| Author |
Message |
    
uniondag
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 02:35 pm: | 
|
BelowRadar,
You only tell part of the story. Yes, it was Pete Wilson who signed the electricity deregulation bill into law. However, it was Steve Peace (Davis’s now head of the Dept. of Finance) who was the brainchild for the idea. Several months before the electricity crises got really going, the Republicans begged Davis to call a special session of the Legislature to work on averting the disaster. Typical of Davis’s mismanagement, he did NOTHING until it was too late. Davis then panicked and signed contracts for Californians who now have to pay more for power than anyone else in the entire world!
Davis has also increased state spending during his term as governor by more than all of the state budgets over last 30 years combined. Thus, Comment and John Thawley’s observations about the huge spending increases are astute. The primary cause of the budget is simple: too much spending.
Davis’s budget deficit is more than all of the other states’ budgets combined (excluding New York).
Are Republicans to blame for this mess? Yep, they share some of the blame. But there was no excuse for Goldberg and her comrades to attempt to make things worse. Davis needs to go! Lets then work on voting out the Legislature (Dems & Reps both), and electing that moderate element Radar mentioned. As I mentioned before, the State is so Gerrymandered that no one with common sense gets elected. The Republicans are as much to blame for this as the Democrats, because they agreed to the last redistricting plan. I hope the recall is a start, and that Californians will take back the state from horrible politicians like Davis and Goldberg. |
DailyReader
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 03:04 pm: |
|
It is incredible to me, Below The Radar, that your first response to someone who comes up with some facts contrary to your view is to take up some sort of personal attack/"let's fight" stance. I am sure, given the heated-ness of your rhetoric, that the following points will make no difference to you. But you mis-state or ignore several key points:
First, the national economy had problems before President Bush was elected.
Second, 9/11 had horrific effects on the economy (from the travel industry to consumer pessimism).
Third--State revenue INCREASED between the 98-99 FY and 02-03 FY, so it would appear, irregardless of points #1 and #2, that your comments about the horrible economy are irrelevant.
Fourth, I doubt that the Legislature's Democrats only decided to play the budget delay game after the Republicans made their anti-new-tax stance clear (and I think the open-mike incident helps support my view--the Dems were accusing the Repubs of holding up the budget to help the recall, when it is now clear that the recall did not need any help and when 72% of the people who responded to a poll said that a budget deal would not change their view of the recall--and it was actually the Dems who were caught talking about budget intransigence for partisan gain).
Fifth, the energy deregulation bill was a disaster as written, and should never have been signed. But Gray took no action when action was necessary and even when he was asked to take action, and that inaction, that failure of leadership at a key moment, resulted in a horrible blow to the state's economy in the form of those super-expensive long-term contracts. |
Arlene Joyce
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 - 08:11 pm: |
|
Whenever I see statements such as that made by Comment, "John Burton would rather see me die of starvation than deny one of his welfare constitutents some new entitlment", I'm reminded of someone I met many years ago.
I worked for Legal Aid in a state that balanced its budget by terminating the welfare grants of half the recipients and reducing the grants of those remaining. I joined the welfare mothers in a march to protest the cuts and terminations; we urged the state to enact an income tax. The anti-welfare crowd counter demonstrated. The leader of the anti-welfare group spit in my face as I passed by in the march, while he shouted obscenities.
Two years later the same man who spit on me sat across my desk at Legal Aid, seeking assistance to appeal a denial of welfare benefits. Not long after the march he had suffered a stroke which caused him to lose his job. His car was eventually repossessed, his house was foreclosed, and his wife divorced him.
So even if you feel no need to help those less fortunate, remember that welfare is a safety net that someday may catch you or a family member. |
Comment
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 08:59 am: |
|
Whenever I see someone disparage anyone who does not want a distant liberal bureaucrat to tell them how to spend their limited disposable income it reminds me of the discredited Fabian Socialists who believe that only the core liberal elite knows best how to run society. Those people have utter distain for the "rich" people who are making all the money, but they rely substantially on those evil people's money to practice their social engineering. But of course we "rich" folks must be profligate spenders in need of the benefits of the "Fabian Credit Counseling Co.'s" assistance if as single parents of two children, one in private college and another heading off that direction, living in a high rent part of the state we would rather spend our money on OUR children's education and welfare than on the state-resident fee college education of illegal immigrants or to sponsor more welfare and educational mismanagment by the liberal elite who run those organizations.
No one wants to kick poor people while they are down. But as mentioned in a post above, California does not trail in funding for things like public schools nearly as much as it trails in performance. That is not because I have not paid enough taxes, it is due in significant part to the social elite not wanting to hold their fellow travelers in public education accountable for their poor performance.
Although I am sure the socailist elite see all Rebublicans as evil exploiters of the masses, I have been in public service all my life. I have never sought to get rich. But everytime I try to improve myself, the social elite decides I am still too rich and wants to take my money to foster programs for their constituents. I fully support responsible public assistance. It is a necessary and proper part of society. The public assistance programs and educational systems in California are not responsibly run.
Even in bad times I have shared my wealth yearly in the form of high income and property taxes and the forebearance of cost of living raises in exchange for no access to the tax breaks for child care and student grants or schoalarships available to people who are not "rich" like me. I have lost real income over the last decade while at the same time my kids have gotten older, their education more expensive and the costs of responsible citizenship, have increased. I cannot affort the car I want, which I am sure the Fabian Society would tell me is the "wrong" car, because everytime my income creeps up a bit, Social Security taxes, from which the elitiists would gladly "means test" me out of receiving any benefit in future, and other costs of living increase.
Of course, part of the reason my disposable income is lower than it might be is beause I pay out of my own pocket for private disability insurance so in case I am disabled I will not have to go on the public dole, and I pay out of my paycheck for medical insurance so if I am sick I don't have to go to the County hospital. I have invested my income in improving my home which has resulted in increases in my property taxes which then go to the liberal elite to spend on their pet projects. But of course, I am an evil "rich" person who SHOULD have to pay for my own way because of the way I have exploited the working class through my years in state and other public service.
I am sure some people just get chills of excitement as they read and re-read Hillary Clinton's book, "It Takes MY Village to Raise Your Children the Way I Want Them." No thank you. There are some places where that philosophy has been tried, such as North Korea and Cuba, and I am unconvinced that they are better systems.
Lest their be any mistake, I think a large percentage of the Republican contingent in our legislature are cave men clowns. That is, as has been so correctly noted in other posts, the product of shameless gerrymandering which prevents any meaningful elections. The low octane politicians in this state of both parties bear responsibility for that.
As I said before, I truly respect individuals who give generously to the charities of their choice. That type of personal sacrifice is honorable and should be encouraged. I just do not want the party committee telling ME where I should spend my money. |
Arlene Joyce
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
It is quite astonishing how individuals can look at the same set of facts and come away with opposite conclusions and opinions. Those with a left perspective fundamentally believe "we are our brother's keeper"; they don't question whether a poor person is "deserving" before offering help. Those with a right perspective fundamentally believe it's "every man for himself" and will help that same poor person only after being convinced the person became poor from causes not of his own making.
Perhaps having a left or right perspective is in our genetic makeup.
Honest debate is healthy and necessary in a democratic society. However, the often vicious and snide and utterly disrespectful comments of those from the right attacking persons like John Burton and Hillary Clinton for the sin of trying to help the less fortunate is not constructive nor helpful. The origins of the ugliness of contemporary political debate can be traced to the rise of the radical right. I am dismayed to see it on this board. |
John Siqueiros
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:22 am: |
|
Just a note from a moderator perspective:
The tenor of the political debate here is fairly tame compared to the debate I've seen on other internet bulletin boards. One example is a bulletin board whose main subject, of all things, is the Green Bay Packers (it's not my team but a friend of mine introduced me to it awhile ago). Compared to this BB, those participants look like bengal tigers.
Back to one of the original subjects -- I don't know John Burton's politics in detail, but I suspect his views on a couple of issues are as follows. Regarding welfare recipients, they are relatively helpless and need COLAs included in their benefit payments for basic survival. Regarding state employees, they are not helpless; they are more than capable of applying pressure on DPA in order to bargain for decent COLAs, if not pay parity. |
Arlene Joyce
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 11:49 am: |
|
The tenor of the debate on this board has vastly improved since the change in union leadership. Under the old board, the name calling and insults were so extreme that I visited the board only several times a year. I don't know the reasons for the present general civility, but I suspect that some of the name callers took power and some of the old board supporters dropped out.
John is probably correct about Burton's views, which I share. Until our membership engages in those activities which give unions leverage in bargaining, I don't expect anyone to give us anything. |
BelowRadar
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Objectively viewed "DailyReader," the only one who has generated heat instead of light in the discussion is you in your first paragraph.
My allusion to Jackie Goldberg was meant to be apropos to the situation, i.e., they (the Democrats) like me, vis a vis Mr. Thawley, were forced into a partisan fight. It was more meant to be cute than anything else.
Along comes you with the only "personal attack," first implying an old time knowledge of me or my positions by prefacing your statement with "your first response... to someone with contrary views." To tell the truth, Daily Reader, I was not being hostile to Mr. Thawley, but you have my permission to consider this to be a very hostile reaction to you.
You talk about facts, which Mr. Thawley did have some of, but give none of your own, only propaganda.
Your first propaganda talking point is right out of the Republican National Committee and Rush Limbaugh. You state that the national economy had problems BEFORE BUSH. If that were true, why did he run on the platform that the economy COULD AFFORD A 2 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE? And then alleged that it would not eat up the surplus?
It's funny that the same Bush people who IN THE YEAR 2000 were advocating the strength of the economy as a way of arguing that we could afford the tax cut, NOW IN THE YEAR 2003, when it is obvious how Bush WRECKED THE ECONOMY are now RETROACTIVELY looking back at the Clinton years and talking about how bad they were economically.
Look at this, Eisenhower (R) 1953-1961 RECESSION
Kennedy/Johnson (D) 1961-1969 BOOM
Nixon/Ford (R) 1969-1977 RECESSION
Carter (D) 1977-1981 Inflation
Reagan/Bush (R) 1981-1993 RECESSION
Clinton (D) 1993-2001 BOOM
Bush (R) 2001- now RECESSION.
but the Republicans have a grand propaganda scheme. It's very simple. Blame the Democratic prior administration for all of the Republican recessions and TAKE CREDIT FOR THE DEMOCRATIC BOOM BY ARGUING THAT THE SEEDS of those successes WERE SOWN IN THE LAST REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION.
So, the bottom line is write "Boom" under all the Republican years and write "Recession" under all the Democratic years and LEWIS CARROLL WILL BE VERY PROUD OF YOU FOR CREATING YOUR OWN WONDERLAND.
That's great, Daily Reader. You're fooling a whole lot of people with that!
Your second point is that 9/11 had a horrific effect on tourism. Yes, it did. For a limited amount of time! WHAT ABOUT THE 2 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX CUT SCREWING UP THE ECONOMY? Think that had a little bit MORE to do with it, Daily Reader?
I didn't think so!
Your third point is a demonstration that you did not see clearly what I said above. That's an old game you are playing that only pre-junior high school kids fall for.
You Republicans are always saying "Gollll-leee! We are spending more on the budget than we ever spent before."
Well, no kidding, fool. Every year every government spends MORE ON THE BUDGET THAN EVER BEFORE. We did under Pete Wilson too. But it's irrelevant because it's a fool's statistic. There are more people, more demands on services, more costs, etc. Everything always goes up.
But the Republicans, like some stupid country con-men, actually think that people are impressed when they say, "Golly Gee Willikers, the budget is actually bigger this year, we're spending more, and revenues are more."
Just like these figures went in reverse during Republican years when Pete Wilson was in office.
Fourth, you can doubt all you want to but the facts are there. The Republicans have been playing this "we'll-shut-down-the-government-if-we-don't-get-our-own-way" game for years as UnionDag unconsciously reveals by his recounting of recent budget history.
Those Republicans who he mentions were Republicans who were intentionally released by the caucus to vote FOR THE budget in each of those years after the Republicans had taken advantage of the 2/3 rds requirement to blackjack sufficient concessions from the Democratic majority.
And then, instead of being honest and living up to the deal and voting for the budget, they, the Republicans, didn't ALL VOTE FOR THE BUDGET BUT COWARDLY only provided ENOUGH votes for the budget to pass.
If you Republicans had an ounce of integrity or followed your high school civics, you would say, to the people of California, "We do not believe in tax increases, however with the super majority requirment, if we enforced our beliefs, we would shut down the government. That is NOT THE PROPER ROLE OF THE MINORITY. THEREFORE, we will vote for the budget INCLUDING ITS TAX INCREASES, BUT will come to you during the election season and say that if you don't want anymore tax increases, don't vote for Democrats for the legislature."
No but you believe in shutting down the government, you believe in acting like a spoiled brat and have the gall to say that the Democrats were not only reacting to the position in which Republicans FIRST PLACED THEM.
Well, tell me Daily Reader, logically, Why would the Democrats have come to that point of suspecting that the Republicans were holding the budget up because of the recall BUT FOR the Republican insistence on not voting for any budget containing a tax increase.
Your fifth points concedes too little. PETE WILSON'S DEREGULATION BILL MEANT EVERYTHING TO THE MESS WE'RE IN NOW. Since we are talking AGAIN about who MADE THE FIRST MISTAKE, THE FIRST MISTAKE WAS PETE WILSON, who signed and pushed the energy deregulation bill through the legislature.
But you act like it was a small insignificant thing. Granted Gray Davis screwed up when put in that difficult position but how DARE YOU A REPUBLICAN (oh hell yeah, you're a Republican) have the GALL to attack him on it when you've been preaching de-regulation ALL THESE YEARS.
Look what you people did when under Nixon, you deregulated the airline industry, the phone company and almost every other industry. What have you brought the public thereby? Higher prices, less services, less jobs, and more misery.
Well, unionDag, I did not know that former Democratic assemblyman Steve Peace, authored (or co-authored) the deregulation bill but I'll bet there were a lot more Republicans voting for it than Democrats. |
NotMe
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 12:51 pm: |
|
This discussion reminds me of a couple of my favorite quotes whose authors, regrettably, I do not remember:
"One of the most untruthful things possible is a collection of facts because they can be made to appear so many different ways."
"Believe those who are looking for the truth. Doubt those who say they know it." |
BelowRadar
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 10:12 am: |
|
Well, to quote Harry Truman, another great Democrat, whose name obviously I do remember when someone yelled at him, "Give 'em Hell, Harry,"
"I just told the truth and they thought it was Hell."
It ain't Hell, NotMe, it's just the truth. |
DailyReader
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 02:23 pm: |
|
Below The Radar--Your response to my earlier email does not warrant a reply on the merits. So I will say only this before discontinuing further comment on this subject matter:
I sought to engage in civil political debate and/or discourse, and to do so based on widely available and respectably reported facts. Unfortunately, you seem intent on "discourse" based solely on YELLING, insults, and opinion. Such does not persuasive argument make.
I think it is tragic that you apparently are so stuck in your dogma that you cannot engage in meaningful debate or discourse. |
DailyReader
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 02:29 pm: |
|
Below The Radar--Your response to my earlier posting does not merit a reply on the merits. So I will say only this before ceasing any additional comment on this subject matter.
I sought to engage in civil political debate/discourse based on widely available and respectably reported facts. Unfortunately, you seem intent on "discourse" based solely on YELLING, insults, and opinion. Such does not persuasive argument make.
It is tragic that you are apparently so stuck in your dogma that you cannot see beyond it to participate in a meaningful discussion. |
BelowRadar
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 03:46 pm: |
|
Dear DailyReader:
When you seek to engage in a "civil" political debate, you should not initiate it by accusing the prospective opponent of a "personal attack" on someone else.
So first of all, let's not deceive the readers as to who attacked first.
Secondly, you have an amazing gift to pick up
"yelling" from written text. Care to share your secret?
Third, I saw no facts but just "opinion" on your part in your five points. It was I who exploded those opinions with facts showing consistently since 1951 how YOUR party has ruined the economy while MY party has uplifted it.
When someone takes away the milk baby-bottles filled with myths you Republicans thrive on, you seem to try to adopt a "high road" that ill suits the gutter manner in which you began the same fight and that with which you fight Democratic liberals. I am a Democratic moderate, not liberal. I don't fight back by whining about poor people. I punch and I punch hard.
So be aware for the future, that there are not only liberals in the Democratic party, but fighters from the Clinton wing, who unlike the silk stocking liberals in our party fight back.
The truth of the matter is that you are withdrawing from the discussion because you realize that you are outmatched and have nothing to say in your defense.
If more Democrats were Clinton Democrats instead of silk stocking liberals, the Republicans would be near extinction.
As for Dogma, I'm not the only one of the two of us who engage in it because your tired points were right out of the talking points of the Republican National Committee. |
Pat Whalen
| | Posted on Friday, August 01, 2003 - 04:43 pm: |
|
The Green Bay Packers suck. |
BelowRadar
| | Posted on Monday, August 04, 2003 - 12:31 pm: |
|
I know, Pat. Just as Maynard G. Crebs used to always say, "Just trying to hold up my end of the conversation." LOL.
[He'd usually say that afterwards when, in the heat of an argument between to other people, which he would interrupt by saying, "Well, I'd a heck of a lot rather be thirsty than hungry!" and they'd look at him totally perplexed.] |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page