• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Will You Vote on Nov. Ballot initiatives?

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ingenious, require a 2/3 vote approval from the voters to raise taxes, but leave them the ability to vote themselves more services at 50.1%.

And that is why I'm voting NO on Prop 25.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,983
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And that is why I'm voting NO on Prop 25.

I'm not too familiar with California's ballot measures, but couldn't you also get a ballot measure to provide free puppies to all elementary school classes? Forcing the state to pay for something they don't have the ability to fund with taxes.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not too familiar with California's ballot measures, but couldn't you also get a ballot measure to provide free puppies to all elementary school classes? Forcing the state to pay for something they don't have the ability to fund with taxes.

You mean like Medicare and Social Security and HR 3962?

I've already given a link to a generic outline of the ballot measures. Prop 25 requires a simple majority to pass the budget. This is not acceptable, and it does not have anything to do with what you're saying. Voting NO on 25 is a great way to reduce spending, not to enhance it.

Why does it seem like you think tax hikes are the only option in this debate? What about spending cuts?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,983
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You mean like Medicare and Social Security and HR 3962?

I've already given a link to a generic outline of the ballot measures. Prop 25 requires a simple majority to pass the budget. This is not acceptable, and it does not have anything to do with what you're saying. Voting NO on 25 is a great way to reduce spending, not to enhance it.

Why does it seem like you think tax hikes are the only option in this debate? What about spending cuts?

Prop 26 would require any tax increaste to get a 2/3 majority vote from the voters. Meanwhile, new services could be voted in by proposition with a 50.1% majority. People are dumb. They'll say "Hey, a proposition to build some new parks? Sounds good!" And then they'll say "Hey, a proposition to increase garbage pickup frequency. Sounds good!" Repeat for a few years.

And finally "What? The state legislature wants to increase my property taxes? **** that!"
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ingenious, require a 2/3 vote approval from the voters to raise taxes, but leave them the ability to vote themselves more services at 50.1%.



That's Right because Services mean Salaries - Salaries Mean Pensions and less and less of those doing the Voting Have Jobs. On top of that Those in office have Prostituted themselves to Special Interests (which is not new) and also to the Lowest Common denominator of Ethnic Emotionalism (which is somewhat new) and WHY Brown & Boxer are likely to Win.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,983
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's Right because Services mean Salaries - Salaries Mean Pensions and less and less of those doing the Voting Have Jobs. On top of that Those in office have Prostituted themselves to Special Interests (which is not new) and also to the Lowest Common denominator of Ethnic Emotionalism (which is somewhat new) and WHY Brown & Boxer are likely to Win.

I think you're missing the point. Making it easy to vote for new spending and making it hard to vote for taxes to cover that spending is just going to make California's fiscal issues worse.
 

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think you're missing the point. Making it easy to vote for new spending and making it hard to vote for taxes to cover that spending is just going to make California's fiscal issues worse.



Let me clarify things even though it won't cover Legislative irresponsibility. I'm against continuing the initiative process. The clear long view is that it's Counterproductive AND the Courts frequently overturn some measures anyway. It also takes a few Legislaters off the hook on issues.

I know the Remembrence of Howard Jarvis and Prop 13 has Mystical proportions with some but the deluge of measures has overwhelmed everyhting . Arnold will quietly agree.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
How I intend to vote on the upcoming California Ballot Initiatives:
Prop 19: YES
Prop 20: YES
Prop 21: NO
Prop 22: YES
Prop 23: NO
Prop 24: YES
Prop 25: NO
Prop 26: YES
Prop 27: NO
For more info on the measures, click here: California state elections, November 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prop 24 effectively raises taxes, why are you voting yes on it? Also, how can you vote for prop 23? You really want to start limiting greenhouse gas emissions when unemployment is at about 10%? Does that really seem like a good idea?
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I think you're missing the point. Making it easy to vote for new spending and making it hard to vote for taxes to cover that spending is just going to make California's fiscal issues worse.

A paygo system would probably fix that. But easy budget solutions? That'll never happen.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,983
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A paygo system would probably fix that. But easy budget solutions? That'll never happen.

Depending on how the votes roll out, California might end up with the opposite of paygo. >.<

And legalized marijuana. :O
 

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gratz.

So you voted for democrat right? :2razz:

Actually I voted constitution party for senate that was the only place they had a candidate. Other wise I voted the lesser of 2 evils and voted GOP
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Prop 26 would require any tax increaste to get a 2/3 majority vote from the voters. Meanwhile, new services could be voted in by proposition with a 50.1% majority. People are dumb. They'll say "Hey, a proposition to build some new parks? Sounds good!" And then they'll say "Hey, a proposition to increase garbage pickup frequency. Sounds good!" Repeat for a few years.

And finally "What? The state legislature wants to increase my property taxes? **** that!"

I look at that as more of a problem with the ballot system than with the 2/3 majority to increase taxes. What you have just described as been the greatest flaw with the system.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Prop 24 effectively raises taxes, why are you voting yes on it? Also, how can you vote for prop 23? You really want to start limiting greenhouse gas emissions when unemployment is at about 10%? Does that really seem like a good idea?

I will vote YES on Prop 24 because of the way the law the written. I don't believe in special privileges for businesses or corporations, while taxing the individual through the roof. I believe in a flat tax, but that's not on the ballot.

I will vote NO on 23 because I believe protecting the environment is one of the government's essential duties, and the GWS Act falls into that category.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
How I intend to vote on the upcoming California Ballot Initiatives:
Prop 19: YES
Prop 20: YES
Prop 21: NO
Prop 22: YES
Prop 23: NO
Prop 24: YES
Prop 25: NO
Prop 26: YES
Prop 27: NO

19 is a no-brainer. Obama has made a mistake in opposing it and insisting that the feds will come and bust growers.

20 - undecided.

21, yes.

22, no.

23, hell no. HELL NO. dumbshids.

24, of course.

25, of course. shudda been done long ago.

26, obviously not. this is how we got stuck with prop 13 which is the cause of much of the misery in this state.

27, see 20.

state redistricting is still a matter of considerable contention because the commissioners are not wholly impartial. that is not intended as a disparagement, no one that is not involved in politics should be (or would want to be) involved in setting voting districts, but no one who IS involved in politics is likely to be impartial.

geo.
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Prop 23 must pass or the Sate will die and that is no joke and no exaggeration, the costs that will come along with the one million jobs that will be lost make this State a waste land. The Clean Air Commission put this absolutely crazy BS into effect knowing it was based on a mistake in math and CO2 will not be effected one one millionth of 1% if prop 23 fails and the draconian AB-32 stays in effect.

VOTE YES ON 23 & HELL NO ON PROP 25 AND SAVE OUR STATE!

Prop 19: YES
Prop 20: YES
Prop 21: NO
Prop 22: YES
Prop 23: HELL YES if not passed we lose a million jobs, gas goes to over$9 a gal. electric bill 20 to 30%, $4,500 a year to drive to work on the freeways. This is a no brainer and must pass.
Prop 24: HELL NO Businesses are leaving the State now we don't need to push them out faster.
Prop 25: Hell NO this would give the wackos who spend the State into Bankruptcy a blank check to spend us to death.
Prop 26: HELL YES WE THE PEOPLE EVERY TIME
Prop 27: HELL NO Gerrymandering be damned.
 

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I will vote YES on Prop 24 because of the way the law the written. I don't believe in special privileges for businesses or corporations, while taxing the individual through the roof. I believe in a flat tax, but that's not on the ballot.

I will vote NO on 23 because I believe protecting the environment is one of the government's essential duties, and the GWS Act falls into that category.

You think that stricter environmental regulations even when we'd be the only state doing it is a good idea when our economy is already one of the worst in the nation in terms of unemployment?

And how can we raise taxes on business when taxes are already so high here?
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You think that stricter environmental regulations even when we'd be the only state doing it is a good idea when our economy is already one of the worst in the nation in terms of unemployment?

First of all, being the only state to do it is absolutely irrelevant (unless you're willing to vote no on 19 because we'd be the only state to legalize marijuana). Second of all, prop 23 isn't about stricter regulation but about current regulation. And yes, this is where I often diverge from common libertarian idealism. I believe that the government does have a role in protecting the environment, and this is one effective way to do it. If it was absolutely ineffective, I'd say ok I'll vote yes. But as it stands, we have greatly reduced the amount of CO2 since the passage of the GWS Act. In terms of unemployment, there are many other things we could cut or deregulate in order to spur employment.

And how can we raise taxes on business when taxes are already so high here?

I don't necessarily believe in higher taxes, but I do believe in a fair tax system. And again, as the law is currently written, the working man will be paying the majority of taxes.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
You think that stricter environmental regulations even when we'd be the only state doing it is a good idea when our economy is already one of the worst in the nation in terms of unemployment?

And how can we raise taxes on business when taxes are already so high here?

well... aside from the fact that only unabashed greed heads determine the best policy based solely on how well it pads any individual bank account, that emphasis on cleaning up the mess we have made over the last hundred years has been more successful in ca than anywhere else in the country, with a faster employment growth than any other sector in the last decade while reducing reducing illness and deaths and reducing health costs (gotta remember the greed heads) as well as simply making the place a nicer place to live and visit, bringing in all those tourist dollars (gotta remember the greed heads), environmental concern and the means and methods for restoring it (preserving it is already a past failure) will be the leading manufacturing and employment sector in the coming years, producing exportable technology and material. how do i know this?

because it already is true in china, a nation that is currently eating our lunch, economically.

and no one is proposing RAISING taxes on bidness, only ENDING the free ride they have enjoyed recently, depriving state coffers of much needed revenue.

geo.
 
Last edited:

phattonez

Catholic
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
30,870
Reaction score
4,244
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
First of all, being the only state to do it is absolutely irrelevant (unless you're willing to vote no on 19 because we'd be the only state to legalize marijuana).

But this is not so. AB32 is only about greenhouse gas emissions. If we do something about it but no other state does anything then it is basically no difference. If you were talking about local emissions that would be one thing, but California alone limiting greenhouse gas emissions has a relative effect on the atmosphere close to 0.

Second of all, prop 23 isn't about stricter regulation but about current regulation. And yes, this is where I often diverge from common libertarian idealism. I believe that the government does have a role in protecting the environment, and this is one effective way to do it. If it was absolutely ineffective, I'd say ok I'll vote yes. But as it stands, we have greatly reduced the amount of CO2 since the passage of the GWS Act. In terms of unemployment, there are many other things we could cut or deregulate in order to spur employment.

Speaking libertarian to libertarian, the only reason that we need government to take care of the environment right now is because the courts do not give property owners enough of a chance to force the negative externality on the company that creates it. Think of airports. Where is your money from the noise that they make? When did you contract with them to allow them to make that noise?

I don't necessarily believe in higher taxes, but I do believe in a fair tax system. And again, as the law is currently written, the working man will be paying the majority of taxes.

That's how it goes with all taxes. In a state with nearly 10% unemployment, you have to vote for pretty much every tax cut that you can find.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
44,212
Reaction score
24,368
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Georgia_2010_ballot_measures

Lets see, I have ...

Allow the enforcement of contracts that restrict competition during or after the term of employment

I will vote no.

Impose $10 fee on car registration; funds directed to trauma care centers

I will vote yes.

Authorizes state multiyear contracts for long-term transportation projects

I will vote yes.

Authorizes state multiyear contracts for energy efficiency and conservation projects

I will vote yes.

Allows owners of industrial-zoned property to remove the industrial designation

I will vote yes.

Provides for inventory of businesses to be exempt from state property tax

I believe this is WIP & finished inventory, but I am not sure. If so, than yes, if not I will vote no. Still looking into it.
 
Top Bottom