority in the state legislature. Personally, I often wonder just how much party affiliation matters with regard to a governorship. I think our current governor is evidence. Talk about a RINO.

For what it's worth, I voted Bradley the year Deukmejian won. He was the better choice.
 
Back
Top