California Special Election May 19 (Sacramento: credit, costs, moving)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by dcashley

You beleive that these guys can be trusted with unspent money? That's like trusing a heroin addict with unused dope.

How many more cute little analogies are you and Lovehound going to come up with? They're so tired and weak already and don't add anything to your argument/position.

There are better protections in the spending cap and rainy day fund than before. It's a start and its better than doing nothing about the situation and keeping the status quo. Politicians love the status quo so basically voters are going to give them what they want it appears.

[Lovehound]

Forget the analogies then. It's like trusting the Democrats to not raise taxes.

Let's wait until the propositions fail and then we'll have Budget Battle part 3. Further discussion is pointless.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by sav858

So how did they just get more money from us then? Vote No and there is still nothing stopping them from raising your taxes again. I don't get why people are so simple minded and naive enough to believe that voting No prevents them from raising taxes when it doesn't at all. Vote No and they can still find a way to get more money and probably will have even more reason to do so.

I will assume you are not saying I am simple minded and naive. If you read one of my previous posts I said I believe they will continue to raise taxes whether we vote yes or no. They will just call it something else.

[4beanie]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I don't want a rainy day fund. If they see money they'll be tempted to spend it. It's like having a piggy bank. Sooner or later it always gets raided for ice cream.

I think they think the taxpayer is the rainy day fund!

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by sav858

How many more cute little analogies are you and Lovehound going to come up with? They're so tired and weak already and don't add anything to your argument/position.

There are better protections in the spending cap and rainy day fund than before. It's a start and its better than doing nothing about the situation and keeping the status quo. Politicians love the status quo so basically voters are going to give them what they want it appears.

Gee thanks for letting me know that my feeble attempts at humor are tired and weak. I needed a dose of humility. Thank you.

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by 4beanie

I think they think the taxpayer is the rainy day fund!

Yeah---and that's the problem....they are supposed to represent US the taxpayers....the citizens...but they just don't.

[northbayeric]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I don't want a rainy day fund. If they see money they'll be tempted to spend it. It's like having a piggy bank. Sooner or later it always gets raided for ice cream.

Exactly, and I am reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's classic quotation, ""Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

[happ]

Originally Posted by sav858

How many more cute little analogies are you and Lovehound going to come up with? They're so tired and weak already and don't add anything to your argument/position.

There are better protections in the spending cap and rainy day fund than before. It's a start and its better than doing nothing about the situation and keeping the status quo. Politicians love the status quo so basically voters are going to give them what they want it appears.

I & many others appreciate your well-reasoned & thoughtful info on these propositions even though it appears some are reacting impulsively & without factuality thanks sav858

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I don't want a rainy day fund. If they see money they'll be tempted to spend it.

True! California budget fixes on May 19 ballot are mostly shams and frauds - Los Angeles Times

[Ludachris]

So when will California voters see the proposal to cut XXX million dollars per year in "wasted" spending?

Seems to me there are always bills coming up to increase spending, but none that will cut spending. Show me a politician who wants to cut spending by the amount it needs to be cut (by cutting programs that people depend on) and I'll show you who isn't going to be reelected.

I saw a quote in the first page or two where someone suggested cutting health benefits and costly pensions for unions and the reply was - why hurt Californians? Because no matter how you look at it, Californians are going to have to get hurt. It's just a matter of which ones and how much. You either increase taxes and hurt people that way or you cut programs and hurt the people that depend on them.

So why don't we come up with a list of specific programs that can and should be cut and discuss who would be affected if they were cut? That's the same exercise the legislators have to go through. If it's so easy to cut wasted spending without hurting people, why can't we do so here.