California Propositions (Caution Political Thread)

[Mandelon]

Beware of Prop 56. The commercials make it sound great. The legislators won't get paid if they can't balance the budget. Wow. How could you argue with that? .....but.......it reduces the number of votes needed to pass a budget down to 55%. Which would put the budget completely under democratic control!!!!:mad: No republican votes would be needed at all to pass a budget.
Taxes would have to go up to support all the spending that would follow.
Who supports it? All the state employees and teachers unions....good for them obviously. :rolleyes:
Read the fine print...:yuk:

[Hotcrusader76]

Ya know Jaime and I were watching that commercial and were wondering what the catch was....You're right! Read the fine print. Well looks like I've got some reading to do.

[Rexone]

This prop is the biggest smokescreen ad spin I've seen in awhile. The ads I've heard don't even mention the change in % to pass stuff (which is the meat of the prop). If this one passes CA will be in bigger trouble than it is already. Can you say here comes the tax man?
Unfortunately too many Californians vote on stuff at face value and from ads they hear and see so it won't surprise me at all if this one does pass just based on the ads. Great advertising for a bill that's not in the states best interest (only special interests). Buying bad law with money. Isn't that what politics is all about these days?

[Mandelon]

Thankfully the governor has a line item veto to protect us from some of the crap that may make it through if this passes.
They are doing a good job promoting it. I hope the truth gets out. Right now it takes a 2/3 majority to pass tax increases. IF 56 passes the democrats can pass whatever they want with plenty of room to spare.
No on 56!! And yes on 57 and 58.

[058]

The "No on 56" people need to wait until close to the election to get their mesage out because they don't have much money for advertising. The "Yes" people are saying the oil, insurance and tobacco cos. are behind the "No" campaign...I thought there was suppose to be truth in advertising. Lying pieces of shit.:mad: :mad: :mad:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Not only does it lower the threshold for raising taxes the other "tough" provisions in it will encourage the legislature to take this easy way out and raise taxes just to pass budgets on time. It is a very sneaky and sleazy proposition that is being falsely represented. Of course, all one has to do is look at the legislators who drafted it and put it on the ballot to see why it is so sleazy......:mad: Tel all your friends. No on 56!!! We cannot afford to depend on the Gov to veto the legisltures tax hikes, after all, if prop 56 was in effect one year ago we would have been hit with over 100 new tax hikes on everything from our autos to diapers.:mad: :mad:

[LUVNLIFE]

OH... I thought it said California Prostitution,sorry:confused:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by LUVNLIFE
OH... I thought it said California Prostitution,sorry:confused:
Then we would be for it....;)

[Havasu_Dreamin]

There was an article in the LA Times last year during the budget impasse that concerned the democrats in the legislature having a meeting in the Capitol building and discussing this very issue.
Basically they were saying that the budget impasse was great for them, the dems, because it would make it easier to get the voters to pass a proposition lowering the votes required to pass new laws, read raise taxes.
The interesting thing about this is that in the room in the Capitol building where this meeting was taking place, apparently they have these mircophones that are linked directly to speakers in everyones office. The rationale is that you can listen to the proceeding without actually being there.
Well, for this meeting the mics were left on and everything the dems said was broadcast to everyone in the Capitol. So everyone heard the dems talking about how the budget impasse was great so they could lower the votes required to raise taxes. RAT BASTARDS! :mad:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Yes, I remember that well. That meeting was led by Jackie Goldberg. Her basic statement was that they (the "Ca Progressives" ) should tank it and let the people "feel the pain" in order to gain political support for new tax increases etc..
My opinion is that when a public servant intentionally turns on the public the way she so obviously has there should be jail time involved.....

[Essex502]

Simple:
Prop 55 - NO - we can't afford it at this time.
Prop 56 - NO - we can't afford it EVER!
Prop 57 - YES - we can't afford NOT to.
Prop 58 - YES - Yes, Yes, YES! We must have balanced budgets and quit spending money we don't have!

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by Essex502
Simple:
Prop 55 - NO - we can't afford it at this time.
Prop 56 - NO - we can't afford it EVER!
Prop 57 - YES - we can't afford NOT to.
Prop 58 - YES - Yes, Yes, YES! We must have balanced budgets and quit spending money we don't have!
I agree, however 57 is not as cut and dry as the others and I can understand how many smart people would still oppose it. 58 only goes into effect if 57 passes and it's really very weak. I'm leaning twards voting for 57 and 58 but I think both have major flaws and I don't see much good coming from them.:rolleyes:
Of course 55 is a definate no and 56 is just plain rotten.:devil: :burningm:

[058]

57 and 58 are bullshit deals too....Why can't they just stop spending money they don't have? They created this crisis so they can get us out of this crisis without more money from bonds or taxes. We go without when we don't have the money, why can't they do the same?:mad:

[CrazyHippy]

Ahhh Nevada:D
BJH

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by CrazyHippy
Ahhh Nevada:D
BJH
Go ahead, rub it in. :( Ya weedwacker sellin bast@*$...:wink:

[Essex502]

Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
I agree, however 57 is not as cut and dry as the others and I can understand how many smart people would still oppose it. 58 only goes into effect if 57 passes and it's really very weak. I'm leaning twards voting for 57 and 58 but I think both have major flaws and I don't see much good coming from them.:rolleyes:
Of course 55 is a definate no and 56 is just plain rotten.:devil: :burningm:
Prop 57 restructures the current debt to allow the state time to pay it back without going bankrupt. It's not about borrowing more more to spend on new follies but to restructure debt sorta' like taking a home equity loan to pay off your credit card bills before YOU go bankrupt. I don't think we have much choice in whether or not to do it as it needs to be done.
Prop 58 makes balanced budgets a requirement each year.
See this (http://www.theksbwchannel.com/ksbw/2846178/detail.html)

[CA Stu]

Vote Yes on Proposition No
Thanks
CA Stu

[LUVNLIFE]

YES,,,,you know what I mean.;)

[eliminatedsprinter]

Originally posted by LUVNLIFE
YES,,,,you know what I mean.;)
Vote yes on prop, er, position 69.:D ;)

[HalletDave]

Originally posted by eliminatedsprinter
Vote yes on prop, er, position 69.:D ;)
Oh yeah.
Summers Eve is some tasty shit but you don't want to go to work with your breath smelling like a freshly douched hey hey.;) :D