The W
Views: 95609692
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.4.14 1101
The W - Current Events & Politics - What now for California?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.62
Pages: 1
(1717 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#1 Posted on
Now that Davs will be gone in several weeks and Arnold has won, what's next? I live in Kansas were the state budget, including federal funds and other nontax sources is 10 billion. Our deficit was a whopping few hundred million. It was dealt with through bookeeping tricks and moving up property tax payments into the previous fiscal year.
How does California realistically deal with a 37 Billion dollar deficit? What realistically can Arnold do with a solidly Democrat Legislature? Also how much mischief can Davis and the legislaure create in the next few weeks to make Arnold's job more difficult? Finally, is Arnold's win big enough to give him the power to get his agenda through?

Edit:fixed typos

(edited by DrDirt on 9.10.03 1020)


Perception is reality
Promote this thread!
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1127 days
Last activity: 8 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.60
Well, to me the answer is clear... it all goes back to Tom McClintock's numbers from the start of the campaign. With a population increase of 21%, a revenue intake increase of 28%, and a spending increase of 40% (I have heard 45% lately, but I really am just chalking that up to exaggeration) over the last 5 years, it is clear that the state WAY overspent.

I admit I voted for Arnold, but he better start making some changes really fast. I LIKE his idea about having an independant audit of the budget and state finances- frankly, I have heard of so much hidden payouts in the state budget it makes me sick. Things like state officials' unqualified SPOUSES being handed appointments that pay $100k+ per year to attent one 2 hour meeting a month... those things are just sickening to me.

The government wildly overspent, and admits it. My stance is, what right do they have to demand more tax money then? And FIRST! I mean, seriously, does anyone honestly think that if they get away with raising taxes that spending will be cut at all?

I am really, really hoping Arnold was serious about "cleaning house," because that really is what needs to be done in Sacramento... all of the disgusting corruption needs to be swept away. And if Arnold does nothing, I will gladly support the next canditate (of any party) that sounds like they will.

I supported Arnold, but it is just starting for him. He better start busting his ass from day 1 to fix this state or I will be one of those signing that recall petition that is bound to pop up (even if it is really "a bunch of sour grapes from a bunch of losers." Where did I hear that from?), and vote for the next guy on the list.

Personally, I am getting sick of the holier-than-though politicians of all parties- sick of the little games and inside pats-on-the-back. Sick of all the people that are saying that the votes of the MAJORITY in a state is a "fringe attempt to steal power" when their guy loses. If it were up to me, the entire state government, Democrat and Republican alike, would have been recalled and BANNED from holding office here for 10 years- but obviously that is impossible. So I'll take this.

I wish Arnold luck, and I am keeping my mind open, but I think this is far from over....



Still on the Shelf- Every Tuesday
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 10 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.00
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    (even if it is really "a bunch of sour grapes from a bunch of losers." Where did I hear that from?)


No, no, no. If they turn around and recall Arnold, that would be spite.



Okay, so I'm not banned. But still people - Schwartzenegger?!
Big G
Morcilla








Since: 21.8.03
From: the people who brought you Steel Magnolias....

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
(deleted by CRZ on 8.10.03 1745)
godking
Chourico








Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3717 days
Last activity: 3663 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.24
The government wildly overspent, and admits it. My stance is, what right do they have to demand more tax money then?

I would guess that it has to do something with those referendums Californias voted for that had something to do with additional spending in some cases.

Arnold's proposal for an audit may be morally sound, but really, do you think it's going to do a lot of good? He's promised not to touch education, and once you remove education there's about fifty to sixty billion left in the state budget and it needs to be cut by about twenty-five billion to balance. There isn't THAT much corruption in the California government.

(I was deeply amused at the outrage from the right when Warren Buffett suggested repealing Proposition 13. You know, when one of the richest men ever says, "hey, this might be a good idea if you want to balance the books," I figure he might be worth listening to.)
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3644 days
Last activity: 2711 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Just because a guy with billions of dollars is willing to pay more taxes doesn't mean we should all be willing to.

California has multiple agencies that duplicate jobs, and this must stop. Tom Mcclintock has a written up detailed look at the cost cutting that could be done in regards to waste and other things in the California gov't, and when including worker's comp reform, it was more than 10 billion dollars, iirc.

Things Arnold can do:

1) Constitutional Spending limit.
2) Repeal the crippling car tax
3) Recind the insane health insurance bill
4) Recind Paid Family and Medical Leave
5) Take up Arizona's worker's comp policy immediately. Just a direct switch.
6) Void the energy contracts due to the conflict of interest that clearly invalidates them according to the California constitution. Let the companies sue, the California constitution will prevail.
antizeus
Linguica








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3842 days
Last activity: 3842 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
7) Sue the energy companies under the Unfair Business Practices Act for a cool 9 billion (rather than accepting a settlement for pennies on the dollar).

See: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16902



Check to see if this page is HTML Compliant.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 15 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.41


Ok, so Arnold met with them in May of 2001. Enron didn't declare bankruptcy until December of 2001. I'm not sure I get how this is a credible article at all.

edit: Wasn't there, you know, an election between then and now? If this were Simon - that might be an interesting thing to note. The recall wasn't even in the works in May of 2001.

(edited by Guru Zim on 10.10.03 1311)


Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Thread rated: 5.62
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: College Democrat Prez Uses Racial Slur on LA GOP Canddate
Next thread: Nobel Peace Prize
Previous thread: Recall by the Numbers
(1717 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
OMG CRZ IZ A TERURIST!! Seriously though, how big an asshole do you have to be to put the lives of the very people you work alongside (not to mention yourself, it says he was about to be shipped off as well) like that?
Related threads: Recall by the Numbers - I guess this is good-bye... - Arnold Supporters - More...
The W - Current Events & Politics - What now for California?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.115 seconds.