HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Republicans should be ter...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:43 PM

Republicans should be terrified-What California looks like now is what the entire USA will look like

SUN NOV 11, 2012 AT 06:45 PM PST
Golden results in the Golden State: Democrats dominate California
by Dante Atkins

?1352444286

Republicans woke up on Wednesday morning to survey the damage, in few places could it be considered more horrifying than it was in California. With but few exceptions, progressive candidates and ideologies dominated California races on election night and handed stunning defeats to conservative candidates and their billionaire backers.


The "tax revolt" is over. Nearly a quarter-century ago, during Jerry Brown's first stint in the Governor's Mansion, California voters passed Proposition 13. In addition to limiting the growth of property taxes on both residential and commercial property, Proposition 13 dictated that any bill to pass taxes must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both legislative bodies. The passage of Proposition 13 hailed the beginning of the so-called "tax revolt"—a voter rebellion against the fact that property taxes had doubled in a 10-year period as a result of rising property values. But on Tuesday night—with Jerry Brown once again serving as governor—the tax revolt ended. Voters approved Gov. Brown's tax measure, Proposition 30, by an eight-point margin, even though the most reliable polling indicated that the measure could well have been headed for defeat. The effects are already being felt. The measure will raise taxes on high income earners to fund education, and as a result of its passage, the California State University system has already rescinded the most recent tuition increase it passed for the fall semester. Elections have consequences. Additionally, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 39, which eliminates a tax loophole for big businesses and uses the revenue to fund green energy projects.


.............

The Bottom Line: Republicans should be terrified. What California looks like now is what the entire United States will look like in the future, and it is a world in which Republicans cannot win. California is done with the conservative ideology of tax revolts, and they are done with Republican politicians at the ballot box. Nov. 6 was a golden day for Democrats in the Golden State.



MORE:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/11/1158501/-Golden-results-in-the-Golden-State-Democrats-dominate-California?detail=hide


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324894104578106941506837334.html

61 replies, 5998 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 61 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republicans should be terrified-What California looks like now is what the entire USA will look like (Original post)
kpete Nov 2012 OP
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #1
Warpy Nov 2012 #6
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #10
jaysunb Nov 2012 #12
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #15
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #46
calimary Nov 2012 #51
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #55
JVS Nov 2012 #21
roody Nov 2012 #23
Warpy Nov 2012 #43
WeekendWarrior Nov 2012 #33
Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #44
demosincebirth Nov 2012 #18
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #45
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2012 #2
kpete Nov 2012 #3
Webster Green Nov 2012 #5
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #17
musiclawyer Nov 2012 #4
SunSeeker Nov 2012 #14
sheshe2 Nov 2012 #7
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #8
dogknob Nov 2012 #9
jaysunb Nov 2012 #11
Kennah Nov 2012 #13
OldGrumpy InCO Nov 2012 #16
FreeState Nov 2012 #24
OldGrumpy InCO Nov 2012 #26
FreeState Nov 2012 #27
jaysunb Nov 2012 #30
dogknob Nov 2012 #34
Iggo Nov 2012 #40
Horse with no Name Nov 2012 #49
JanMichael Nov 2012 #59
ffr Nov 2012 #19
DCKit Nov 2012 #20
OldGrumpy InCO Nov 2012 #22
DCKit Nov 2012 #36
jeff47 Nov 2012 #52
DCKit Nov 2012 #54
jeff47 Nov 2012 #56
DCKit Nov 2012 #57
jeff47 Nov 2012 #60
DCKit Nov 2012 #58
jeff47 Nov 2012 #61
OldGrumpy InCO Nov 2012 #25
lexw Nov 2012 #28
CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2012 #29
mimi85 Nov 2012 #31
lexw Nov 2012 #38
DCKit Nov 2012 #41
proud2BlibKansan Nov 2012 #50
begin_within Nov 2012 #32
DeSwiss Nov 2012 #35
dogknob Nov 2012 #37
PufPuf23 Nov 2012 #39
DCKit Nov 2012 #42
dogknob Nov 2012 #48
BanTheGOP Nov 2012 #47
Odin2005 Nov 2012 #53

Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:47 PM

1. But what is truly amazing is that they voted to raise the Sales Tax! CA

has always been the leader...if must be those great Pacific breezes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:57 PM

6. Raising the sales tax is doubleplus ungood

It's a regressive, economy killing tax that will likely be repealed once the fat cats have gotten more used to paying their fair share.

Prop 13 needs to be modified to take inflation into account. Freezing property taxes has simply starved the government into near uselessness. California deserves better now that most of the tax whiners who got it passed are in nursing homes.

Progressive taxation is the only real way to run a government that is efficient and can afford to be humane. The most fortunate among us need to pay for their vast privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

10. Well, the people don't agree with you.

They voted to raise the sales tax 0.25% from 7.25% to 7.50%... it did not come out of the legislature. Now, i don't know if they tax things like clothing in CA, NJ doesn't but FL does... but the people seem to think they can handle it. Americans seem to think that everyone's taxes should go up, except theirs. It would appear that the people of CA believe in everyone carrying a bit of the burden. Prop 13 was a mistake from its inception...it bankrupted the state and ruined what was the best system of higher education in the world and the most affordable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:19 PM

12. Very true and well said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:59 PM

15. The sales tax issue was a compromise between CFT and Brown.

The unions got him to reduce his proposed sales tax proposal in return for a more progressive tax package.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starry Messenger (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:57 AM

46. Excellent!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:16 PM

51. A few of us thought it was time to grow up and be adults about this.

Actually, MORE than a mere few of us! Maybe SOMEBODY's starting to come around to the realization that freedom ISN'T free - but it doesn't ONLY cost the blood of patriots. It costs TAX MONEY, TOO!!!!

Prop 13 was a HUGE mistake. I remember covering it. Everybody was all gaga over this fat old harrumpher howard jarvis. Yes, the little old ladies on pensions and other fixed incomes were starting to be driven out of their homes because they couldn't afford the rising property taxes. So yes, that needed to be fixed. But NOT with a meat-axe, which was what Prop 13 did. Many of us including Governor Brown were supporting Proposition 8 which fixed the problem but not so drastically that it would cripple the state. But no. jarvis had the momentum and the luster of public ardor and people were calling on him to run for president. It was really rather ridiculous. He became the human face of cutting taxes. That was in 1978 I believe, and certainly cleared a lot of brush out of reagan's way, as he was building toward another run for president himself. The jarvis initiative was kind of the beginning of the end. Really opened the floodgates to this kind of thinking, and reagan had some nice jarvis coattails to grease the skids for his rise to power. Screw them both. Neither of them would ever understand how much hurt and damage their policies caused. All they thought of was glorifying personal selfishness.

I remember running into one of these "don't you DARE touch my property tax cut!" old ladies at this PBS-sponsored seminar in which I participated - called "What's Next California." We broke into little discussion groups and there was a broad assortment of humanity in terms of age, economic strata, home towns, gender, and more. People came from all over the state. And this cantankerous old lady pounded her fist on the table about NOT raising taxes and cutting spending (probably listened to Pox Noise all the time). And others among us tried to give voice to the legitimate reasons WHY, including many reasons that would directly benefit her, we needed a more reasonable, less reckless approach, because taxes were too low to cut ANY further. I had to go straight at a middle-aged surfer dude who opposed raising taxes, too. "Okay, how much MORE will YOU have to cough up to buy new tires, or keep paying for front end alignments, because you just can't see why you should pay more taxes for road repair? A few more dollars in taxes - that will fix ALL the roads and bridges and freeways - WHEREVER you drive, versus HOW MUCH MORE do you have to pay to get your car fixed?" Car stuff is big out here, so it's a great place to start the conversation. I'll never forget how irascible that old lady was. She was totally rigid. REFUSED to see reason. Meanwhile there were others in our group who had disabilities, or disabled children, and they relied on government services simply TO GET BY, every day. At one point I turned to some of the cheapskates in our group and pointed to the women at the other end of the table who needed disability benefits and said "THOSE AREN'T LUXURIES, OKAY????? People who need the help aren't looking for fancy meals or free clothes or freebies or giveaways, okay?????? These people NEED THE HELP!!!" Didn't melt the old lady's heart, but I think it made a few others at the table stop for a moment and start using their brains a little more. And BELIEVE ME, there were FAR more eloquent speakers in our group. For the stingey crowd, there was nothing like watching them have to face a low-income single mom collecting some paltry benefits for her disabled child, telling it like it is from HER point of view. Really shut some of 'em up.

Could this, now, be the beginning of the end of that whole mad jarvis movement, at long last? DAYUM, I HOPE SO!!!!!!

You know what they say: "as California goes, so goes the nation." Hopefully we're on the cutting edge on this issue, too! FINALLY! We really need to throw off the yoke of howard jarvis in this state!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:07 PM

55. At the time Prop 13 passed

I was a New Jersey resident who desperately wanted to move to CA.... NJ is also a high property tax state but with nowhere near the benefits the people of CA enjoyed. The state university system in NJ was and remains abysmal. Princeton gets all of the attention, or did, I've since moved to FL. In any case, I knew then it would be the death of almost free, high quality higher education in CA...I was rather surprised at how long it took before tuition rose to the point that people woke up.

Your state constitution is also the problem. People will always vote for their own most selfish desires....So the electorate said YES to everything and NO to any way of paying for it....At least that's how it appeared to those of us not living in CA.

Tax cuts are the opiate of the American masses, to paraphrase Marx, and Republicans have used them very effectively to advance their agenda. Even now, Democrats seem to have the attitude "their taxes should go up, but not mine" or "their taxes should go up, but don't look to control the cost of any of my benefits"

I'm a soon-to-be 65-year-old retiree, but I know first hand from watching the abuses of medicare by my late domestic partner and his host of doctors, that something must be done. Nelson had 5 doctors, a primary care physician, a pulmonologist, a cardiologist, an endocrinologist and a nephrologist. He had COPD, Type II diabetes, congestive heart failure and the kidney problems brought on by the medications he needed to take for those problems. These 5 sent him for regular blood work and some months he was at the Lab 3 times. After complaining to the nephrologist about all this blood-letting they began sharing the reports and his trips were reduced to once a month, sometimes only once every other month. Think about that multiplied by millions of patients. He could well afford to pay for the shoes that many elderly diabetic patients need, but as long as he was "entitled" to his free pair, he took them. His breathing medications were extremely expensive, but his Medicare Advantage plan and Medicare Part D covered them. He had them shipped directly to our home....No matter how often I begged him to call the provider and cancel the orders for prescriptions no longer being used, he refused to. After he passed away, I filled 5 large shopping bags with unopened boxes and brought them to his pulmonologist's office to be given to people who didn't have Advantage plans and had hit their dough nut hole. The doctor's office was incredibly grateful. He also had an Inogen portable oxygen concentrator for which he paid $5,000 out of his own pocket (I said he could afford his own shoes) At that time they were not covered by Medicare....today they are...I don't know what they charge Medicare, but it should be a "shared" expense as there are others less expensive means of providing oxygen to those who need it. I could on for another 1000 words as to how some people abuse the system. All? Of course not, but enough that it has to be reined in.

I hope CA is once again leading the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:25 AM

21. I generally don't like sales taxes, but California's finances are in such a state that even that...

tax is better than slipping further into Norquist's bathtub.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

23. It expires in seven years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roody (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:16 AM

43. OK!! That's great then

All regressive taxes should have sunset dates on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:16 AM

33. I have no problem paying more sales tax

And as a Californian, I voted for it. And it certainly won't prevent me from buying whatever I want (or need) to buy.

To my mind, Prop 13 needs to be thrown out entirely and never should have passed in the first place. Maybe I'm strange in that I really don't mind paying more taxes, property or otherwise. I think of it as part of living in a society that doesn't operate on a level playing field.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WeekendWarrior (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:28 AM

44. Repeal Prop. 13

and the Republicans will be back in power. I can see repealing the commercial part of it but a repeal on homeowners would disproportionately hit the elderly -- most of whom are on a fixed income. Talk about a PR nightmare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sekhmets Daughter (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:13 AM

18. Quarter of a cent sales tax and it was not easy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demosincebirth (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:56 AM

45. I'm sure it wasn't...

So all those in CA who worked to get it passed and who voted for it deserve a lot of credit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:48 PM

2. We Democrats do need to be careful, however.

We now possess a super-majority in our legislature, which means we can pretty much do what we want.

But the voters can snatch that away from us if we abuse our power.

Plus, since we have all that power, we will be to blame if things don't turn out the way we anticipate.

Let's not get crazy, even though I suspect we'd love to do that.

We have wandered a long time in the wilderness.....now it's the Republicans' turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:50 PM

3. well said CaliforniaPeggy

but we have waited such a long time for this..........
the schools and the needy have especially suffered
lots of work ahead

peace, kp




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:06 AM

17. I hope, sincerely hope, that CA will finally tax oil companies

for the honor of extracting OUR oil from OUR lands and offshore oil pockets. California is in the top three oil states of this country, yet unlike Alaska and Texas, we don't place a tax on oil companies for taking our oil, and that robbed us of about $7 billion revenue a year!

That money could have gone a LONG way to paying down the deficit and funding our community colleges and schools, but instead, Californians are looking at a sales tax increase while, again, corporations are being coddled. This sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:52 PM

4. The democrats must not flinch

Go big

Get the exemption from the Feds and do single payer like Vermont

Close prop 13 to corporations

Lead on the legal marijuana and hemp issue and don't leave it to a crappy voter initiated measure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musiclawyer (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:53 PM

14. Nice start!

Then we can mend the damage caused by 2010's Prop. 26, one where Big Oil was able to dupe the CA voters into picking up the tab for corporate damage to the environment. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/11/california_prop_26_the_morning.php


And we should make Big Oil pay extraction fees, like they do in other states. That should be good for some major cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:00 PM

7. With so many things going on in various states I was not

paying attention to prop 30 and 39.This is really fabulous news! We are moving forward.
I know California Peggy that you are issuing a warning to be careful.... and you are correct....however I believe that will meet the demands of the job with moderation.
You rock California!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:03 PM

8. right on California!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:07 PM

9. Property owners who were not around in 1978 will knee-jerk over action against Prop 13.

California is full of people who are liberal until it actually affects them personally.

NIMBYrals, Libpublicans. We got 'em in spades here.

Prop 13 needs an overhaul if not a total repeal, but it's going to be a hard sell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:16 PM

11. We need to show leadership.

With Democrats firmly in control of all levers of government, it's imperative that we show the country what democratic ideas look like in real time. We can shout progressive values from the rooftops but people do what they see more often than what they hear.

And, may Howard Jarvis and Paul Gann continue to rot in hell !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:44 PM

13. Sunny and hot? Oh, wait, you weren't talking Climate Change. Rethugs don't acknowledge it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:03 AM

16. My grand daughter emailed me this link

 

worried about our family properties, which in the '70s '80s I leveraged my railroad job earnings into buying property between Sacramento and San Fran mostly in Fairfield, Vacaville and Davis. I subsequently sold commercial viable portions and made money which I reinvested in residential, mostly apartments next to the commercial. I am now turning over the reigns to the grand daughter (who I paid for her MBA from UC Berkley, she is smart), which I am advising just sell it all. It aint worth doing business in CA any more. I moved to CO 8 years ago and have been investing here.

I am old and have plenty of money to live out my days fishing and hunting. I hope my grand daughter takes my advice and sells everything in CA and moves to CO!

Pumpkin, I hope you read this post. There are better opportunities here! Love, ya. Pa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:37 AM

24. Jobs and businesses leaving is a myth

http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/04/27/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-not-data/

In fact, when researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California examined a database of essentially all business establishments that employed California workers, they found that business relocation out of California accounted for a negligible share of the state’s job loss between 1992 and 2004. Based on this finding, PPIC researchers concluded that “it is important to be wary of anecdotal evidence of businesses fleeing the state to support arguments that California has an economic climate hostile to business.”


http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_910JKR.pdf

Summary
This research updates with two additional years of data (2005 and 2006) PPIC’s 2007 report Business Location Decisions and Employment Dynamics in California. Relying on the most recent data, this analysis reconfirms that business relocation—the movement of business establishments from one state to another—accounts for a very small share of California’s employment fluctuations. In fact, relocation accounts for a smaller share of job gains and losses in California than in most other states, in part because most California businesses lie far from the border of neighboring states. This report expands on our earlier research with a closer examination of births, deaths, expansions, and contractions of businesses, assessing in particular how much of these gains and losses occur among locally headquartered businesses. Although regional economic development policies often focus on encouraging businesses headquartered elsewhere to relocate, open, or expand local operations, the strong majority of job gains and losses are “homegrown” in that they take place in locally headquartered businesses.


http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1107JKR.pdf

Over the past 15 years, it has been argued that California’s hostile business environment has caused businesses to leave the state, taking valuable jobs with them. Critics of various policies affecting the state’s businesses have pointed to these claims in their arguments for more business-friendly policies and legislation. In the economic downturn that followed the dotcom bust early in this decade, these claims about California’s poor business climate flared again and did so also during the 2003 gubernatorial recall election. After his election, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger aggressively—if symbolically—tried to lure businesses to California through a campaign that included placing billboards in other states touting California as a place to do business. He also showed up at events with a truck whose signage read “Arnold’s Moving Company” that was available to help out-of-state businesses move to California.

Until recently, however, little was known about trends in interstate business relocation, the effect of this relocation on employment change in California, or the usefulness of relocation as an indicator of economic performance. Neumark, Zhang, and Wall (2005) found that, contrary to popular claims, job losses from interstate business relocation are negligible. Although California lost more jobs from relocation out of the state than it gained from relocation of businesses into the state, the average annual job loss equaled only 0.06 percent of employment, or 11,000 jobs out of today’s economy of 18 million. Compared with other sources of job creation and destruction, job relocation is very small: Out-migration accounts for 1.6 percent of overall job destruction, and in-migration accounts for 1 percent of overall job creation. These findings do not resolve the question ofwhether California’s business climate is hostile or favorable, but they do establish that migration is too small to be a reliable basis for claims about the business climate or overall economic performance. The key implication is that any policy responses to concerns about the state’s business climate should emphasize sources of job creation and destruction other than business relocation.

These findings about business relocation provided a clear answer regarding whether California was losing a significant number of jobs
to other states. However, they were also the beginning, not the end, of the story about California’s business location decisions and employment dynamics. Important as these findings were, state-level migration is by itself a blunt and narrow metric: State-level results are averages across all industries and across all regions in California, some of which might be more affected by migration. Thus it is possible that particular industries— notably those in which relocation to another state is more feasible in the first place—are suffering more from relocation. It is also possible that even if relocation on net is negligible, the state is losing high-paying jobs—for example, in manufacturing—because of relocation, and these are being replaced with low-paying jobs. And, finally, relocation—whether interstate or intrastate—may be more important in particular regions of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:45 AM

26. Yeah,

 

studies and data from 2005 to 2009 would support this but we are past that. i've been a long time biz person in CA. no more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:52 AM

27. So were are the studies that show this isn't true anymore

your experience alone is not scientific evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:12 AM

30. Yo Grumpy



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:18 AM

34. That's cool. We passed Prop 39 just for her!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:32 AM

40. Cool story, bro!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:18 PM

49. You are advising her to sell instead of pay YOUR fair share of taxes

that you skated on and made money for several years?

NICE....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #49)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:34 PM

59. Didn't you notice? He's in Colorado :) Of course he wants

to keep more money to spend

Probably LOTS of peeps heading to CO to "hunt" and "fish" over the next couple years....oh, and put in a garden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:17 AM

19. Online registration should be made available in the other 49

One of the reasons Democrats were able to score these wins? The presence of online voter registration, which was enacted by the legislature in time for the 2012 election. More than a million Californians took advantage of this additional convenience...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:17 AM

20. "...a voter rebellion against the fact that property taxes had doubled in a 10-year period...

 

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)

As a result of higher property values."

No, taxes doubled over ten years because of an increase in spending, borrowing against future tax revenues and privatizing everything in sight. If your household income increased by double, would you spend it, or save for retirement and your kid's college?

In my "other" home county in rural VA, they control their spending, don't borrow and have often lowered the tax rate as property values rise. As a result, the taxes on a three bedroom, thirteen year old monster (5x bigger than my apartment) of a house, garage, barn and 153 acres are about as much as my taxes on an efficiency apartment in Washington, DC and, in total, costs less to own (and I don't have a mortgage).

And I'm not buying the excuse that urban infrastructure is more expensive - it's common sense that it should be less expensive to live in such a densely populated area. I've got a couple of thousand other dwellings sharing infrastructure on just the few surrounding blocks, and we pay too much for everything. It was nearly fifteen years ago that the cost of riding the subway system here surpassed my cost of owning a car and driving to work. It's not supposed to be that way.

Spending other peoples money so freely is just as much a problem for (D)s as it is for the (R)s and "rising property values" is about the poorest excuse I've ever heard for increasing taxes.

If the most populous state isn't the poster child for how not to do it, I don't know what is. Fiscal irresponsibility is a political disease.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:30 AM

22. DCKit, good point

 

similar to what my grand daughter asked me. CA has abandoned fiscally responsibility a long time ago, even under Gray Davis. That is why I am recommending to her to sell even though the prop values aint they were 7 years ago, which she likes to use as a basis. Sell, CA is sinking fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldGrumpy InCO (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:41 AM

36. No, your post (#25) inspired me.

 

What the hell are they spending the money on, if not interest payments? Instead of paying the bills, they've been busy borrowing against the future.

The rural VA county to which I referred is Republican/Libertarian, for the most part, and any county executive/supervisor (not totally sure what they're called) who asks for borrowing or an increase in tax rates is likely not going to be in office for long.

Two years ago, two adjoining counties threw out a bunch of (R) oldtimers, and it was shocking, for everyone - the sheriffs, school boards and county councils didn't go blue, but they went to more progressive, deserving (as far as I can tell) folks. Our county sheriff thinks of himself as a drug warrior, with MJ as the most dangerous drug ever (even with meth and crack around), but it was a long hoe to roe hoping for that.

While I detest the divisiveness of Republican politics, for the most part, these folks are genuinely fiscally conservative, and I can appreciate that (see above).

Additionally, I don't think they spend a lot of time talking about my being gay, and I don't try to hide the BF. I've got a lot of good friends out there, and I've only had to remind two of them about the draconian women's health policies that the VA Republicans would put in place - "Don't you want your wife, daughter and granddaughters to have access to women's health services, birth control and regular breast exams?" Still haven't seen the results, but I'm hoping it worked.

I may not have got through to a lot of the people I know out there (not polite to talk politics), but I'll bet and hope a lot of the women voted differently once that voting booth curtain closed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:30 PM

52. Um, no.

You buy a house in CA for $50k in 1960. In 1970 it's worth $150k.

Your property taxes have tripled. The property tax rate stayed the same, the house is worth three times more.

That's what was going on in CA when Prop 13 passed - the property tax rate did not go up, property values skyrocketed. It has absolutely nothing to do with spending. And just like every other state at the time, your property taxes were based on the current value of the house, not the value when you bought it.

Btw, VA does not lower the property tax rate to keep the taxes paid the same. While they cut the rate in 2010, that was very much an anomaly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:47 PM

54. I'm guessing you rent. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #54)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:08 PM

56. Nope. I'm guessing you failed math. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #56)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:51 PM

57. Then live in CA (and I don't think you do) and live with

 

What possible rationalization is there for tracking property values to spending? Pr0perty values are going up, so we have to increase spending?

The Republicans don't do it, why do yours?

Sorry, you've got no argument. Blown out of the water.

No sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #57)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:37 PM

60. Property values and spending don't have anything to do with each other.

Property values are set by the free market. They have a very limited tie to spending - people prefer places where the city can keep the streetlights on and fill the potholes, but it isn't a strong tie.

The property tax rate is set. Property values go up. What, exactly, forces government to cut rates? Why did that only happen in 1978 in CA and never again in CA and never any other location? (Property values generally went up from 1970 to 2000, for example. There was no regular reduction in property tax rates to keep tax receipts constant.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 05:23 PM

58. I'm gonna let someone else explain it to you... I'm not getting throuh. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCKit (Reply #58)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 06:39 PM

61. Replying to the same post repeatedly isn't an argument. It's flailing (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:59 AM

28. And to think the Koch brothers (purveyors of the Tea Party) reside in California

...they wanted nothing more than to make sure Obama was not re-elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexw (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:07 AM

29. They do?

Oh, ICK.

Do you know approximately where?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CaliforniaPeggy (Reply #29)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:12 AM

31. I didn't know that either

Probably near Romney in La Jolla. I'm thankful I'm a native Californian, but we sure attract some unsavory characters. California should really be two states. The two halves are beyond different. Unfortunately I live in SoCal in a very conservative area - but there's some hope with Mary Bono Mack being defeated!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:54 AM

38. Well, I know they live in Northern California (sometimes)...

but according to this video, they have several mansions in the U.S.
http://www.kochbrothersexposed.com/kochmansions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:37 AM

41. MBM got her ass kicked? That's great news, the first I've got yet.

 

She's as big a dick/asshole as Sonny ever was. Ask Cher - now that it's won. Cher never went against her, and I respect that - she left her alone. Good on Cher, not so much on Mary Bono.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lexw (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:45 PM

50. No they don't. One lives in Wichita and the other is in NYC.

They may have vacation homes in CA but they aren't residents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:16 AM

32. The WSJ needs to check their math!!!

The WSJ says: "Nearly a quarter-century ago, during Jerry Brown's first stint in the Governor's Mansion, California voters passed Proposition 13."

That was passed in 1978, which was 34 years ago!!! So how many years are there in a century, WSJ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:35 AM

35. K&R

- And Monsanto, you dodged the bullet. So far. Don't think you're off the hook.......



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeSwiss (Reply #35)


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:22 AM

39. Like the positivity. I vote Califiornia and only the GMO food label did not match my vote.

I said at DU I would never vote for DiFi again but did (the only other choice was some GOP person).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:13 AM

42. I voted for some of the "other" here in DC because I knew my "DU" approved choices...

 

were complete scumbags. You can't ask me to vote for trash when they have a "D or F" on the scorecard.

If y'all are going to ban me, or even block this post, you know how sleazy DC politics are, and I don't deserve that. I live here, and when I leave, I'm leaving a lot of people I care about behind. 23 years in DC, I think I have a good idea of what's going on here, and I know what I'm talking about. If y'all knew DC, The Congress would be changed every two years and the Senate would swing like a pendulum every two years. They're nearly all sleazebags. We're just starting to make some inroads.

Yeah, I could have stayed away from saying it, but Jesse Jr. and his wife were also my friends and neighbors, back in the day. You'd love them both. He doesn't deserve this anymore than anyone in the house. They all do it, he got busted. totally political. I'm HERE, I see it every day. As opposed to some Republican folks I know, they were my best neighbors, and generous with their time.

If we're going to ask for an investigation of Jess Jackson Jr., we need to ask for an investigation of both houses of Congress. Audit their books. JJJr. won't come out the loser. Y'all have been electing thieves and loosers for all of the 23 years I've been in DC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:10 PM

48. Yes on 35, huh? Whatever.

Emotionally peddled smoke-screen garbage that does nothing whatsoever for the real victims. That's why it will not hold up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:52 AM

47. To HELL with constraint....the People have SPOKEN, and DEMAND heavy change!

 

The only thing I don't agree with is that we should "hold back." I believe that we should do as MUCH progressive legislation as we can before the next election. It is imperative, for instance, that we adjust the tax rate as high as possible. Quintupling rates for all those above $250,000 for starters, and creating the first-ever state "wealth tax," or a tax on total assets (after income and other gains taxes), which would guarantee funding without need for republican input.

In addition, we need to ensure that education reform includes creating regulation that severely restricts how private schools can be chartered. We have to ensure that curriculum includes fundamental courses that adhere to standards of truth, as well as societal change. Constitutional classes, for instance, need to be taught not as a historical fact, but with emphasis on how it can be changed as required by an evolution of progressive tenets. This will ensure that students do not become indoctrinated into the mindset that festers greed and capitalist oppression.

Finally, with a 2/3 majority we can create Constitutional amendments to put of for statewide balloting WITHOUT the need for obtaining millions of signatures. In this way, we can more heavily institutionalize our needed progressive reforms that will last, to be blunt, FOREVER. This is key.

Yes, we must go ALL OUT with our supermajority. NO LETUP!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 01:36 PM

53. Interesting how Jerry Brown bookmarks the era.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread