<thegoodanarchist:>

Take it from an acknowledged wolf that the ratio is 99 deer per wolf.

<WannaBe: We can't control our spending, so we want you to pay more.>

It takes about four years for a national recession to hit the states.

The 1987 crash didn't really hit until 1991.

Jerry Brown is mostly trying to protect K-12 education. it isn't like Brown's budget is a spending spree. Cuts are everywhere except K-12 education.

My thoughts are simply that the US government and state and local governments combined are spending too much and have made promises for future spending US tax payers can't afford.

Stanford Economist Michael Boskin at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100... indicates to keep government's promises (e.g. to seniors for social security, medicare etc.), middle income tax payers, making say 60,000 as a California teacher, would have to start paying over 70% of their income in taxes.

That's a burden the economy can't withstand, and younger tax payers won't put up with.

<atzer2: >

Business will have less restraints when it earns them.

Charters should be rewritten to encourage social responsibility.

The AIDS cocktail that costs the U.S. government $200. per year per patient to ship to Africa costs $20,000 a year for U.S. patients.

I'm wondering -- have you ever read, at least, Friedman's "Free to Choose"? He sets out there some clear roles for government action in and regulation of markets, although less than perhaps you'd care for (maybe a spot less than I would). But I wouldn't call him purely lassiz faire.

His general rule seems to be (and others are free to correct me from the text, which I have not at hand because, hey, I'm watching the Rangers-Devils game) that we should give preference and presumption to markets, but should consider government interventions and regulations on an objective cost-benefit basis.

I think the best critique of this position actually comes from some of the nuns I work with, who would point out that Friedman's ideas of cost and benefit are purely fiduciary, and that there are values that are more pressing, spiritual values and such, and I think there is something to that critique.

If I get time I'll chat about the radical nun from El Salvador who spoke at graduation on such matters a few days ago, but, um, the game is on.

<atzer2: >

When I said there is a time delay of about four years for recessions to hit the states, I was speaking from personal experience. I know as fact that NYS did not lay off any government employees after the 1987 crash until 1991.

I suppose I could find a link that confirms my experience, but why bother.

California had a particularly bad housing bubble and unemployment there is higher that the national average. Still it has been nearly four years.

It does not really matter who spends money. The velocity of money is much more important than the source.

I sort of have this thing for the ancient NHL (I grew up watching them play without helmets, and I watched them play Gordie Howe, for crying out loud -- oh, and with today's sticks and gear I wouldn't suggest that no helmets thing), so I have a modest favor for the Rangers. Modest.

Living in Africa I occasionally took some heat from educated Africans who would tell me that until western exploration and British colonialization, they didn't have what is now called slangly "white man's disease".

African-Americans are a group least impressed with Obama's recent "outing".

He is getting the beaucoup bucks from big donors however, so I'm sure he isn't worried bout being tagged like this:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/poli...

"All his tribes" - new daytime serial starting in the fall.

For ordinary folks it might too, see what came back to bite this woman in the ^#! 40 years after the fact.

All distraction from solutions based on reality other than personal agenda.