California voters: Do you support prop 57 and 58?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No... the system comes with morality not arrogance and utmost stupidity.

prove it, where does it say that free market comes with morality?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


prove it, where does it say that free market comes with morality?

Because it is not anarchy.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

thats not proof. and a lack of morality doesnt imply anarchy.

[Giancarlo]

Yeah it does. And my statements in itself is proof because I'm right and you aren't.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

wow. you know, with that sort of logic, how can anyone ever hope to argue against it?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
wow. you know, with that sort of logic, how can anyone ever hope to argue against it?

It is quite simple. You don't.

[David Floyd]

Fez is so fun to debate with. In the end, his argument always comes down to a BAM

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Fez
"California is one of the fastest growing states in the nation"

We are? Last time I heard the economy here was in a slump.

No, I meant growing in population.

"Second, we need to revoke the tax breaks given to commercial and industrial properties under Prop 13. "

Last I heard businesses were taxed the most here out of the entire nation. Great drive away more businesses.

Businesses are taxed the most in California. We are high in sales tax and income tax--which hit the middle class the hardest--because of the stranglehold Prop. 13 has on the property tax. And we have the highest workers' comp. rates and lousy benefits because that system is really busted.

...But drive more businesses away?? Last time I looked, our state was the 5th largest economy in the world. Los Angeles's economy is equal to all of Russia's.

What this state needs is more corporate tax cuts.

Let's see...so we cut more corporate taxes, and most of the income for the wealthy is now tax free, yet we have to have a balanced budget. Hmmm, who is go to have to pay more now? I know....yet more tuition increases for CSUN!!

And Gray Davis was a moron.... who screwed up the state... I mean he was cutting back on education himself.

Gray Davis was not a moron; he was a slimy money grubbing politician, but he wasn't a moron. And he wasn't cutting education until right at the end when, in the face of budget deficits caused by: (1) the bursting dot-com bubble, (2) the nationwide recession, and the (3) Wilson-caused energy crisis, the Republicans acted with incredible irresponsibility by blocking any rollbacks of the tax-cuts they got for the wealthiest Californians.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Fez
Corporate taxes have to be reduced. They have to cut programs for poor people. I am sorry, but there is just no money left. To generate money, we have to attract business. That is the only way. There is no other way.

Psst, Fez, that's what they want you to think.

But remember when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy and raised the minimum wage. Republicans predicted economic collapse--but instead we got the longest sustained growth in the history of the U.S.

Remember the old saying: Democratic economic policies make Americans rich enough to become Republicans.

[GePap]

at Fez' "logic"

Lets hope this sort of 'logic' infests less thread now than before.

[Giancarlo]

Okay whatever. I have such a bad upset stomach I can't really argue.. argh.. it hurts...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah, CSUs dont pay **** for college. they should hike those rates. Same with state, JC, and city colleges.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
yeah, CSUs dont pay **** for college. they should hike those rates. Same with state, JC, and city colleges.

I don't disagree with you actually. We should pay more for what we get.

"the Republicans acted with incredible irresponsibility by blocking any rollbacks of the tax-cuts they got for the wealthiest Californians."

I don't necessarily support that. But I support tax cuts for businesses to attract businesses.

Anyways, I must get going to rest a bit. Later mate.

[Shi Huangdi]

Fez: Drug prohibition is against the free market as it interferes with the market for drugs.

[CharlesBHoff]

Only the one to refincance the old debt make sence. There is no just thing as than balance budget in Big Bussien and in Government.

[Barinthus]

Steve Lopez, an editorial columnist for LA Times, made some good points against those Props. I'm curious what you guys think, especially Giancarlo.

This Bitter Pill Is Too Hard to Swallow
Steve Lopez

February 22, 2004

Like all good Californians, I guess I'm supposed to open my mouth and take my medicine next week at the polls.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been telling us this is the way it has to be, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of many Democratic pushovers who agree that Proposition 57 is the way to fix what ails us.

If Californians fail to pass the $15-billion bond measure, they warn in their fear campaign, we'll face Armageddon. All the Prop. 57 cheerleaders love using that word.

Well guess what.

I don't want to take my medicine. And I particularly don't appreciate having someone try to ram it down my throat.

Reasonable people can certainly conclude that Prop. 57 is an acceptable way to begin digging out of our horrible mess. But I'm tired of being told it's the only way, particularly by a flip-flop governor who campaigned as a committed critic of borrowing.

Schwarzenegger, the anti-special interest candidate, will be in New York this week at a $500,000-a-plate dinner. He wants to make sure he can bankroll the estimated $10-million blitz of Prop. 57 ads we'll be forced to endure between now and March 2.

You won't see any ads from the other side, because all the big money is lined up in support of Prop. 57, which should tell you all you need to know.

If there were an ad for the other side, it'd go something like this:

Remember the last time you and your family had trouble balancing the books?

Chances are, you did what all of us do. You cut back a little, you logged a few hours of overtime or found some other way to boost your income, and you reluctantly pulled out the credit cards as a last resort.

Gov. Schwarzenegger wants to use credit cards as a first option, running up an ungodly debt that would saddle you and your children with the tab for years to come.

Why? Because his wealthy friends on Wall Street and in California will make out like bandits under his plan, while middle-class and low-income families get the short end of the stick.

As state Treasurer Phil Angelides explains, Prop. 57 would be almost entirely paid for by a portion of the existing sales tax, which means middle- and lower-income families would fork over a higher portion of their incomes than the wealthy. They'd also get whacked when $1.2 billion worth of that sales tax was diverted annually from existing services to pay off Prop. 57.

The cuts "won't come from repair service on yachts," Angelides said. Lower and higher education, health care and other programs vital to working families will take the hit.

So far, Californians seem to be wise to the ruse. A poll last week showed only 38% support for Prop. 57. But who knows what 10 days and $10 million worth of shilling by a movie star can accomplish?

In the event Prop. 57 tanks, Angelides, a Democrat, has offered up a Plan B. The only problem I have with it is that it isn't Plan A.

Angelides would do some cutting, borrow less and pay it off faster, and raise money from two taxes.

One is an existing 1/4-cent sales tax that would be used to retire Prop. 57 debt under Schwarzenegger's plan. The Angelides alternative would draw on that 1/4 cent for just three years, as opposed to at least three times as long under Prop. 57.

The other tax would temporarily hike the top income bracket on the wealthiest Californians.

If anyone in that group is planning to call up and scream at me about your unfair burden, cancel your subscription or send me three-hanky stories about the hard work it took to get to the top, I'm asking you to hold off until at least the next paragraph.

Angelides' plan would raise taxes to the precise levels used by former Republican Govs. Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson.

Individuals making $140,000 and couples making $280,000 would go from 9.3% to 10%. Individuals making $280,000 and couples making $560,000 would go from 9.3% to 11%.

That doesn't sound to me like a tragic amount of suffering, especially when you take the following into consideration:

"When you restore the Reagan-Wilson 11% tax bracket," Angelides says, that raises $2.4 billion in one year and affects roughly 1% of the population. The "same 1% gets $12.76 billion worth of federal tax cuts this year," by Angelides' accounting.

"What's happening here," he says, "is that taxes we used to have under Wilson and Reagan and Clinton at federal and state levels have been washed away, and that's part of the reason we have today's problems."

You haven't heard any of this, naturally, from Schwarzenegger or the lackey, star-struck Democrats who've been carrying his water on Prop. 57.

Darkness is on the horizon, and they've barely got time to warn us of the coming Armageddon.

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Lopez writes Sunday, Wednesday and Friday and can be reached at steve.lopez@latimes.com. Read previous columns at latimes.com/lopez.

Steady rain and cool temperatures will dampen spirits this weekend in Santa Paula.

[Giancarlo]

LA times is a liberal newspaper and because of the crap they publish I cancelled my subscription to them. This guy also seems to ignore the facts. If prop 57 does not pass, there will be a debt default in June. Lopez also shows his little understanding about economics because that is what the prop is not going to do. Quite frankly, there isn't another option. Raising taxes is none less than unacceptable.

[Zkribbler]

Hmmm, Fez had been remarkable quiet on this thread for the past several pages. He's probably working some extra hours to pay off those ungodly tuition hikes Swartenegger has hit CSUN with.

[Giancarlo]

I'm scrolling through it and I notice I have been posting a bit. I will pay whatever is necessary. In fact my fees are peanuts.... I have more than enough money to pay for it. So what "ungodly tuition hikes" are you talking about? I mean if I have to pay a few more bucks for an education that costs more that it does, so be it.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

**** arnold and **** these props. they'll only make us pay it back more, later. the problem isnt a lack of funds. its spending like no other. all i have to do is look at my window and see the stupidity in spending in the UC system. dont give them more, cuz theyll just waste more of it.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
**** arnold and **** these props. they'll only make us pay it back more, later. the problem isnt a lack of funds. its spending like no other. all i have to do is look at my window and see the stupidity in spending in the UC system. dont give them more, cuz theyll just waste more of it.

Actually the problem is lack of funds. And if these do not get passed there will be a debt default in June. But I am guessing you want that.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

no, the problem isnt lack of funds. its spending like no other. and if these dont get passed, then theyll just need to cut back more in June.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
no, the problem isnt lack of funds. its spending like no other. and if these dont get passed, then theyll just need to cut back more in June.

And that is what Arnold is also doing in his budget.. cutting back on spending. If these don't get passed, we will default on our debt. You ever been to a country that has defaulted? Both Argentina and Ecuador defaulted, they could not borrow anymore, their credit rating went to junk bond status and they were effectively screwed.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and if he cut back enough, we wouldnt run otta money in june. obviously hes not doing enough cutting. maybe he should stop going to fundraisers in NY and stare at his budget and cut some more money outta it, until its balanced and we can make it thru the year.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and if he cut back enough, we wouldnt run otta money in june. obviously hes not doing enough cutting. maybe he should stop going to fundraisers in NY and stare at his budget and cut some more money outta it, until its balanced and we can make it thru the year.

He is doing enough cutting. Have you even seen any of the cuts? We just have debt we have to pay off right now.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

omfg

if hes doing enough cutting, then why are we gonna run outta money in June?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
omfg

if hes doing enough cutting, then why are we gonna run outta money in June?

It has to do with previous debt that we have from overspending.

[Ned]

Favor both b/c I trust what the Governator says.

My real preference though is to get out the meat axe and go after the waste. MediCal is known to be rife with fraud.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

? thats a load of ****. it has nothing to do with the previous debt and everything to do with hes not willing to cut spending enough right now to balance the budget.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
? thats a load of ****. it has nothing to do with the previous debt and everything to do with hes not willing to cut spending enough right now to balance the budget.

Actually he is cutting quite a bit. Specifically with welfare and highway construction. You frankly have no clue.