Schwarzenegger Announces : Running for CA Gov.

McClintock has some pretty good ideas.

Revamping workers comp for one. It costs employers 10 to 20 times in CA what it does in neighboring states.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Read the article. Issa's argument is that he wants a no-tax-increase solution to California's budget problems. Bustamonte plans to raise taxes immediately.

Well, I understand Issa doesnt want Bustamante in, dont need an article for that one.

I'm just curious about the "recall" logic.

Either you are for early elections, or you're against. Issa, apparently, is only for early elections if he thinks his side can win.

Thats not much of a principled argument to underpin a justification of spending so much taxpayers' money on this recall effort - his idea.

0 Replies

PDiddie wrote:

Just curious; not trying to provoke partisan platitudes:

How would you Republicans propose that the state cover its $38 billion dollar shortfall?

(Your answer portends how we might address the national budget deficit...)

I would cut taxes to give people an incentive to create wealth. I would cut overbearing government regulations, likewise helping California's economy to grow, and I would cut or kill every social giveaway program on California's books until they balanced.

0 Replies

Scrat, why not just eliminate gov't? It doesn't seem to do much that you consider worth paying taxes for. Then the rich could buy the services they need: schools (if they have kids), armed guards, health care when they're sick. And everyone else can go to hell.

Oh brave new world!

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

Scrat, why not just eliminate gov't? It doesn't seem to do much that you consider worth paying taxes for. Then the rich could buy the services they need: schools (if they have kids), armed guards, health care when they're sick. And everyone else can go to hell.

Oh brave new world!

Nothing I've ever written comes close to justifying the words you want to put in my mouth. Frankly, I don't think you care to understand my position--it's far more convenient for you to pretend I stand for things I do not--but in case you actually don't understand, I am for the RULE OF LAW.

The federal government should be doing those things the Constitution of the United States either mandates or allows. California's government should be doing only what their state constitution empowers their government to do. Hopefully, within those tight constraints, they will each endeavor to do more good than harm, to take action only when necessary and never merely because people feel like government ought to "care".

0 Replies

Scrat, don't get us wrong. No one will ever confuse your position with "caring".

Government is for conducting war, and when not expending vast amounts of money killing people - it should do nothing unless it extends the accumulating power of the rich!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

BillW wrote:

Scrat, don't get us wrong. No one will ever confuse your position with "caring".

Government is for conducting war, and when not expending vast amounts of money killing people - it should do nothing unless it extends the accumulating power of the rich!!!!!!!!!!

As always Bill, your skill for misrepresenting the opinions of others is only matched by your aptitude for reason, logic and courteous discourse; that is to say that you are equally miserable at each.

I wrote nothing about my capacity for caring or ability to care. What I wrote (and I'm fairly certain everyone but Bill recognized this rather obvious distinction) is that it is not the role of GOVERNMENT to care. Government's role is to govern, ideally both efficiently and effectively. Your stripe measures caring based on how much money you wish the government to take from me to do those things about which you care. I measure it based on how much I choose to contribute to those things about which I care.

0 Replies

Well, for sure the government doesn't care -- they don't care about any consequence of anything they do. They're all like the Madison Ave. boys, "Let's hoist it up the flagpole and see if it flies." The legislatures are full of attorneys who are making laws. The idea of attorneys interpreting and mediating the law should give us all the willies -- that they are in there devising and passing laws should make us all very disconcerted and very angry.

0 Replies

And, that they are more and more becoming controlled by Republicans should scare us shitless!!!!!

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Well, for sure the government doesn't care -- they don't care about any consequence of anything they do. They're all like the Madison Ave. boys, "Let's hoist it up the flagpole and see if it flies." The legislatures are full of attorneys who are making laws. The idea of attorneys interpreting and mediating the law should give us all the willies -- that they are in there devising and passing laws should make us all very disconcerted and very angry.

And we'd all be in far less peril if we were holding them to their explicitly enumerated Constitutional limits in the legislation they write and pass.

0 Replies

We, I assume you mean the public, aren't given the opportunity to "explicitly enumerate Constitutional limits." More attorneys who have been dubbed judges are responsible for that. Those people aren't elected by us, they're salted in according to the ideology of the current regime.
I've always had qualms about that part of the system.

0 Replies

The Constitution has been, and will continue to be, interpreted in many ways. Take the Second Amendment, for instance.

For you to say, Scrat, and then repeat and repeat, that legislators must adhere to "explicitly enumerated Constitutional limits" means, therefore, that they should only do what you think the Constitution allows. This means very little to the rest of us.

0 Replies

Anyway, back to the topic -- this election is going to be very close. Even the recall is getting to the point of being very close. I can see the results ending up once again in a court.

There's a lot of good intentions being thrown around but now the negative advertising is being pumped up. And so far not by Davis but by the Schwartzenegger camp. Arnold is indeed getting "pumped up," so everyone into raincoats...NOW!

0 Replies

Well, it's time to ask:

Who is the California Elections Supervisor, and is that person a D or an R?

edited to answer my own question, subject to the verification of a knowledgeable Californian: Kevin Shelley, Secretary of State, Dem.

0 Replies

D'artagnan wrote:

The Constitution has been, and will continue to be, interpreted in many ways. Take the Second Amendment, for instance.

There are only two ways to interpret the Constitution; correctly and wrongly. Those who find authorization for sweeping powers not enumerated within its text do it wrongly.

D'artagnan wrote:

For you to say, Scrat, and then repeat and repeat, that legislators must adhere to "explicitly enumerated Constitutional limits" means, therefore, that they should only do what you think the Constitution allows.

Well, you may be right, but since Madison, Hamilton and the other framers are on the record--in clear and simple English--as agreeing with me, what I "think the Constitution allows" is in fact what it's authors tell us they intended for it to allow. The Constitution is clear in its meaning and its authors wrote in the federalist papers and tell us in plain English that those pretending that the "general welfare" and "reasonable and proper" clauses proffer blanket authorization for anything the federal government wants to do are knowingly going against the intent of the Constitution. This isn't a grey area. It isn't even close. Anyone who CARES, KNOWS what was intended and can easily see that we have strayed from that intent. The fact that so many prefer it this way does not change that fact. Were this a democracy, it would; it is not, and it doesn't.

And--to bang the same drum one time more--we need to recognize that when we authorize the government to ignore the Constitution when it pleases us, we cede to them the authority to do so when it does not.

D'artagnan wrote:

This means very little to the rest of us.

I recognized some time ago that the facts and the rule of law mean very little to you, but I remain optimistic that those who share this jaded point of view with you are an insignificant minority.

0 Replies

That "correctly" and "wrongly" is precisely where the divides are -- who is determining what is correct and what is wrong? A panel of one? What particular decision would one consider to be unconstitutional? Why is it unconstitutional? This is an ungoing debate that no one person has the answer for and will last for many more hundreds of years. We'd all like to individually believe we are right but that doesn't hold a lot of water in a Republic. And it's not even the Mobocracy who decide, it is the polticial elitists who obtain office by selling themselves. Sound like the oldest profession?

0 Replies

I deem the Patriot Act to be wrong, because it infringes on our Constitutional Protections of privacy and legal process. But how many Americans understand that? Not many.

0 Replies

The Federalist believe in only selective Bill of Rights issues, which inummerates most of those liberties squashed by the Patriot Act -

0 Replies

The debate last night was great entertainment, Ahnold promising he had a part for Arianna in "Terminator IV." Was that a hint that the evil robot was going to again be a female?

0 Replies

Here's hoping he starts filming "Terminator IV" this winter!

The debate just further proves Ahnold is just a cartoon figure!!!!!

0 Replies

Schwarzenegger Announces : Running for CA Gov.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know