I love the corruption in Cali

[Dave C]

The major backing for Yes on Prop 87 is a guy named Vinod Khosla. (look at the bottom of the ads)
Well ol' Vinod was at a venture capital seminar in San Jose covered by CNBC (aired at 1:45 P.S.T today). It seems he is a venture capitalist and his money is invested in... you guessed it....... 5 companies that make technology for alternate forms of energy.
so if prop 87 passes.... Mr. Khosla and his venture capital firm stand to make a lot of money.....
just though SOME of you would like to know.

[MsDrmr]

When it comes right down to it.....most props are supported by the $$ of those who benefit from either having it pass or fail.
It's important that we do our research and really pay attention to how each prop is written that way we can vote on to benefit our state/children.

[Oldsquirt]

Dave, its good to see that someone else actually looks at that kind of stuff. I think its safe to say that any proposition that seeks to raise a tax on anything will be found to be supported by(if not written by) those who will make money out of it.

[little rowe boat]

And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.

[MsDrmr]

And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
I rest my case

[Dave C]

so are you trying to say that a group of liars and cheats should prevail?
I don't see how the ends justify the means.... :rollside:

[Oldsquirt]

And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
I rest my case
So if someone was seeking to substantially raise your taxes you wouldn't fight against it?
Keep in mind, one point of the PRO 87 ads is that the oil companies pay a "production tax" in Texas, but not in California. They dont tell you that the oil companies do pay corporate income tax in California, while Texas has no corporate income taxes.
This initiative should be looked for what it really is.....a $4 billion dollar, 10 year spending program designed primarily to finance its writers/backers alternative energy companies. It seeks to gain support by taxing the one entity we all have bad feelings about, the oil companies.\
I am no supporter of the oil companies, but I wont be voting for this proposition.

[wsuwrhr]

Exactly. It is feel-good politics.
WE will pay for 87 if it passes.
Brian
So if someone was seeking to substantially raise your taxes you wouldn't fight against it?
Keep in mind, one point of the PRO 87 ads is that the oil companies pay a "production tax" in Texas, but not in California. They dont tell you that the oil companies do pay corporate income tax in California, while Texas has no corporate income taxes.
This initiative should be looked for what it really is.....a $4 billion dollar, 10 year spending program designed primarily to finance its writers/backers alternative energy companies. It seeks to gain support by taxing the one entity we all have bad feelings about, the oil companies.

[deltaAce]

I would vote for any choice that helps the oil companys provide us our
fuel for a reasonable price. That would be a NO on 87.

[MsDrmr]

Thats not at all what I am saying, I was simply making a point that all props are supported by those with the big bucks. Which I believe to be correct. Who supports them does not decide for me how I will vote.

[CA Stu]

Vote No on proposition Yes.
Thanks
CA Stu

[Oldsquirt]

Thats not at all what I am saying, I was simply making a point that all props are supported by those with the big bucks. Which I believe to be correct. Who supports them does not decide for me how I will vote.
The individuals/groups who support a proposition will include those who wrote it and financed the effort to put it on the ballot. They include the SAME individuals/groups who stand to benefit from it financially, if it passes. To "follow the money" is an appropriate part of assessing any of the initiatives put on the ballot.
87 is really two major issues in one initiative. One, an additional tax on oil companies. The second, an investment of state money in "alternative" energy programs. Each should be looked at separately, and not tied together where you are forced to take both or neither. This(and most other initiatives) is an example of how the initiative process in our state, as well as most others, has come to be badly abused. It was never intended to be a vehicle for special interest groups to benefit themselves.
Do not vote based solely on TV/radio/newspaper ads. Sit down and read the entire voters guide. You will get more facts there than in all the commercials in the world put together.

[CA Stu]

Do not vote based solely on TV/radio/newspaper ads. Sit down and read the entire voters guide. You will get more facts there than in all the commercials in the world put together.
As soon as I hear the word "tax", I vote no.
95% or Propositions seem to be thinly veiled attempts at tax increases.
Thanks
CA Stu

[MsDrmr]

87 is really two major issues in one initiative. One, an additional tax on oil companies. The second, an investment of state money in "alternative" energy programs. Each should be looked at separately, and not tied together where you are forced to take both or neither. This(and most other initiatives) is an example of how the initiative process in our state, as well as most others, has come to be badly abused. It was never intended to be a vehicle for special interest groups to benefit themselves
I agree 100%, Old Squirt......100%, thats why I said to READ the info and make the best decision....

[RitcheyRch]

Thanks for the information. If 87 passes we will all pay one way or another.

[BoatPI]

The most interesting prop is the one asking for millions to build new schools and rehab others due to over crowding..Lets see, a set portion of all taxes go to schools, then the lottery money, ..gee do we have a problem due to children of illegals, COULD THAT BE THE OVERCROWDING ISSUE?????

[Schiada76]

I rest my case
For fcks sake.
It's a TAX!!!!!! Chevon doesn't get the money.
WE PAY THE TAX! :rolleyes:
There's a REASON gas is .50 cents cheaper in AZ right now. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Rexone]

I will be voting NO on 87.

[Jyruiz]

I will be voting NO on 87.
Ditto.

[OGShocker]

And No on 87 is backed by Chevron.
and regular folks who don't want the "tree hugger" tax my ass off Prop to pass...:D
BTW, F.O.R.D.s SUCK!!!:D

[bigq]

I will be voting NO on 87.
Roger Dodger...
Now where was that oil stock certificate, hmmm......

[OGShocker]

87 is really two major issues in one initiative. One, an additional tax on oil companies. The second, an investment of state money in "alternative" energy programs. Each should be looked at separately, and not tied together where you are forced to take both or neither. This(and most other initiatives) is an example of how the initiative process in our state, as well as most others, has come to be badly abused. It was never intended to be a vehicle for special interest groups to benefit themselves
I agree 100%, Old Squirt......100%, thats why I said to READ the info and make the best decision....
Some people should not vote. "State Money" is YOUR money!

[CA Stu]

Some people should not vote. "State Money" is YOUR money!
If it was a sound investment, people would be beating down the doors to get in on the ground floor, no?
Cheers
CA Stu

[Dave C]

Using sentimental rubbish to get these crap to pass is no accident.
One of my clients makes over a million a year by consulting on ballot propositions and bonds issues. He comes up with the sentimental marketing bologne that gets people to vote yes. (we help him cuz he need tax breaks. he makes too much $$$) ;)
Basically he does research on whether it would be more affective to use widows or orphans as the beneficiary of the funds. :rollside:
he even brags on his website that his bologne is more affective than ordinary bologne.....
he is playing us for a fool because corruption even if it is for a worthy cause is still corruption.
ain't politics grand :rollside: :yuk:

[Dave C]

amen stu
If it was a sound investment, people would be beating down the doors to get in on the ground floor, no?
Cheers
CA Stu

[GHT]

Just think all that California air will be fresh.. Then next time ya'll can vote on weather it should be illegal to fart....... Cause you know Methane causes Ozone and with all the people living in Southern Cali it really adds up. :rolleyes:

[RiverPirate]

It's real simple on most of the measures since theya are almost all new taxes or bonds ...which we all pay for anyway......Just say NO, NO, NO, NO........ :mad:

[Flyinbowtie]

I look at most of the ballot this way.
If I haven't heard of an issue, beleive ther is a problem, and think I know of a proper solution to it LONG before the election season media blitzes come around, then I operate under the belief that every single prop on the ballot is some shyster's scamathon to get me to cough up more of my money for something they can't figure out a way to do.
I operate under that belief until proven wrong.
Usually, I ain't.
Once in awhile stuff on there seems sorta legit.
The problem is the esteemed elected officials have given away so much of our money for so long to curry favor with and leverage the votes of the masses of "disenfranchised/victimized" people, that they can no longer write the check to handle the stuff that the state needs to keep the doors open, the lights on, and the potholes in the freeway at least small enough to not completely consume some government-subsidized hybrid.
As long as they continue to use my money for stuff I didn't ask for and stuff I don't want or need, I am never going to support any new bond, or other form of tax.
When they prove to me that they can make sound fiscal decisions with the bazillions we are already being taxed for, then we'll talk.

[CARLSON-JET]

Honestly as bad as it seems in Cali... You should look at what has gone on in IL. This place was founded on corruption. If a governor doesn't go to jail it is because he died first.. Every non-elect State, County and City offical that is somewhat high up is a good buddy or has serious dirt on the elected official that put them there. If I remember correct, we have the biggest deficit of all the states. Don't even get me started on the tollway system.