Join John and Ken's Fight Against Higher Taxes (sales, sex offenders)

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by ZhugeLiang

What the hell? I can't believe anyone still listens to those clods.

www.therealkfi.com - The Real KFI

It's not that I oppose senseless taxation, but given J&K's erratic history on the issues, this is a mere ratings ploy and nothing more.

Agreed.

But was'nt it Churchill who said something to the effect that "one of the great lessons in life is to realize that even a fool can sometimes be correct"

J&K are exhibit 1. to prove that.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee

The renaming is there to get around the idiotic need 2/3rds of congress to pass anything on a budget rule.

You think its idiotic to require 2/3 of the legislature approve tax increases? Do you have ANY IDEA how high our taxes would be if the democrat controlled legislature could raise taxes any time they wished with their simple majority? Oh wait, we just got to see it last night to the tune of $9,000,000,000.

[Full-Blooded American]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

I think the Governor said he was going to veto it anyway...

Not on the grounds that it's illegal, so if the legislature makes small changes here and there to the next version, there's nothing to say Uncle Arnie will veto the next incarnation of this illegal scheme to slam all of us with higher taxes (i.e. "fees", as the Democrats in the legislature now call them).

[Moose Whisperer]

Escape, you beat me to it:

Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee

The renaming is there to get around the idiotic need 2/3rds of congress to pass anything on a budget rule.

So, citizens of California exercising their constitutional right to enact a LAW requiring their legislature to follow certain rules before raising their taxes was idiotic?

Though I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, I was there when Prop 13 was debated and passed. That was one shining example in that State's sad political history where the people actually took control of their State Legislature, instead of the other way around.

[FinkieMcGee]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

You think its idiotic to require 2/3 of the legislature approve tax increases? Do you have ANY IDEA how high our taxes would be if the democrat controlled legislature could raise taxes any time they wished with their simple majority? Oh wait, we just got to see it last night to the tune of $9,000,000,000.

It is dumb to require the same amount of people to pass a constitutional amendment as it does to pass a budget. Why the hell do you think they always take so damn long to push a budget through? The taxes should be higher, if they were people might be encouraged to force legislators to cut some waste from government programs instead of passing dumb programs that will be paid for by government bonds.

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

So, citizens of California exercising their constitutional right to enact a LAW requiring their legislature to follow certain rules before raising their taxes was idiotic?

Though I wasn't old enough to vote at the time, I was there when Prop 13 was debated and passed. That was one shining example in that State's sad political history where the people actually took control of their State Legislature, instead of the other way around.

You're not honestly arguing that proposition 13 was a great idea, right? If anything it's a shining example of how direct democracy can be incredibly damaging.

[mommabear2]

But we like higher taxes. Why would we approve bond measures worth billions upon billions of dollars if we didn't?

California's motto should be:
Higher taxes? Yes please.

[esmith143]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

You think its idiotic to require 2/3 of the legislature approve tax increases? Do you have ANY IDEA how high our taxes would be if the democrat controlled legislature could raise taxes any time they wished with their simple majority? Oh wait, we just got to see it last night to the tune of $9,000,000,000.

It is not idiotic to require 2/3 of the legislature approve tax increases, but it is idiotic that almost half of our legislature behaves as irresponsible teenagers.

Our state currently spends more than it earns. And since Republicans are pathologically opposed to earning more (higher taxes), and there's nothing in the budget that can be cut to close the hole (what would you do? spend even less money on public education? cut rations of prisoners in state prisons to starvation levels?), all they can do is keep voting "no" on every budget proposal.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by esmith143

It is not idiotic to require 2/3 of the legislature approve tax increases, but it is idiotic that almost half of our legislature behaves as irresponsible teenagers.

Our state currently spends more than it earns. And since Republicans are pathologically opposed to earning more (higher taxes), and there's nothing in the budget that can be cut to close the hole (what would you do? spend even less money on public education? cut rations of prisoners in state prisons to starvation levels?), all they can do is keep voting "no" on every budget proposal.

The state should do what the rest of us do when times are bad: cut back and live within our means. You really believe there's nothing left to cut in the budget? I don't have the option of just raising taxes on someone else any time I don't feel like I'm getting enough money. If my income got cut by 1/3rd, I'd have to make some hard decisions about what I really did and did not need to spend money on. Why should the state just get more and more and more money every year regardless of the economy? Giving the government more money is a 100% guaranteed recipe for more out of control spending. And do you understand that raising taxes in a recession is the worst thing you can do? How many more productive citizens and businesses do you want to run out of the state?

[FinkieMcGee]

Well, it's going to be hard to cut programs when you need a supermajority to allocate funding, isn't it?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by FinkieMcGee

Well, it's going to be hard to cut programs when you need a supermajority to allocate funding, isn't it?

They only need a supermajority to RAISE taxes, not to spend LESS.