Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT - another reason for California folk to vote
| OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75403] |
Sat, 04 November 2006 23:06  |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
folks- particularly you California folk...
yes, many of the "politicians" are crooks. But they are in a system that
rewards them for being what they are. That's why they're there. The system
works for them. Not necessarily for us.
There's a proposition on the ballot in California, Prop 89, which would change
the system. "Politicians" are most often "telemarketers," using hours each
day to solicit money from folk who then have leverage over their actions.
Prop 89 destroys this connection by allowing folk with only grass roots support
to run a competitive campaign against big-money-backed candidates.
Impossible, you say? Similar systems are working at this moment elsewhere,
successfully. Most incumbents are against the idea, because, as I said, they
got where they are by using the system in place. The last thing they want
is more competition.
Likewise, those funding the current crop of elected officials are pretty
much against the idea, since they'd lose their leverage over said officials.
This makes the whole deal quite an uphill battle. Think of those dollars
flowing into the system...
Websites to check:
http://www.89now.org/
Bombastic but clever metaphorical video of the problem:
http://www.89now.org/media/pounding.php
I now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment.
-steve
PS - another reason to vote is Debra Bowen, for CA Sec. of State. She's been
almost single handedly championing this proposition, as well as trying to
tackle the abominable hackable voting machine problem. She's very sharp.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75404 is a reply to message #75403] |
Sat, 04 November 2006 23:50  |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You make a good point here.
The other side is the problem millions of Californians have with being
taxed to pay for political ads for issues and candidates they would
never support.
This goes against may people's conscience.
The issue of money corrupting politics is totally true, yet, I don't
think this is the answer.
And yes, it is hard to get a campaign in gear without big corporate
supporters, but it certainly has been done. Remember prop 13?
I think the free market is the best solution here, not more taxes.
Just a thought.
DC
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>folks- particularly you California folk...
>
>yes, many of the "politicians" are crooks. But they are in a system that
>rewards them for being what they are. That's why they're there. The system
>works for them. Not necessarily for us.
>
>There's a proposition on the ballot in California, Prop 89, which would
change
>the system. "Politicians" are most often "telemarketers," using hours each
>day to solicit money from folk who then have leverage over their actions.
>Prop 89 destroys this connection by allowing folk with only grass roots
support
>to run a competitive campaign against big-money-backed candidates.
>
>Impossible, you say? Similar systems are working at this moment elsewhere,
>successfully. Most incumbents are against the idea, because, as I said,
they
>got where they are by using the system in place. The last thing they want
>is more competition.
>
>Likewise, those funding the current crop of elected officials are pretty
>much against the idea, since they'd lose their leverage over said officials.
>This makes the whole deal quite an uphill battle. Think of those dollars
>flowing into the system...
>
>Websites to check:
>
>http://www.89now.org/
>
>Bombastic but clever metaphorical video of the problem:
>
>http://www.89now.org/media/pounding.php
>
>I now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment.
>
>-steve
>
>PS - another reason to vote is Debra Bowen, for CA Sec. of State. She's
been
>almost single handedly championing this proposition, as well as trying to
>tackle the abominable hackable voting machine problem. She's very sharp.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75407 is a reply to message #75404] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 00:45 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinhell.com> wrote:
>
>You make a good point here.
>
>The other side is the problem millions of Californians have with being
>taxed to pay for political ads for issues and candidates they would
>never support.
>
>This goes against may people's conscience.
>
>The issue of money corrupting politics is totally true, yet, I don't
>think this is the answer.
>
>And yes, it is hard to get a campaign in gear without big corporate
>supporters, but it certainly has been done. Remember prop 13?
>I think the free market is the best solution here, not more taxes.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>DC
And you have a great point there as well, Don. No one like being taxed for
things they don't want. But you already are, if you think about it.
I see where it was estimated that Arnold's special election cost $300million.
Where did that money come from?
Right now, contributing to candidates is the best investment an industry
can make. Thousands in contributions can and do result in millions in benefits.
Arnold said it best himself when he was running - ''special interests have
a stranglehold. The money comes in, favors go out, the people lose.''
Have you seen what is proposed in prop 89? I seem to recall that it works
out to about $5 or $6 per person.
from the prop 89 website: (in their FAQ)
"Prop 89 does not raise individual taxpayers’ taxes. Funding comes from an
increase in the corporate tax equal to 20 cents for every $100 of profit
(0.2%). This would restore the corporate tax rate to a figure lower than
it was from 1980 to 1996. Individuals and the vast majority of small businesses
will pay nothing."
Folk tend to pay attention to those who writes them their biggest checks.
It's only human. Campaign costs are hugely larger than elected official's
salaries. Wouldn't you rather they work for you than for the folks who subsidize
their campaigns the way things are now?
And here's the clincher. Follow the money. Guess where it comes from now?
You. You're paying it now. You just don't realize it.
You buy services from industries who then take the money and buy influence
with candidates. With your money.
The two most significant changes in states where this system is used are
1) non-rich or non-connected folk have actually entered and won elections,
and
2) the total amount of money in campaigns has actually gone DOWN.
-steve
>"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>>
>>folks- particularly you California folk...
>>
>>yes, many of the "politicians" are crooks. But they are in a system that
>>rewards them for being what they are. That's why they're there. The system
>>works for them. Not necessarily for us.
>>
>>There's a proposition on the ballot in California, Prop 89, which would
>change
>>the system. "Politicians" are most often "telemarketers," using hours each
>>day to solicit money from folk who then have leverage over their actions.
>>Prop 89 destroys this connection by allowing folk with only grass roots
>support
>>to run a competitive campaign against big-money-backed candidates.
>>
>>Impossible, you say? Similar systems are working at this moment elsewhere,
>>successfully. Most incumbents are against the idea, because, as I said,
>they
>>got where they are by using the system in place. The last thing they want
>>is more competition.
>>
>>Likewise, those funding the current crop of elected officials are pretty
>>much against the idea, since they'd lose their leverage over said officials.
>>This makes the whole deal quite an uphill battle. Think of those dollars
>>flowing into the system...
>>
>>Websites to check:
>>
>>http://www.89now.org/
>>
>>Bombastic but clever metaphorical video of the problem:
>>
>>http://www.89now.org/media/pounding.php
>>
>>I now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment.
>>
>>-steve
>>
>>PS - another reason to vote is Debra Bowen, for CA Sec. of State. She's
>been
>>almost single handedly championing this proposition, as well as trying
to
>>tackle the abominable hackable voting machine problem. She's very sharp.
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75410 is a reply to message #75407] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 02:03 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I went to the sec of state site and read their summary of the initiative.
There are parts I like, but some I do not.
It is here:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2006General
Here are a couple of comments:
✔ Contribution Restrictions for State Ballot Measures
• Places new limits on contributions to candidates’
efforts to support or oppose ballot measures.
I am nervous about this. Giving money is one way of expressing my opinion.
It is a form of free speech. I'm not sure we should restrict this.
• Places new limits on contributions from
corporations to support or oppose ballot
measures.
Wait a minute. If your company is targeted for more taxes, as tobacco and
oil companies are in other meaures, is it fair to limit your ability to respond
effectively? Is that not a form of taxation without representation?
Surely we can conceive of bad laws written against even companies we do not
like can't we? Should we muzzle those most affected by legislation?
✔ Higher Corporate Taxes
• Increases tax rate on corporations and financial
institutions. For corporations, tax rate would
increase from 8.84 percent to 9.04 percent. For
financial institutions, tax rate would increase from
10.84 percent to 11.04 percent.
Checked out the number of companies leaving CA recently?
My own brother had to leave San Diego and move to Indiana because of
ill-conceived environmental laws and brutal taxes in his industry. The
entire
industry (furniture manufacture) is extinct in CA.
Now we see him once a year, and the companies are polluting worse than
they were! We need a more welcoming business climate here, not higher
taxes.
And even if my cost is 5 bucks, I do not want to give one nickel without
consent.
There are plenty of problems with the current system, but I am not sold on
this
solution.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75415 is a reply to message #75403] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 03:49 |
John [1]
Messages: 2229
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I love that youthful optimism.
steve the artguy wrote:
> folks- particularly you California folk...
>
> yes, many of the "politicians" are crooks. But they are in a system that
> rewards them for being what they are. That's why they're there. The system
> works for them. Not necessarily for us.
>
> There's a proposition on the ballot in California, Prop 89, which would change
> the system. "Politicians" are most often "telemarketers," using hours each
> day to solicit money from folk who then have leverage over their actions.
> Prop 89 destroys this connection by allowing folk with only grass roots support
> to run a competitive campaign against big-money-backed candidates.
>
> Impossible, you say? Similar systems are working at this moment elsewhere,
> successfully. Most incumbents are against the idea, because, as I said, they
> got where they are by using the system in place. The last thing they want
> is more competition.
>
> Likewise, those funding the current crop of elected officials are pretty
> much against the idea, since they'd lose their leverage over said officials.
> This makes the whole deal quite an uphill battle. Think of those dollars
> flowing into the system...
>
> Websites to check:
>
> http://www.89now.org/
>
> Bombastic but clever metaphorical video of the problem:
>
> http://www.89now.org/media/pounding.php
>
> I now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment.
>
> -steve
>
> PS - another reason to vote is Debra Bowen, for CA Sec. of State. She's been
> almost single handedly championing this proposition, as well as trying to
> tackle the abominable hackable voting machine problem. She's very sharp.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75428 is a reply to message #75410] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 12:32 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Don-
two things.
1) What are corporations composed of? People.
If people choose to voluntarily run under the limits of 89, people are free
to spend up a limit. The thing that makes this legal is that it is completely
VOLUNTARY. Even if 89 passes, you as an individual are under it's rules only
if you choose to be. If you choose to run as everyone does now, nothing stops
you from spending the farm on whatever you want.
And everyone is welcome to make PACs, even as they do now, to finance certain
things of interest.
If corporations are limited, but the people who compose them are able to
spend however they want, I don't see how your free speech is limited. I know
all about the "corporations are people" thing. Nonetheless, people are also
people, and they can do as they wish, even under 89.
Ok. So oil and tobacco companies are attacked by propositions. The peope
in those companies can respond and support whatever they want, like you and
I can. No limit.
As an aside, right now the deck is stacked so badly in favor of corporations
(they are immortal, they have rights of people without many of the responsibilities,
they are legally obligated to do anything necessary to make a buck) that
89 just gives back a little of the leverage to real people that has been
usurped by corporations over the years.
2) The higher taxes, slight though they may be, are of course a concern.
But election costs (mostly media buys) and benefits to corporate donors (currently
over $200 per person in CA) are presently coming from the public, in higher
costs in everything, passed along to the consumer.
What is better? Paying corporations who then buy the government, (in return
for, in some cases, huge benefits) or just paying the officials ourselves?
Thanks for taking the time to consider these things.
-steve
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75429 is a reply to message #75415] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 12:36 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thanks for inferring that I and "youthful" have anything in common.
It is appreciated. Nostalgiac, even.
-steve
John <no@no.com> wrote:
>I love that youthful optimism.
>
>steve the artguy wrote:
>> folks- particularly you California folk...
>>
>> yes, many of the "politicians" are crooks. But they are in a system that
>> rewards them for being what they are. That's why they're there. The system
>> works for them. Not necessarily for us.
>>
>> There's a proposition on the ballot in California, Prop 89, which would
change
>> the system. "Politicians" are most often "telemarketers," using hours
each
>> day to solicit money from folk who then have leverage over their actions.
>> Prop 89 destroys this connection by allowing folk with only grass roots
support
>> to run a competitive campaign against big-money-backed candidates.
>>
>> Impossible, you say? Similar systems are working at this moment elsewhere,
>> successfully. Most incumbents are against the idea, because, as I said,
they
>> got where they are by using the system in place. The last thing they want
>> is more competition.
>>
>> Likewise, those funding the current crop of elected officials are pretty
>> much against the idea, since they'd lose their leverage over said officials.
>> This makes the whole deal quite an uphill battle. Think of those dollars
>> flowing into the system...
>>
>> Websites to check:
>>
>> http://www.89now.org/
>>
>> Bombastic but clever metaphorical video of the problem:
>>
>> http://www.89now.org/media/pounding.php
>>
>> I now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment.
>>
>> -steve
>>
>> PS - another reason to vote is Debra Bowen, for CA Sec. of State. She's
been
>> almost single handedly championing this proposition, as well as trying
to
>> tackle the abominable hackable voting machine problem. She's very sharp.
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75437 is a reply to message #75428] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 16:07 |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>1) What are corporations composed of? People.
>
>If people choose to voluntarily run under the limits of 89, people are free
>to spend up a limit. The thing that makes this legal is that it is completely
>VOLUNTARY. Even if 89 passes, you as an individual are under it's rules
only
>if you choose to be. If you choose to run as everyone does now, nothing
stops
>you from spending the farm on whatever you want.
We should also be concerned about the huge advantage millionaires have in
running for office. Almost no one else can run anymore.
scary..
>If corporations are limited, but the people who compose them are able to
>spend however they want, I don't see how your free speech is limited. I
know
>all about the "corporations are people" thing. Nonetheless, people are also
>people, and they can do as they wish, even under 89.
Yes, but it is not the individuals that are under attack by some of these
initiatives, it is the company, at least directly. The company ought to
be able to respond without having to overcome a legislated disadavantage.
Yes, there are downsides to this. Even conservatives who really do believe
in right and wrong most of the time, had a huge slap in the face with Randy
Cunningham didn't they? Money buys power. You have a real point in what
you say. I am just not sure this prop will fix the problem.
DC
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75439 is a reply to message #75437] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 17:55 |
steve the artguy
Messages: 308
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DC" <dc@spammersinsacremento.com> wrote:
>
>"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>
>>1) What are corporations composed of? People.
>>
>>If people choose to voluntarily run under the limits of 89, people are
free
>>to spend up a limit. The thing that makes this legal is that it is completely
>>VOLUNTARY. Even if 89 passes, you as an individual are under it's rules
>only
>>if you choose to be. If you choose to run as everyone does now, nothing
>stops
>>you from spending the farm on whatever you want.
>
>We should also be concerned about the huge advantage millionaires have in
>running for office. Almost no one else can run anymore.
>
>scary..
>
you need to research 89 just a little bit more. The whole concept is to make
it possible for folks -- like us, perhaps -- to run competitively against
millionaires. Really.
You get an amount of money. If your opponent outspends you, you get a matching
amount until your amount is doubled. If he outspends you again, you get another
matching amount. This goes on for several rounds, depending on what office
you're running for.
It's not enough to match a millionaire, necessarily. But it is enough to
make a competitive race in something like 98% of races, historically.
The beauty of this system is that it prevents millionaires or others from
thinking they can walk off with the race by burying you in money. The historic
effect where it has been put in place has been to actually decrease the amount
of money spent, and increase the amount of actual debating and talking issues.
>>If corporations are limited, but the people who compose them are able
to
>>spend however they want, I don't see how your free speech is limited. I
>know
>>all about the "corporations are people" thing. Nonetheless, people are
also
>>people, and they can do as they wish, even under 89.
>
>Yes, but it is not the individuals that are under attack by some of these
>initiatives, it is the company, at least directly. The company ought to
>be able to respond without having to overcome a legislated disadavantage.
I still don't get it. The corporation is not a "real" entity. It doesn't
suffer pain or embarassment, or hunger or pride. It cannot be "attacked"
as if it were a city state. It is a legal construct. The parts of it which
CAN be attacked are the HUMANS, and they can respond as any other humans
do.
Why should a corporation be able to do anything other than what it's constituent
people can do? I don't get it. I think this whole concept of corporations
being "things" other than legal constructs is key to many of our problems.
Suppose you made a great big mask. Suppose you said that this mask was what
you were going to use to do business. People would see this mask and know
they were going to get good products or service. People would give money
to the mask, but of course the money would go to you, and you would take
that money and pay yourself and pay for your goods and services.
If you spend money promoting something in the name of the mask, the mask
it not doing it. You are! the mask does nothing on its own. It is a symbol.
An idea. Nothing more.
Suppose someone attacked the reputation of your mask. Would the mask need
powers to defend itself? Of course not! It's just a mask! It can do nothing
without people. The idea of a corporation needing some way to "defend itself"
sounds ludicrous to me.
Proposition 89 empowers people, at the expense of corporations. I see that
as only a small redress of the huge imbalance that exists now.
>
>Yes, there are downsides to this. Even conservatives who really do believe
>in right and wrong most of the time, had a huge slap in the face with Randy
>Cunningham didn't they? Money buys power. You have a real point in what
>you say. I am just not sure this prop will fix the problem.
>
>DC
>
I do know that what we have right now is NOT working, and waiting for something
perfect to come along is not going to produce any postitive change in our
lifetimes.
And, again, thanks for engaging in this discussion.
-steve
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT - another reason for California folk to vote [message #75444 is a reply to message #75439] |
Sun, 05 November 2006 20:09 |
dc[3]
Messages: 895
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"steve the artguy" <artguy@somethingorother.net> wrote:
>I still don't get it. The corporation is not a "real" entity. It doesn't
>suffer pain or embarassment, or hunger or pride. It cannot be "attacked"
>as if it were a city state. It is a legal construct. The parts of it which
>CAN be attacked are the HUMANS, and they can respond as any other humans
>do.
This is where I really disagree. It most certainly is real in every way
that
matters, It issues real checks, it pays real taxes, it has a real repuation
that,
once damaged is terribly hard to repair, and it most certainly can be attacked.
It has interests that both include and go beyond the individual interests
of
employees and stockholders, and should be able to defend those interests
so it
can continue to employee people, produce products, and pay taxes.
When a corporation is attacked by ill-concievd activist initiatives, it has
great power to respond, and it has greater liabilities as well (more to lose)
than the interests of its individual employees.
Now, when a corporation is attacked by enlightened and wise inititatives,
it
also has more power to respond than an individual, for the same reasons,
so
may abuse the system to lie.
But, I believe that liars get caught, most of the time, and eventually.
In the
case of corporations, the consequences of getting caught are very large indeed,
and can close the company when a public opinion backlash happens.
I would prefer to keep companies able to respond to initiatives as they see
fit,
and believe the press and the supporters of intiatives will catch them when
they lie, and the public will respond appropriately.
>Proposition 89 empowers people, at the expense of corporations. I see that
>as only a small redress of the huge imbalance that exists now.
It prevents not one single instance of the corruption of politicians, nor
does
it prevent corporations from lying about initiatives. What it does do is
prevent
corporations from defending their interests to the full extent.
Right now, IMO there are two very ill-conceived intiatives on the ballot
attacking specific industries.
Prop 86 adds 13 cents to the current 2.60 per pack cigarette tax to prop
up the
terribly neglected hospital ER system as well as for nurse education, and
some health insurance. Now most smokers don't end up in ER for smoking;
they just walk in and die in the regular wards, so I don't see the connection.
If we are going to play "let's get the bastards" with a truly scummy industry
like tobacco, with punitive legislation, not related to their product, a
product
that is legal and everyone knows the results of using, then where does it
stop? What's next? I like big, evil, steaming burritos from Alberto's
(here in
SoCal). I'm sure they are very bad for me. Hey why not hammer the
death-burrito industry to pay for school textbooks? It's for the kids!
ER's should be funded by those who use them (that means Mexico contributes)
and/or the state in order to have a humane system. Not by arbitrary taxes
on
companies we do not like.
Then we have prop 87.
It is a spectacularly bad piece of work... It will:
-------------
Establish a $4 billion program with goal to reduce petroleum consumption
by
25%, with research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative
energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and for education and training.
------------
One problem. It completely neglects the acquisition of new oil sources in
the short term! This is the most important geopolitical issue of our time.
As we speak, 6 more middle eastern countries are signing on to develop
nukes... And there is one source for the money/power to do so.
Oil.
In fact, this stupid initiative actually makes it *harder* to develop our
own
resources. see below
----------
Funded by tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers
of oil extracted in California.
---------
Oh, and who would prefer to tax only our OWN oil? Could it be maybe satan?
It could be the selfish yuppie slime who will do anything to prevent
oil derricks from appearing on their million-dollar views too, huh?
The failure to develop first, our own oil resources, and then alternatives,
could
actually spell the end of the west. It's that serious. A major project
should
have been started at the federal level, 20 years ago, and instead we get
garbage
like prop 87. Oh, and it pays for "education" too. To remind us to be green!
To remind us to conserve! Bullsh*t. We need real exploration, we need
new refineries, we need a hydrogen program started, and instead we get
feel-good crap that will make the situation worse.
In the case of both these initiatives, the interests of Chevron, and yes
(gulp)
big tobacco, coincide with those of the public. They have both told the
truth
in their ads against these intiatives.
I say, let corporations represent themselves in the free market and let activists
and the press make their case without interference and restrictions.
And yes. Everyone vote please!
DC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Feb 12 04:45:21 PST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01817 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
