Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Of course, you could have just retracted the statement and moved on, or thanked heaven the thread was closed, but you seem stuck in Reliving Your Most Embarrassing WE Moment. Interesting, indeed.> I will continue to defend my right to state my opinions and partake of these discussions on my terms. If you want to characterize that as an embarassment, I can't stop you, but I don't believe it's true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you make denigrating statements about US senators on a specific thing, are asked to provide evidence to back them up, and refuse to do so... maybe you're beyond embarrassment, but you shouldn't be.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I will continue to defend my right to state my opinions and partake of these discussions on my terms.<< Alright, Nancy Pelosi, give Douglas his computer back. >>If you want to characterize that as an embarassment<< I characterize painting yourself into a corner and not being able to just admit it to be an embarrassment. You can call it whatever you like, but it is what it is. Had you simply copped to getting carried away with rhetoric a bit, that would have been the end of it from me. You can't, and worse, bring it up again as if you made some sort of point with it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Anyway, back on topic, I don't think turnout tomorrow is going to be very much. I think all these measures will go down to defeat and then we can hear all the great ideas about how to fix the state's finances.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Schwarzenegger and the legislature will begin to cut like crazy is what's going to happen.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney I'm voting yes, tomorrow, at my kids' school which will be hard hit with losses if this passes, and even HARDER hit if it doesn't!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm voting yes. We can't afford any of it, but we can't afford the cuts that are sure to follow if they don't pass.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Not voting because they are not going to pass anyway. It would appear that everyone else is doing the same. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-vote20-2009may20,0,2061659.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...59.story</a> "By 10 a.m., voter turnout in Los Angeles County was a mere 3.69%. In a comparable statewide election in 2005, turnout had reached 8.92% at the same time. In Orange County, turnout was similarly scant at a polling place at Newport Beach City Hall. By 10 a.m., just 18 of 840 registered voters had showed up." Nobody cares about this special election except to say that it should have never been done in the first place. Budget reform will not happen in this way.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But "walk-up" voters are becoming less and less. Last November, about 50% of the votes were cast via Absentee and Early Voting. Lisa and I are going to vote tonight, I haven't missed a single election since I turned 18, and don't plan to miss this one.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <I'm curious, how did things get this bad?> Actually, it's really simple. Tax revenues ballooned during the tech boom when there were a lot of taxable capital gains. And our legislature acted like any good Americans would: they spent every last penny they could get their hands on and assumed they would continue to collect gobs of money in the future. When the revenues declined rapidly, there were so many statutorial constraints to the budget process (not to mention special interests) that spending could not decline as fast (in fact, spending has not declined much at all despite all the noise about budget shortfalls). As I've mentioned in previous threads, "cuts" don't necessarily mean what you think they mean. Bottom line is uur system in California counts on the wealthy and their taxable cap gains - when they disappear, so do the tax revenues. None of today's propositions address the real problems.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Prop 13, people. Prop 13 needs to be go and/or be revamped.>> Why? Just because there is a limit on property taxes doesn't mean they can't collect taxes in other ways (in fact, they do). California is already one of the most highly taxed states in the US. Raising taxes isn't always the answer.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Corporate income has risen something like 500% while personal income has risen much, much less. Why would businesses move out of California, as people often claim, when they are making money hand over fist? It's a good myth
Originally Posted By Darkbeer OK, looks like that none of the first 5 propositions will get over 40% of the vote! (That is a major victory!) And the "feel good" prop (1F) did pass with about 75%.. Which is a good sign, that folks read the propositions and made decisions based on the actually wording. (Some folks said vote just "NO" on all props, loks like they ignored that, and voted for each Prop on an individual basis!). The latest state results can be found here.... <a href="http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm" target="_blank">http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns...s/59.htm</a>
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The propositions would not have fixed anything even if they did pass. As a person who would choose carefully targeted tax hikes instead of spending cuts to get us out of this mess, I did not have any hope for any of the propositions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "OK, looks like that none of the first 5 propositions will get over 40% of the vote! (That is a major victory!)" Yeah, right. The "No new taxes" morons strong again. CUT! CUT! CUT! but no solutions at all on how to fix the problem. Be prepared to possibly take your own trash to the dump, repair your own sidewalks, have a DMV open only 2-3 days a week, classroom sizes of 50-100, etc. Yep, real big victory.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Come on, Class size 50 and over... NO WAY... Will they go up around 10%, yes, but still will remain in the 30's! Repair your own sidewalk... Come On, what a bunch of BS DMV having less hours... No problem there, just expand alternative options, such as using the web, mail, and places like AAA offices. And no trash pickup... Come on, Most communities already charge a fee for trash pickup, and it is NOT part of the expenses paid for by State/Local Taxes....
Originally Posted By Darkbeer More on the "Trash" Issue, I live in a condo complex, and we pay for our trash pickup using a private service, the same as most Apartment Complexes and businesses.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-props20-2009may20,0,5134709.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...09.story</a> >>The governor also wants to borrow up to $6 billion, but awaits word on whether Washington would guarantee those loans. The White House has never done so for the state but is considering the action as Wall Street expresses concern that California could become a deadbeat borrower.<< So the voters clearly said no to about $6 Billion in new taxes, so what does the Governor try and do... Get the same amount from another source... But still BORROWING, which will effect budgets in the future... We need to CUT the budget THIS YEAR and get spending in line with revenue, and not borrow more money!
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-props20-2009may20,0,5134709.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...09.story</a> >>Californians seemed upset partly by Sacramento's call for more money at a time when employment was sagging, retirement accounts were plunging and the average resident was struggling. Others expressed irritationat being called back to the polls just months after a presidential election. The short campaign also created confusing bedfellows in support and opposition to the ballot measures. Schwarzenegger joined with liberal Democrats and the California Teachers Assn., the group that helped defeat a 2005 ballot package championed by the governor. Foes of Proposition 1A, meanwhile, included several unions, which didn't like the effect spending limits could have on the state workers they represent, and anti-tax groups that hated its extension of tax increases.<<
