not saying it doesn't suck, but tough shit. you can blame the opposition for not running a better candidate or a better campaign during the last election. look, times are tough all over. name me a state one that hasn't taken it up the ass in this economy. you can't, and you can't pin it all on davis even if he is as big of a schmuck as is being claimed. are you going to recall every elected official who passed spending legislation as well in the california house and senate. where does it end. if there was fraud, abuse of power, and you can prove it, fine. but the facts tend to get a blurred as these kinds of things get going and it all becomes a witch hunt to please mob mentality.
Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.
Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.
So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.
As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.
55 million, when the state is spending a billion more a month than it takes in?!?
A drop in the bucket to stop the flood.
Nick
That's an implied assumption that the origins of all of California's problems reside in the governor's office. I think we have good empirical examples of the effectiveness of an executive's agenda when the legislature is controlled by the opposition (read: the Clinton Administration), and I think it's fairly clear that California does not a very bipartisan political environment. So that the chance of a new Republican governor of creating much headway is not likely.
Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.
just because a few oil barons from texas made money off of you guys doesn't mean that same money has trickled down in to my pockets. be nice though if it had. texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work.
Quote:
Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.
So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.
that's politics for you. again, the opposition should have mounted a better campaign. you can also blame the republican party for not wanting to spend any GOP money in a state that routinley leans heavily on the liberal side of political life. "why waste the money" they said and left you high and dry.
Quote:
As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.
then why not go after the guys that control the purse strings. davis can only spend what the state will give him.
texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work.
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
of course i meant to, it was part of my master plan agent302. and i would have gotten away with it had not been for you and those meddling kids. by the way, would you care for a cucumber sandwich agent302?
of course i meant to, it was part of my master plan agent302. and i would have gotten away with it had not been for you and those meddling kids. by the way, would you care for a cucumber sandwich agent302?
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.
The numbers that made it most relevent to me were these. State spending with inflation, population increases, etc. would have had to go up 21% just to keep pace. Revenues went up 25%, which mean we really should not have had a deficit if we just kept our financial house in order. However spending went up 43%.
Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.
It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.
And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!
Is a recall a true democractic process? I am not sure that it is.
Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....
What BRussell said. California's decifit is larger than the rest of the Union's because it makes up a disproportionately large part of the national economy. If it was an independent nation, California would be the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world.
And Chinney asks an interesting question. The recall is not democracy; it's populism in the most basic form.
It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.
And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!
Yeah I'm sure all the other states have their governmental bonds at two steps above junk status.
The largest annual U.S. federal budget deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was at the height of World War II when it hit 30.3% of GDP.
By comparison, the federal budget deficit for 2004 as a percentage of GDP is estimated at 2.7% of GDP.
During the 70 years between 1934 and 2004, there have been 12 budget years in which the federal budget has had an annual surplus.
(SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Treasury)
As for the California deficit as a percentage of gross state product, I have tried numerous Goggle searches but haven't found it.
Not only was the California state deficit larger than all the other states deficits, it was larger than all their BUDGETS. I know California is large, but New York is no small potatoes. (it is in the top 10 of world economies last I checked.)
I think you underestimate the role of the tech sector and the dotcom bust with regard to California's economy. While the tech bust had a major effect on the national economy, it probably had a much greater effect in California because that's where most of the tech companies were located. A good example is the fact that while unemployment nationwide is currently at 6.2%, in Santa Clara County it's closer to 8 or 9%. You're ignoring a lot of extraneous factors that put the state economy in the situation it now resides.
Is a recall a true democractic process? I am not sure that it is.
Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....
I like how 1.6 million signatures is a "few."
Likewise...
Quote:
Two new polls, which show strong support for the recall, suggest Davis' strategy may not be working. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 64 percent of registered voters now support the recall, and a poll by NBC found 59 percent would vote to recall the governor. Both polls found higher support for the recall than was reflected in public polls conducted before last week's flurry of announcements from recall candidates.
Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.
Bustamante released five years of tax returns Monday. In 2002, he earned $117,685 and gave $105 to charity.
What is with the lack of compassion Mr. Bustamente?!? I earn half that and give more than that to charity EVERY MONTH. Maybe when liberals assume hardheartedness and an unwillingness to help others, it is because they assume how they would act.
It's funny how conservatives banged the "balance the budget" drum for so long and now that it's in their lap they try to downplay it.
SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?
And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.
Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."
Certainly, this is not the kind of direct democracy to hold incumbents accountable between elections that California Gov. Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proudly worked to have the state's Constitution embrace the initiative, referendum and recall processes. He saw these tools as instruments for an aroused volunteer citizenry, not as mechanisms for wealthy corporate interests or political parties that pay signature-gathering firms to get their agendas on the ballot
So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.
It's funny how conservatives banged the "balance the budget" drum for so long and now that it's in their lap they try to downplay it.
SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?
And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.
If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.
Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."
So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.
He also describes Gray Davis like this...
Quote:
Davis has tried to make an issue out of the $66 million or so that the state will spend to run the election. But what should be front and center in evaluating Davis' tenure is his notorious, relentless and specific cash-register politics since his first day in office.
As consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield pointed out last week in a detailed statement supporting the recall of Davis ( http://www.emailfirst.org ), Californians have been forced to pay billions of dollars in higher electricity prices, utility company bailouts, HMO price-gouging of patients and many other impositions because Davis asked for and received torrents of dollars from these very corporate interests for his campaign war chest. Public funding of public elections is the best public investment, given the seedy alternatives.
While I don't always agree with Nader he brings interesting thoughts to the discussion. I personally like the large number of candidates and low bar for entry into the recall race. If we can pull off the election without people swearing they didn't know who they were voting for, it might force a lot or reform that could lead to more third party participation.
Comments
Originally posted by running with scissors
not saying it doesn't suck, but tough shit. you can blame the opposition for not running a better candidate or a better campaign during the last election. look, times are tough all over. name me a state one that hasn't taken it up the ass in this economy. you can't, and you can't pin it all on davis even if he is as big of a schmuck as is being claimed. are you going to recall every elected official who passed spending legislation as well in the california house and senate. where does it end. if there was fraud, abuse of power, and you can prove it, fine. but the facts tend to get a blurred as these kinds of things get going and it all becomes a witch hunt to please mob mentality.
Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.
Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.
So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.
As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.
Nick
California Recall - True Democracy
Total Recall - True lies?
Was that intended trumptman?
Originally posted by trumptman
55 million, when the state is spending a billion more a month than it takes in?!?
A drop in the bucket to stop the flood.
Nick
That's an implied assumption that the origins of all of California's problems reside in the governor's office. I think we have good empirical examples of the effectiveness of an executive's agenda when the legislature is controlled by the opposition (read: the Clinton Administration), and I think it's fairly clear that California does not a very bipartisan political environment. So that the chance of a new Republican governor of creating much headway is not likely.
Originally posted by trumptman
Scissors, why would you tell Californians, tough shit about their own state matters when your butt is kickin' it in Texas.
just because a few oil barons from texas made money off of you guys doesn't mean that same money has trickled down in to my pockets. be nice though if it had. texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work.
Likewise the recall requires a certain percentage of signatures based off how many people voted in the last election. If Davis hadn't blasted the best candidate out of the primary, then run a profoundly negative campaign totally devoid of ideas, maybe we wouldn't have had a record low turnout and then it would have require a real number of signatures to recall him.
So I guess it is just the chickens coming back to roost. Give the people nothing to vote for, watch them not vote and then watch it bite you in the butt via the recall.
that's politics for you. again, the opposition should have mounted a better campaign. you can also blame the republican party for not wanting to spend any GOP money in a state that routinley leans heavily on the liberal side of political life. "why waste the money" they said and left you high and dry.
As for the economy causing California to take it in the ass, the growth of spending went past any reasonable explanation. The rate of spending growth nearly doubled even accounting for population growth, inflation and other necessary growth factors. It is just out of control.
then why not go after the guys that control the purse strings. davis can only spend what the state will give him.
Originally posted by running with scissors
texas isn't exactly lighting the world on fire with it's economy. this market is hurting just about everyone especially in my industry, design/advertising. if they don't make money, we don't work.
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
Originally posted by agent302
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
of course i meant to, it was part of my master plan agent302. and i would have gotten away with it had not been for you and those meddling kids. by the way, would you care for a cucumber sandwich agent302?
Originally posted by running with scissors
of course i meant to, it was part of my master plan agent302. and i would have gotten away with it had not been for you and those meddling kids. by the way, would you care for a cucumber sandwich agent302?
I'll take 3.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well thank you for your definition.
You're welcome
de·moc·ra·cy (d?-m?k?r?-s?)_Pronunciation Key
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1.\tGovernment by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.\tA political or social unit that has such a government.
3.\tThe common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.\tMajority rule.
5.\tThe principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
See number four
Originally posted by Dale Sorel
You're welcome
See number four
I thought you meant number 6: Mob rule, or 7: Gang rape.
Nick
Originally posted by agent302
I think you make an excellent point here (even if you didn't mean to). The perils of the California economy are not unique to California. There is still a national economic problem, so to scapegoat Davis and assume that Schwarzenegger or Simon or any other gubernatorial hopeful can turn this situation around ignores the larger issue of U.S. economic problems.
Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.
The numbers that made it most relevent to me were these. State spending with inflation, population increases, etc. would have had to go up 21% just to keep pace. Revenues went up 25%, which mean we really should not have had a deficit if we just kept our financial house in order. However spending went up 43%.
That is an issue that is local, not national.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually they are unique to California. California's deficit is larger than the other 49 states combined. Likewise the problem goes well beyond a national recession or the stock market sinking.
It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.
And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!
Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....
And Chinney asks an interesting question. The recall is not democracy; it's populism in the most basic form.
Originally posted by BRussell
It's also the largest state economy in the US. Does it really have a larger deficit as a percent of its economy than all the other states? I sincerely doubt it.
And Bush's deficit is larger as a percent of the US economy than California's deficit is as a percent of its economy. Recall Bush! Gary Coleman for president!
Yeah I'm sure all the other states have their governmental bonds at two steps above junk status.
Bonds downgraded again
Then we have this...
Federal Budget Surpluses and Deficits
The largest annual U.S. federal budget deficit, as a percentage of gross domestic product, was at the height of World War II when it hit 30.3% of GDP.
By comparison, the federal budget deficit for 2004 as a percentage of GDP is estimated at 2.7% of GDP.
During the 70 years between 1934 and 2004, there have been 12 budget years in which the federal budget has had an annual surplus.
(SOURCE: U.S. Department of the Treasury)
As for the California deficit as a percentage of gross state product, I have tried numerous Goggle searches but haven't found it.
Not only was the California state deficit larger than all the other states deficits, it was larger than all their BUDGETS. I know California is large, but New York is no small potatoes. (it is in the top 10 of world economies last I checked.)
Nick
Originally posted by Chinney
Is a recall a true democractic process? I am not sure that it is.
Question: Suppose that a few months after Schwarzenagger is elected, opponents who don't like him (perhaps, if for nothing else, his wooden acting style) get the few signatures necessary to trigger a recall. The whole circus starts again. Maybe then Californians can elect Donald Duck. But then anti-Disney activists could get a few signatures and mount another recall....
I like how 1.6 million signatures is a "few."
Likewise...
Two new polls, which show strong support for the recall, suggest Davis' strategy may not be working. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 64 percent of registered voters now support the recall, and a poll by NBC found 59 percent would vote to recall the governor. Both polls found higher support for the recall than was reflected in public polls conducted before last week's flurry of announcements from recall candidates.
Unless 59-64% of Californians are Republicans (laughable to even suggest) then this is well beyond partisan politics.
Recall
I like this part best..
Bustamante released five years of tax returns Monday. In 2002, he earned $117,685 and gave $105 to charity.
What is with the lack of compassion Mr. Bustamente?!? I earn half that and give more than that to charity EVERY MONTH. Maybe when liberals assume hardheartedness and an unwillingness to help others, it is because they assume how they would act.
Nick
SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?
And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.
Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."
According to Ralph Nader in "Make The Recall Count":
Certainly, this is not the kind of direct democracy to hold incumbents accountable between elections that California Gov. Hiram Johnson had in mind in 1911 when he proudly worked to have the state's Constitution embrace the initiative, referendum and recall processes. He saw these tools as instruments for an aroused volunteer citizenry, not as mechanisms for wealthy corporate interests or political parties that pay signature-gathering firms to get their agendas on the ballot
So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
It's funny how conservatives banged the "balance the budget" drum for so long and now that it's in their lap they try to downplay it.
SO which is it? High deficits ARE a big deal. Or only if it's a certain percentage of GDP? Or it's only applicable if there's a deficit under a democratic governor?
And the last time I checked... Bush had NO plan to get the deficit under control.
If you have read me across these boards and threads, I have repeated hit on Bush for not balancing the budget. He ought to do some seriously slashing of spending. Bush is hardly a conservative's conservative. He is more like the Republican's DLC.
Nick
Originally posted by Shawn
True Democracy?
Ralph Nader describes it as "a recall qualified by Republican multimillionaires to set up other Republican multimillionaires as candidates to replace the incumbent, Gray Davis."
According to Ralph Nader in "Make The Recall Count":
So is the California Recall "True Democracy?" One influential voice says no, but citizens could make this event more worthwhile than a circus.
He also describes Gray Davis like this...
Davis has tried to make an issue out of the $66 million or so that the state will spend to run the election. But what should be front and center in evaluating Davis' tenure is his notorious, relentless and specific cash-register politics since his first day in office.
As consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield pointed out last week in a detailed statement supporting the recall of Davis ( http://www.emailfirst.org ), Californians have been forced to pay billions of dollars in higher electricity prices, utility company bailouts, HMO price-gouging of patients and many other impositions because Davis asked for and received torrents of dollars from these very corporate interests for his campaign war chest. Public funding of public elections is the best public investment, given the seedy alternatives.
While I don't always agree with Nader he brings interesting thoughts to the discussion. I personally like the large number of candidates and low bar for entry into the recall race. If we can pull off the election without people swearing they didn't know who they were voting for, it might force a lot or reform that could lead to more third party participation.
Nick