posted on October 3, 2003 08:04:07 PM new
Drivers licenses for illegals was lobbied for not by immigrant rights groups but the insurance lobby. You can open a checking account, get a phone, get power, rent an apartment, etc with a passport whether it has a valid US visa or not. A drivers license gives a person absolutely no right that they would not have otherwise other than the ability to be an insured driver. The effort was started to help cut down on motorists involved in accidents involving uninsured drivers. It has nothing to do with imigration issues. nfortunately I fear that most voters are too ignorant of the facts to know the difference.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 3, 2003 08:04 PM ]
"To help uncover whether today's state budget crisis is more attributable to "irresponsible Republican tax cuts" or "irresponsible Democratic spending," I recently analyzed individual state budgets in light of those states' political complexion. I began by dividing the states into those that voted for President Bush, which I labeled as predominantly Republican, and those that voted for Al Gore, which I designated Democratic.
"Separated out that way, the state budget data tell a striking story. Though the total population of Bush and Gore states are almost identical, the states that voted Democratic account for fully 70 percent of today's state deficits; Republican states ring up only 30 percent of the total.
"And of the ten states with the largest per capita budget deficits every single one voted Democratic in the last election. (Alaska, which finances its government from oil revenues rather than taxes on its citizens, was excluded from my analysis.)
What does this suggest? It suggests that Republican economic policies, particularly the taste for tax cuts, cannot fairly be blamed for putting states in economic peril. It suggests that Democratic economic policies, particularly the tendency to increase spending, are the major force behind today's imbalances.
"The more one studies the state data, the clearer this becomes. Consider that in the top ten deficit states (again: all Democratic) tax revenues increased at the dramatic rate of about 5 percent per year over the last decade. With all that revenue growth, why did those states build up deficits? Because spending was allowed to grow even faster.
posted on October 3, 2003 09:48:55 PM new
Another is from a special analysis by USA Today titled "Bad Moves, Not Economy Behind Busted State Budgets" published June 23, 2003
titled: It's the Spending, Stupid.
"It's the Spending, Stupid
From a special analysis by USA Today titled "Bad Moves, Not Economy, Behind Busted State Budgets," published June 23, 2003:
"The financial problems racking many state governments this year have less to do with the weak national economy than with the ability of governors and legislators to manage money wisely.
"That is the key finding of a USA Today analysis of how the 50 states spend, tax, and balance their budgets—or don't.
"The National Governors Association says states are suffering their worst economic crisis since World War II. But for many states, the analysis shows, the fault is largely their own.
"Some states that have enjoyed handsome growth in tax revenue nonetheless have huge budget shortfalls. At the other extreme, some of the best-managed states suffered sharp declines in tax collections but promptly took painful steps to balance their books….
The key to their success: restraint….
California, the worst-performing state in the analysis, did the opposite. It approved huge spending increases…. When the economy soured, the state began borrowing money and using accounting gimmicks to avoid its day of reckoning. Today, it continues to spend $1 billion a month more than it takes in….
posted on October 3, 2003 09:57:55 PM new
And you don't think that a loss of tax income resulting from tourism as a result of 9-11 or a loss of tax income resulting from the employment losses that resulted from the tech crash had anyhing to do with it? California bore the brunt more than most states from the the economic downturn in recent years.
BTW - when did I ever mention democrats or republicans in this thread for you to state that I was speaking in untruths? I mentioned how many states were in deficit but made no mention of party affiliation anywhere along the line.
This is not a party issue as far as I am concerned. If someone can come along with a reasonable plan to bring this state around that is aware of long term issues and has a plan on tackling them before they become problems (i.e. - energy, water, school over-crowding, a housing market poised on the brim of a rather spectacular crash, a cost of living that is prohibitive to the importatioon of new businesses) I'll listen. Tell me logically how you are going to balance the budget, decrease public spending not raise taxes and not shove more people out on the street and I will listen. I don't dislike Arnold because he is a republican, I dislike Arnold because I do not believe he has the capability to help this state. I have no faith in his leaderhip skills to bring the legislature together. I have no faith in the long term plans of a man that has not bothered to vote in 2/3 of the past 21 elections in this state. I think its a whim of an aging actor with too many puppetteers whispering in his ear.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 3, 2003 10:07 PM ]
posted on October 3, 2003 10:37:31 PM new
fenix - I did not say you brought rep vs dem into the discussion. I did. It's a fact that dems always want more social programs....whether they are afordable or not, imo.
Arnold does claim to be a fiscal conservative, and you certainly can't say that about Davis.
You mentioned, as is often reported in the NYT, that CAs budget problems were shared by 47 of the states and you [and they] give a lot of weight to the cause being the national economy. I have read differently.
[b]I had read that many states who chose to cut back [or to hold the spending line where it was] were in much better shape than were those states who continue to spend like CA has done, even though they too felt the federal economic pressures on their states.
This decline in revenue didnt' just start happening in CA. It's been going on since 1999-2000. Plenty of time for Davis and the CA legislature to have recognized they were headed for a disaster and to stop with the increased spending....just like the states did that aren't in as bad of shape as CA now finds itself.
And in addition to that Davis wasn't honest with the voters on how bad things were until after he had been re-elected. You saying he/they didn't know they had big problems before the election? I don't buy that for a minute.
BUT I did say Davis [and the CA legislature] has, with all his/their experience you claim Arnold doesn't have, still got CA into this mess. Are you taking the position that by increasing spending by 40% wasn't a little over the top, especially considering how the CA economy's been going since 1999-2003?
Now the people of CA will pay for it.....no matter who wins this election. Sometimes I think Davis deserves to keep his job....so he can clean up the mess he created. But he'd only raise the taxes of the people to pay for his fiscal mis-management.
How California’s energy scam was inextricably linked to a war for oil scheme
By Katherine Yurica
When George Bush and Dick Cheney said “no” to Governor Gray Davis of California in 2001, as he pleaded for federal aid to halt the price escalation of energy that was threatening to bankrupt California, no one suspected that either the President or Vice President had any connection to the events in California. After all, the California energy crisis had begun under Bill Clinton's watch. How could there be a connection to the new President and Vice President? Read on:
It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal.
The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.
It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.
Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.
Santa Monica, CA --Internal Enron e-mails confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger was among a small group of executives who met with Lay at the posh Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel in May of 2001, in the midst of California's energy crisis. View the e-mails. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which obtained the e-mails, is calling on Schwarzenegger to acknowledge the meetings and disclose the information that was presented and discussed. The meeting with Enron occurred ten days after rolling blackouts darkened California for two consecutive days; Schwarzenegger has previously said that he does not remember such a meeting.
"You don't meet with America's most well-known corporate crook in the middle of California's biggest financial disaster and not remember".
posted on October 4, 2003 07:17:10 PM new
I cant seem to settle up in my mind where Maria Schriever and her influence with him(obviously democrate) fits in the picture here. ???????
Saw one thing on TV where they were boo'ing her because she said "republicans and democrats are welcome here - I am a democrat". I think people are more divided on party lines than politicians really are.
btw, twelve I read your posts about hilter. Yes, one cannot deny he was a great speaker and mezmerizing leader. But I bet all the things he did during the war did not just suddenly sprout up then. Particularly stealing from the german jews any valuables they had. That alone leaves such a bad taste in my mouth. I dont think Arnold should glorify him at all.
posted on October 4, 2003 07:30:40 PM new
Just a little tidbit from NewsMax.com today:
1. Bill Clinton Admired Hitler Too
We are not sure Arnold Schwarzenegger admired Adolph Hitler. If he did, he would share something with Bill Clinton.
The Clintons' anti-Semitism is now well known.
Details of it first emerged from retired Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson who told NewsMax the inside details of the Clintons' dislike of various groups.
During the six years Patterson guarded the Clintons, he said their deep-seated anti-Semitism became apparent in slurs they hurled at each other.
Bill Clinton also frequently told Jewish jokes.
Patterson made the revelations in a two-hour audiotape "More than Sex: The Secrets of Bill and Hillary Clinton Revealed" published by NewsMax.com several years ago.
Patterson said that during the Clintons' many verbal brawls "it was quite common" for both Bill and Hillary to refer to each other as "a Jew motherf----r" or a "Jew Bastard."
So far, Arnold has not been accused of such comments.
Patterson does reveal that Bill Clinton had a deep fascination for Adolf Hitler and his book "Mein Kampf" though.
Clinton's interest in Hitler was not based on the fascist leader's anti-Semitism, but the great leadership skills of Hitler, according to Patterson.
Clinton, Patterson remembered, was intrigued that Hitler "had so much power over these people and that it had just been a short period of time since World War I where they'd been defeated, and this man had come forward and had rallied the German people."
posted on October 4, 2003 08:05:37 PM newPatterson guarded the Clintons.
Yes, helen, I know. It would be ever so hard for you to even be a tiny bit open to believing someone who's job it was to protect the Clinton's. While at the same time, you have absolutely NO problem accusing Arnold of the same thing. LOL
posted on October 5, 2003 06:20:25 AM new
Hey, Twelvepole,
I'm going to have to put you back in the uninformed corner on your stool.
Yellow journalism is reading material in which Clinton is blamed for everything that you right wing guys can't explain.
It's pathetic and even humorous that when you have no answers, you leap to blame a former president with such obvious sleeze spin. What's happening to principled arguments for the beliefs of your guys? Apparently you have no answer but to shift focus to Clinton and that's sad.
