Tell me folks, especially since some of you wish to "draft" her into the presidential race...
Exactly what experience did Hillary Clinton have with being in an actual office before she carpetbagged her way up north to run for Senator of New York?
I didn't vote for Arnold, I voted McClintock. However running for office shouldn't require being a lawyer, or having prior experience in an office. (How do you get that exactly without winning an office?)
However running for office shouldn't require being a lawyer, or having prior experience in an office. (How do you get that exactly without winning an office?)
That darn Hillary-- she keeps turning up in the most unlikely places
No, I don't think you have to be a lawyer or already have held office, but... how about having shown the slightest interest in politics before the age of 45? Worked for a campaign, a get out the vote drive, volunteered down at the local precinct, manned the phones... And this isn't about being alderman of dogpatch, it's RUNNING THE FRIGGIN 6TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD!!!! How in the holy hell can anybody say Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly well qualified to be governer of California with a straight face? Is it just partisan dementia or some kind of really ugly opportunism?
Oh, and as long as "hypocrisy" is on the table, how is it the good grim stalwarts of the Republican party, so appalled by the sexual appetites of Clinton that they could barely stomach being in the same room with the man (I Ibelieve it was Henry Hyde who referred to the President of United States as a "scumbag") and indeed, made every effort to drive him from office for same, find Arnold's colorful history of gang-bangs, ass grabbing and drug abuse AOK? Cause Arnie's from Hollywood instead of Arkansas? I swear, you people have no shame whatsoever.
That darn Hillary-- she keeps turning up in the most unlikely places
No, I don't think you have to be a lawyer or already have held office, but... how about having shown the slightest interest in politics before the age of 45? Worked for a campaign, a get out the vote drive, volunteered down at the local precinct, manned the phones... And this isn't about being alderman of dogpatch, it's RUNNING THE FRIGGIN 6TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD!!!! How in the holy hell can anybody say Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly well qualified to be governer of California with a straight face? Is it just partisan dementia or some kind of really ugly opportunism?
Oh, and as long as "hypocrisy" is on the table, how is it the good grim stalwarts of the Republican party, so appalled by the sexual appetites of Clinton that they could barely stomach being in the same room with the man (I Ibelieve it was Henry Hyde who referred to the President of United States as a "scumbag") and indeed, made every effort to drive him from office for same, find Arnold's colorful history of gang-bangs, ass grabbing and drug abuse AOK? Cause Arnie's from Hollywood instead of Arkansas? I swear, you people have no shame whatsoever.
An interest in politics?
I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because.. I watched CSPAN alot.
Worked for a campaign... Arnold helped pass an initiative for afterschool programs.
A get out the vote drive... I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because I can look up names at a polling place and drive a van. (I can be governor then because I have done this)
manned the phone bank? That qualifies you how?
As it was Davis was profoundly qualified but was a cold fish that alienated his own party and drove that world class economy right into the friggin' ground.
As for the sexual comments and the hypocracy. It is simple. A hit piece by the L.A. Times is not the same thing to me as a semen stained dress, lynig under oath, crookedly getting her a job outside the office in which she was working, sticking your finger in my face via television and declaring I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski, etc.
Arnold could be a scum bag. If they question him about it under oath in an investigation, he had better tell the truth about what he does with interns or anyone else while serving in office. If he doesn't I'll sign the first petition to have him recalled as well.
Arnold could be a scum bag. If they question him about it under oath in an investigation, he had better tell the truth about what he does with interns or anyone else while serving in office. If he doesn't I'll sign the first petition to have him recalled as well.
The difference is that there won't be an investigation. That is even despite the fact that the underlying allegations against Arnold - which even he apparently admits are at least true in part - involve serious non-consensual sexual conduct while the underlying conduct for which Clinton was pilloried was a consensual sexual indiscretion.
The difference is that there won't be an investigation. That is even despite the fact that the underlying allegations against Arnold - which even he apparently admits are at least true in part - involve serious non-consensual sexual conduct while the underlying conduct for which Clinton was pilloried was a consensual sexual indiscretion.
Clinton was subject to two allegations of rape when he was in office. Those charges were largely dismissed by the media however.
I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because.. I watched CSPAN alot.
Worked for a campaign... Arnold helped pass an initiative for afterschool programs.
A get out the vote drive... I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because I can look up names at a polling place and drive a van. (I can be governor then because I have done this)
manned the phone bank? That qualifies you how?
(sigh) My fairly obvious point is that in politics, as in any profession one generally starts small and works up. As in, you don't build a skyscraper before you've built a box kite. So you do scut work, committee work, run for local office, etc. To start with the governship of California is absurd, and speaks less to Arnold's qualifications and more to the generallized contempt most voters have for electorial politics. Then, big suprise, the system doesn't work very well. Which is great for the government is Satan crowd, but less so for everybody else.
Again, the fact that Davis sucked is not an argument for "anybody can do it". By this reasoning, Ken Lay's fiasco at Enron means your next door neighbor is a worthy CEO of a multi-billion company, or abusive priests mean I'm qualified to hear confession. Politics is a profession, and there are people that, by inclination and experience, are good at. The idea of the citizen legislator is romantically appealing, and possibly effective at the local level, but running California requires more than enthusiasm. Why is that so hard to accept? What other undertaking would you give such short shrift to experience?
I truly do see this as fallout from the long term right-wing project to delegitimize government alltogether. It's doing real damage to our ability to shape our future, breeding cynicism, and all but insuring that the real problems facing not just California but the nation will continue to go unsolved.
Oh, and how about we spend $80 million dollars to check up on Arnie's moral character, then we can make comparisons to Clinton.
No, that would have been the subject of tabloids. The issue was perjury, which is why the former President Clinton was subject to disbarment.
The strict legal issue before Congress on his impeachment was his perjury - a perjury for which he should have resigned - but the issue for which he was pilloried in the halls of Congress and in the conservative press, was his sexual conduct.
But just as long as we all agree that Arnold should now be subject to endless proceedings about his past alleged non-consensual sexual conduct (and there appears to be lots to go on here), that he should then be questioned about his numerous collateral sexual episodes - consensual and non-consensual - and then his comments on this collateral questioning should then be the subject to further endless investigations and proceedings, then I am fine. I am glad that you agree with me on that.
responding to Trumpts usual twaddle about whatever:
That world class economy was dug into the ground . . . as were most of the economies of most states in the US, because of the large economic downturn and the concomitant loss of taxable revanues. . . And, in California it was dug into the ground because of an absurd anti property-tax bias, when you depend soley on income tax and sales tax in a state hit as hard as CA by the bubble burst then you get a bigger defecit then the other states . . . (almost all of which are also suffering) . . . as well as, probably, a lot of pork
The Blame game is Lame
as I have always said: "when you BLAME, you B - Lame"
We need to overhaul worker's comp and cut spending. We don't need to raise taxes...especially taxes on businesses when they are already leaving in droves.
Workman's comp was cut 90% between about 1995 and 1997. I think you didn't realize that it's been done. It had been a major issue but has been out of the spotlight since the reforms. I should know. My mom ran a workman's comp rehab business.
One could argue that workman's comp is currently insufficient. It certainly doesn't need any more cuts.
Worker's comp is in terrible shape right now. It is costing businesses more money on average than in other states for marginally better care.
responding to Trumpts usual twaddle about whatever:
That world class economy was dug into the ground . . . as were most of the economies of most states in the US, because of the large economic downturn and the concomitant loss of taxable revanues. . . And, in California it was dug into the ground because of an absurd anti property-tax bias, when you depend soley on income tax and sales tax in a state hit as hard as CA by the bubble burst then you get a bigger defecit then the other states . . . (almost all of which are also suffering) . . . as well as, probably, a lot of pork
The Blame game is Lame
as I have always said: "when you BLAME, you B - Lame"
So let me see...
California has Prop. 13 for about 20 years before Davis.... California has no deficits, especially $38 billion. Other states do not have prop 13, other states still have deficits when the economy heads south...but California's is bigger even though it never was before, even during recession.
And of course the only factor to change during all those years is Davis, but he shouldn't get the blame.... Bull.
California's was proven to be bigger because of increased spending. The spending went up more than any degree of inflation or increase in population.
Have you ever been to California Pfflam? How would you like to be a retiree and be taxed out of your home via property taxes? Would that be your idea of "compassion." Homes are reassessed every time they are sold. The only way you beat property tax increases is by never moving.
The fact that some old woman has lived by the beach for 40 years and has low property taxes is no skin off my nose. The person that moves in after her will more than make up for it when the sold house is reassessed. In the meantime you don't punish old retirees on fixed incomes for just being old.
The homes in the area in which I live have suddenly become a hot item. They have gone up over 20% a year for over the last two years. Additionally they have pretty much doubled in price over the last 5 years. Most of the people paying these prices are folks who have been priced out of the beach areas where the prices have been even more insane.
So pretend I am a grandmother, and a widower. I live in my house that I purchased in 1977 for $35,000. I pay $350 a year in property taxes. However the last comparable house in the neighborhood sold for $250,000 and those folks pay $2500 a year in taxes.
Likewise a house has the taxes increased on it everytime it is reassessed. So any home refi's, equity taking, etc. all raises your property taxes. It is only by sitting still and never doing anything with your house that you can end up with no property tax increases.
I say good for them because a retiree does not have income, social security or a pension growing with inflation. They have limited incomes and I have no problem with their property taxes being limited via nonaction on their part.
How did Pete Wilson get out of the budget crisis? He raised taxes. YOUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR RAISED TAXES. Now Republicans refused to allow Davis to Raise taxes. Hmm...
One might even be compelled to ask if you've ever visited California. Have you seen the improvements inner city services made by Wilson after Davis was ousted? I have. Have you seen the drop in violence? I have. Have you walked down Florence and Normandy and felt safe, partially thanks to programs paid for by our taxes? I have.
I lived in California for the first 25 years of my life and have visited countless times since then. Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego... and I've SEEN the social improvements -- improvements that were much less clear during the Wilson fiasco.
Yeah I don't know much about California. I mean sure I've lived here since 77' and you are in Hong Kong, but what the hell would I know.
First Wilson asked for taxes but also MADE THE CUTS. The cuts were huge. Davis wanted no cuts, and still ended up borrowing 10 billion dollars via illegal bonds which now could end up being tossed out via court.
Davis also lied about the deficit to get elected. Instead of focusing on some little detail and declaring it the same. You should look at the broader picture. Davis was recalled by much more than Republicans. He broke the public trust. It wasn't whether the public had to endure what percentage of cuts versus tax increases. It was that the deficit was 8 billion before the election. This was really an accounting gimmick created in part by lying about the budget even the prior year. Then after the election the gimmicks gave way to the true deficit.
Scharzenegger was elected by more votes than Davis earned in the regular election because of the huge turn out of voters of all types. He even got more votes than Davis with McClintock taking away a large block (including mine) of Republican votes.
It isn't a tax cut vs. increase issue. It is a public trust issue which Davis violated multiple times.
How did Pete Wilson get out of the budget crisis? He raised taxes. YOUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR RAISED TAXES. Now Republicans refused to allow Davis to Raise taxes. Hmm...
One might even be compelled to ask if you've ever visited California. Have you seen the improvements inner city services made by Wilson after Davis was ousted? I have. Have you seen the drop in violence? I have. Have you walked down Florence and Normandy and felt safe, partially thanks to programs paid for by our taxes? I have.
I lived in California for the first 25 years of my life and have visited countless times since then. Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego... and I've SEEN the social improvements -- improvements that were much less clear during the Wilson fiasco.
What a joke. You know what? Reagan raised taxes too. The question is, how much cant hat solution be used. Davis tripled the car tax for example...which took some working people's bills from $300 to almsot $100 PER YEAR. Some folks with RV's got bills for $3,000...just to be allowed to keep their cars.
And WTF are "social improvements" and why is the government resposnsible for them? Is education one of those improvements? No.
Comments
Tell me folks, especially since some of you wish to "draft" her into the presidential race...
Exactly what experience did Hillary Clinton have with being in an actual office before she carpetbagged her way up north to run for Senator of New York?
I didn't vote for Arnold, I voted McClintock. However running for office shouldn't require being a lawyer, or having prior experience in an office. (How do you get that exactly without winning an office?)
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
However running for office shouldn't require being a lawyer, or having prior experience in an office. (How do you get that exactly without winning an office?)
Nick
Now there is the catch 22.
No, I don't think you have to be a lawyer or already have held office, but... how about having shown the slightest interest in politics before the age of 45? Worked for a campaign, a get out the vote drive, volunteered down at the local precinct, manned the phones... And this isn't about being alderman of dogpatch, it's RUNNING THE FRIGGIN 6TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD!!!! How in the holy hell can anybody say Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly well qualified to be governer of California with a straight face? Is it just partisan dementia or some kind of really ugly opportunism?
Oh, and as long as "hypocrisy" is on the table, how is it the good grim stalwarts of the Republican party, so appalled by the sexual appetites of Clinton that they could barely stomach being in the same room with the man (I Ibelieve it was Henry Hyde who referred to the President of United States as a "scumbag") and indeed, made every effort to drive him from office for same, find Arnold's colorful history of gang-bangs, ass grabbing and drug abuse AOK? Cause Arnie's from Hollywood instead of Arkansas? I swear, you people have no shame whatsoever.
Originally posted by addabox
That darn Hillary-- she keeps turning up in the most unlikely places
No, I don't think you have to be a lawyer or already have held office, but... how about having shown the slightest interest in politics before the age of 45? Worked for a campaign, a get out the vote drive, volunteered down at the local precinct, manned the phones... And this isn't about being alderman of dogpatch, it's RUNNING THE FRIGGIN 6TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD!!!! How in the holy hell can anybody say Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly well qualified to be governer of California with a straight face? Is it just partisan dementia or some kind of really ugly opportunism?
Oh, and as long as "hypocrisy" is on the table, how is it the good grim stalwarts of the Republican party, so appalled by the sexual appetites of Clinton that they could barely stomach being in the same room with the man (I Ibelieve it was Henry Hyde who referred to the President of United States as a "scumbag") and indeed, made every effort to drive him from office for same, find Arnold's colorful history of gang-bangs, ass grabbing and drug abuse AOK? Cause Arnie's from Hollywood instead of Arkansas? I swear, you people have no shame whatsoever.
An interest in politics?
I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because.. I watched CSPAN alot.
Worked for a campaign... Arnold helped pass an initiative for afterschool programs.
A get out the vote drive... I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because I can look up names at a polling place and drive a van. (I can be governor then because I have done this)
manned the phone bank? That qualifies you how?
As it was Davis was profoundly qualified but was a cold fish that alienated his own party and drove that world class economy right into the friggin' ground.
As for the sexual comments and the hypocracy. It is simple. A hit piece by the L.A. Times is not the same thing to me as a semen stained dress, lynig under oath, crookedly getting her a job outside the office in which she was working, sticking your finger in my face via television and declaring I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski, etc.
Arnold could be a scum bag. If they question him about it under oath in an investigation, he had better tell the truth about what he does with interns or anyone else while serving in office. If he doesn't I'll sign the first petition to have him recalled as well.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Arnold could be a scum bag. If they question him about it under oath in an investigation, he had better tell the truth about what he does with interns or anyone else while serving in office. If he doesn't I'll sign the first petition to have him recalled as well.
The difference is that there won't be an investigation. That is even despite the fact that the underlying allegations against Arnold - which even he apparently admits are at least true in part - involve serious non-consensual sexual conduct while the underlying conduct for which Clinton was pilloried was a consensual sexual indiscretion.
Originally posted by Chinney
The difference is that there won't be an investigation. That is even despite the fact that the underlying allegations against Arnold - which even he apparently admits are at least true in part - involve serious non-consensual sexual conduct while the underlying conduct for which Clinton was pilloried was a consensual sexual indiscretion.
Clinton was subject to two allegations of rape when he was in office. Those charges were largely dismissed by the media however.
Originally posted by Chinney
the underlying conduct for which Clinton was pilloried was a consensual sexual indiscretion.
No, that would have been the subject of tabloids. The issue was perjury, which is why the former President Clinton was subject to disbarment.
Originally posted by trumptman
An interest in politics?
I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because.. I watched CSPAN alot.
Worked for a campaign... Arnold helped pass an initiative for afterschool programs.
A get out the vote drive... I can run the 6th largest economy in the world because I can look up names at a polling place and drive a van. (I can be governor then because I have done this)
manned the phone bank? That qualifies you how?
(sigh) My fairly obvious point is that in politics, as in any profession one generally starts small and works up. As in, you don't build a skyscraper before you've built a box kite. So you do scut work, committee work, run for local office, etc. To start with the governship of California is absurd, and speaks less to Arnold's qualifications and more to the generallized contempt most voters have for electorial politics. Then, big suprise, the system doesn't work very well. Which is great for the government is Satan crowd, but less so for everybody else.
Again, the fact that Davis sucked is not an argument for "anybody can do it". By this reasoning, Ken Lay's fiasco at Enron means your next door neighbor is a worthy CEO of a multi-billion company, or abusive priests mean I'm qualified to hear confession. Politics is a profession, and there are people that, by inclination and experience, are good at. The idea of the citizen legislator is romantically appealing, and possibly effective at the local level, but running California requires more than enthusiasm. Why is that so hard to accept? What other undertaking would you give such short shrift to experience?
I truly do see this as fallout from the long term right-wing project to delegitimize government alltogether. It's doing real damage to our ability to shape our future, breeding cynicism, and all but insuring that the real problems facing not just California but the nation will continue to go unsolved.
Oh, and how about we spend $80 million dollars to check up on Arnie's moral character, then we can make comparisons to Clinton.
Originally posted by Skipjack
No, that would have been the subject of tabloids. The issue was perjury, which is why the former President Clinton was subject to disbarment.
The strict legal issue before Congress on his impeachment was his perjury - a perjury for which he should have resigned - but the issue for which he was pilloried in the halls of Congress and in the conservative press, was his sexual conduct.
But just as long as we all agree that Arnold should now be subject to endless proceedings about his past alleged non-consensual sexual conduct (and there appears to be lots to go on here), that he should then be questioned about his numerous collateral sexual episodes - consensual and non-consensual - and then his comments on this collateral questioning should then be the subject to further endless investigations and proceedings, then I am fine. I am glad that you agree with me on that.
Originally posted by addabox
I hate you shortening my arguments to a single sentence that accurately encompass my entire argument.
Too bad.
Originally posted by BR
I am a dickweed.
Now, now, no need to get down on yourself....
That world class economy was dug into the ground . . . as were most of the economies of most states in the US, because of the large economic downturn and the concomitant loss of taxable revanues. . . And, in California it was dug into the ground because of an absurd anti property-tax bias, when you depend soley on income tax and sales tax in a state hit as hard as CA by the bubble burst then you get a bigger defecit then the other states . . . (almost all of which are also suffering) . . . as well as, probably, a lot of pork
The Blame game is Lame
as I have always said: "when you BLAME, you B - Lame"
Originally posted by tonton
Workman's comp was cut 90% between about 1995 and 1997. I think you didn't realize that it's been done. It had been a major issue but has been out of the spotlight since the reforms. I should know. My mom ran a workman's comp rehab business.
One could argue that workman's comp is currently insufficient. It certainly doesn't need any more cuts.
Worker's comp is in terrible shape right now. It is costing businesses more money on average than in other states for marginally better care.
Originally posted by pfflam
responding to Trumpts usual twaddle about whatever:
That world class economy was dug into the ground . . . as were most of the economies of most states in the US, because of the large economic downturn and the concomitant loss of taxable revanues. . . And, in California it was dug into the ground because of an absurd anti property-tax bias, when you depend soley on income tax and sales tax in a state hit as hard as CA by the bubble burst then you get a bigger defecit then the other states . . . (almost all of which are also suffering) . . . as well as, probably, a lot of pork
The Blame game is Lame
as I have always said: "when you BLAME, you B - Lame"
So let me see...
California has Prop. 13 for about 20 years before Davis.... California has no deficits, especially $38 billion. Other states do not have prop 13, other states still have deficits when the economy heads south...but California's is bigger even though it never was before, even during recession.
And of course the only factor to change during all those years is Davis, but he shouldn't get the blame.... Bull.
California's was proven to be bigger because of increased spending. The spending went up more than any degree of inflation or increase in population.
Have you ever been to California Pfflam? How would you like to be a retiree and be taxed out of your home via property taxes? Would that be your idea of "compassion." Homes are reassessed every time they are sold. The only way you beat property tax increases is by never moving.
The fact that some old woman has lived by the beach for 40 years and has low property taxes is no skin off my nose. The person that moves in after her will more than make up for it when the sold house is reassessed. In the meantime you don't punish old retirees on fixed incomes for just being old.
The homes in the area in which I live have suddenly become a hot item. They have gone up over 20% a year for over the last two years. Additionally they have pretty much doubled in price over the last 5 years. Most of the people paying these prices are folks who have been priced out of the beach areas where the prices have been even more insane.
So pretend I am a grandmother, and a widower. I live in my house that I purchased in 1977 for $35,000. I pay $350 a year in property taxes. However the last comparable house in the neighborhood sold for $250,000 and those folks pay $2500 a year in taxes.
Likewise a house has the taxes increased on it everytime it is reassessed. So any home refi's, equity taking, etc. all raises your property taxes. It is only by sitting still and never doing anything with your house that you can end up with no property tax increases.
I say good for them because a retiree does not have income, social security or a pension growing with inflation. They have limited incomes and I have no problem with their property taxes being limited via nonaction on their part.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Um... you really don't know much about California.
California Budget in Crisis!
How did Pete Wilson get out of the budget crisis? He raised taxes. YOUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR RAISED TAXES. Now Republicans refused to allow Davis to Raise taxes. Hmm...
One might even be compelled to ask if you've ever visited California. Have you seen the improvements inner city services made by Wilson after Davis was ousted? I have. Have you seen the drop in violence? I have. Have you walked down Florence and Normandy and felt safe, partially thanks to programs paid for by our taxes? I have.
I lived in California for the first 25 years of my life and have visited countless times since then. Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego... and I've SEEN the social improvements -- improvements that were much less clear during the Wilson fiasco.
Yeah I don't know much about California. I mean sure I've lived here since 77' and you are in Hong Kong, but what the hell would I know.
First Wilson asked for taxes but also MADE THE CUTS. The cuts were huge. Davis wanted no cuts, and still ended up borrowing 10 billion dollars via illegal bonds which now could end up being tossed out via court.
Davis also lied about the deficit to get elected. Instead of focusing on some little detail and declaring it the same. You should look at the broader picture. Davis was recalled by much more than Republicans. He broke the public trust. It wasn't whether the public had to endure what percentage of cuts versus tax increases. It was that the deficit was 8 billion before the election. This was really an accounting gimmick created in part by lying about the budget even the prior year. Then after the election the gimmicks gave way to the true deficit.
Scharzenegger was elected by more votes than Davis earned in the regular election because of the huge turn out of voters of all types. He even got more votes than Davis with McClintock taking away a large block (including mine) of Republican votes.
It isn't a tax cut vs. increase issue. It is a public trust issue which Davis violated multiple times.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Um... you really don't know much about California.
California Budget in Crisis!
How did Pete Wilson get out of the budget crisis? He raised taxes. YOUR REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR RAISED TAXES. Now Republicans refused to allow Davis to Raise taxes. Hmm...
One might even be compelled to ask if you've ever visited California. Have you seen the improvements inner city services made by Wilson after Davis was ousted? I have. Have you seen the drop in violence? I have. Have you walked down Florence and Normandy and felt safe, partially thanks to programs paid for by our taxes? I have.
I lived in California for the first 25 years of my life and have visited countless times since then. Los Angeles, Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego... and I've SEEN the social improvements -- improvements that were much less clear during the Wilson fiasco.
What a joke. You know what? Reagan raised taxes too. The question is, how much cant hat solution be used. Davis tripled the car tax for example...which took some working people's bills from $300 to almsot $100 PER YEAR. Some folks with RV's got bills for $3,000...just to be allowed to keep their cars.
And WTF are "social improvements" and why is the government resposnsible for them? Is education one of those improvements? No.