Lucky... 0 #26 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Forced Loan? Is this the "politically correct" term for theft? Welcome to "change." Why are you implying this has anything to do with Obama? That's just silly. Because its the same policies that got california into the situation they are now that the federal government, under obama, is currently implimenting. Its pretty clear. Why omit R. Reagan and George W. Bush, the great architects of Voodoo Economics? Because O-bow-ma is doing it bigger and better than they did - taking money from the rich and giving it out to the poor. Go ahead and list all of the tax increases Obama has done. Also, list all the rich orgs Obama has given money to. - The banks - The auto makers List all the poor people Obama has given monmey to. Right, your assertions are just silly-wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Dude, if you only knew the half of the creative thinking coming out of Sacramento... You're right, tax cuts, my friends. Raising taxes is bad, look at Hoover, cutting taxes worked for him. By any measure, taxation in CA is high. 9.4% marginal rate for virtually all earners, plus ~9% sales tax on non food items. For a significant portion, the state taxes may exceed their federal, even when including FICA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Forced Loan? Is this the "politically correct" term for theft? Welcome to "change." Why are you implying this has anything to do with Obama? That's just silly. Really?! Isn't He THE ONE IN CHARGE? Shouldn't he be LEADING BY EXAMPLE? THE BUCK STOPS WHERE??? When he begins on a platform of "Change"... and there is none. Promises "transparency" but then tries to push through legislation without an allowance of time for it to be read.... HE'S THE PRESIDENT. He should act like it. But... it's an administration of "change" Now you're really being silly. The Republican governor of California does something, and Obama is to blame because he doesn't set a good example; therefore someone who doesn't behave properly must have been influenced by Obama not setting a good example? Any twit can see you're just hatin' on Obama for the sake of hatin' on him. But more to the point: It's an argument unworthy of your intellect, education or proven ability to articulate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #29 November 17, 2009 QuoteNow you're really being silly. The Republican governor of California does something, and Obama is to blame because he doesn't set a good example; therefore someone who doesn't behave properly must have been influenced by Obama not setting a good example? Any twit can see you're just hatin' on Obama for the sake of hatin' on him. But more to the point: It's an argument unworthy of your intellect, education or proven ability to articulate. I just made a simple comment about the "change" that we see in politics. THEN came the demeaning and insulting comments from a mod about being silly. I further defended my statement that the President SHOULD set a good example.... is that silly? I remember others venting on here about other prior Presidents not being Presidential... and gee.... you agreed with them. (I did a quick search of your posts revealing 315 with "Bush" one here and here... but I didn't find a SINGLE ONE where I called you silly or stated that your opinion was "unworthy of " blah blah blah) But since I don't agree with your opinion of the current administration... then I'm silly and just "hatin" From some of the interactions that I have witnessed on this forum, I'm glad that I haven't had to work with many here on a personal basis. There's a basic respect for others that seem to be missing. I might not agree with others. But I understand that they are entitled to their opinion. EVEN IF IT IS DIFFERENT. My opinion IS and HAS been for several YEARS that politics are corrupt. It hasn't changed with this "new" change of Presidents. If you believe in this hope and change.... WONDERFUL for you. But my opinion is different. California is wrong with doing this. President Obama is not leading in a way that I would want a President to lead. You can have a different opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #30 November 17, 2009 QuoteCalifornia is wrong with doing this. I agree. QuotePresident Obama is not leading in a way that I would want a President to lead. Non sequitur. See above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #31 November 17, 2009 Nice that you totally disregard all the rest of that post. Nice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 November 17, 2009 QuoteNice that you totally disregard all the rest of that post. Nice. I was reiterating my original rebuttal: that you were using non-sequitur to take a cheap shot at Obama. You get much too pissed off in here. But, that's your prerogative. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #33 November 17, 2009 QuoteI was reiterating my original rebuttal: that you were using non-sequitur to take a cheap shot at Obama. You get much too pissed off in here. But, that's your prerogative. Maybe because I'm annoyed with the hypocrisy of those that would insult me despite being guilty of the same sins (refer to links in the above post). I guess that I should have been more vocal with my arrogant insults when you voiced displeasure over the leadership of President Bush. Admit it. You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President Obama, aincha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #34 November 17, 2009 this is precisely why I don't let the taxing authority calculate how much they take out. I know how to read the form W4. Take the amount of deductions that will make them not take any $$ out, and then add back in (with the "additional amount") how much should be taken out.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #35 November 17, 2009 > You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President >Obama, aincha. I'm just puzzled that you'd blame California's actions on him. Why not blame them on, say, the governor of California? Is it because you like his political party and dislike Obama's? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #36 November 17, 2009 Quote Go ahead and list all of the tax increases Obama has done. You are right, he hasn't hiked taxes yet. He will let Bush's tax breaks expire though and when the 'Cap and Tax' bill and Health care passes, well, we will all either be on welfare, or be giving our whole check to the system."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #37 November 17, 2009 Quote> You're just mad because I don't seem to gush with praise for President >Obama, aincha. I'm just puzzled that you'd blame California's actions on him. Why not blame them on, say, the governor of California? Is it because you like his political party and dislike Obama's? Obama didn't ruin California, but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that the state is found on? The State needs to cut pet projects, plain and simple. Dig deep into the spending and you will see where it all went wrong. My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm. What commuter would use that? How fuel efficient are boats again? Well thought out project. Last I heard someone grew a brain and killed it, finally."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #38 November 17, 2009 QuoteObama didn't ruin California, but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that the state is found on? Oh, give it a rest. You'll pull a muscle with all that stretching. Republican Arnold Schwartzenegger has been governor of California since November 17, 2003. Democrat Gray Davis was governor for 4 years prior to that. Before Davis, Republican Pete Wilson was governor for 8 years. Before Wilson, Republican George Deukmejian was governor for 8 years. Before him was Democrat Jerry Brown for 8 years. Before Brown was Republican Ronald Reagan (heard of him?) for 8 years. So for 30 of the past 42 years, or 71% of the time - including the past 6 years - Republicans have sat in the governor's chair. Not Pelosi. Not Obama. Republicans. Find another bottom of the barrel to scrape, 'cause that old dog just won't hunt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #39 November 17, 2009 I think it's the "spend it now and figure out how to pay for it later" mentality that people are attributing to Obama. In that respect, he's no different than most of Congress and state legislatures on both sides of the aisle. Gotta love the way that works: Business is booming? Spend more money! Middle of a recession? Spend more money! It's hard to believe that no one ever thought to save any of it when times were good. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #40 November 17, 2009 >but have we forgotten the type of Politics, namely Polosi's Politics, that >the state is found on? It is indeed based on Pelosi's politics - and Arnold's politics. Also Gray Davis's and Pete Wilson's. Of course, if you want to decide who actually _founded_ modern politics in California, you'd be hard pressed to find a more influential governor than Ronald Reagan >My Favorite is the millions spent on the hydrofoil that runs between San >Diego and San Francisco designed to cut down on the traffic on I-5. In an >effort to save money on the project it only runs at 10 am and 2 pm. I have never heard of this! Heck, I'd use it if it ran. Where did you hear about this? If that cost only a few million, and is really in operation, I'd consider that a good use of money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #41 November 17, 2009 >Business is booming? Spend more money! >Middle of a recession? Spend more money! Agreed. Although to be fair this is primarily our (voter's) fault. When times are good everyone wants their pet project funded - a border fence, more care for veterans, a war in Iraq, a hydrofoil, whatever. When times are bad people scream "DO SOMETHING!" since both sides have portrayed the economy as amenable to government repair. And of course when the government "does something" that equals money spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #42 November 17, 2009 They could make some good money in a Create-the-best-euphemism contest. Forced loan - too controlling sounding. A good euphemism should make the imposed upon feel privileged. How about Key Contributor Stimulation Opportunity?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #43 November 17, 2009 Quote Classy. I did not say it's a term I use. I don't.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #44 November 17, 2009 Quote Republican Arnold Schwartzenegger has been governor of California since November 17, 2003. Democrat Gray Davis was governor for 4 years prior to that. Before Davis, Republican Pete Wilson was governor for 8 years. Before Wilson, Republican George Deukmejian was governor for 8 years. Before him was Democrat Jerry Brown for 8 years. Before Brown was Republican Ronald Reagan (heard of him?) for 8 years. So for 30 of the past 42 years, or 71% of the time - including the past 6 years - Republicans have sat in the governor's chair. Not Pelosi. Not Obama. Republicans. But the legislature has been firmly Democrat for as long as I can remember. The caveat is that with the supermajorities required, the minority can block most action. I agree with Bill that Reagan was far more influential than the governors that followed. They don't have the power to easily move things forward, though Davis showed you could move backwards. Arnold has tried to get the curb on spending growth in with no success, though it's fair to criticize him for including other initiatives with it at the same time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #45 November 18, 2009 QuoteStarting Sunday, cash-strapped California will dig deeper into the pocketbooks of wage earners -- holding back 10% more than it already does in state income taxes... What The Fu- oh wait, I read that wrong... They're not talking about going from 6-9% up to 16-19%, but rather 6-9% up to 6.6-9.9% respectively. I don't really care that much about half a point... I usually owe California a few bucks at the end of the year anyway. It's less scary from a, "I can't believe they have the power to go and do that," standpoint and more scary from a, "I can't believe that's their plan," standpoint. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kj126 0 #46 November 18, 2009 This whole thing can translate over from another joke. You know what ATC and a pilot have in common: If ATC screws up,pilot dies. If pilot screws up, pilot dies. Now its if the government screws up you pay and if you screw up you pay. What business can withold its employees pay just to pay there own damn bills, except the government.I Am Sofa King We Todd Did!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #47 November 18, 2009 Quote They're not talking about going from 6-9% up to 16-19%, but rather 6-9% up to 6.6-9.9% respectively. I don't really care that much about half a point... I usually owe California a few bucks at the end of the year anyway. Maybe fine to you, but giving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento is not cool to me. It also does nothing to solve the problem - just puts off the bill till the next year. And let's not forget the IOUs given last year - interest free loans don't work well for us if they won't pay. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #48 November 18, 2009 Quotegiving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento is not cool to me. Should be interesting to see if anybody files a class-action lawsuit against the state to force the state to pay that interest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CygnusX-1 43 #49 November 18, 2009 Quote but giving an interest free $1000 loan to Sacramento So given a worst case situation of this being a 0.9% increase which equals $1000. Hmm that would mean you pay a state income tax of $111,111 per year? Boy, I wish I had your problems.(In case it's not clear - How much do you make to have to pay $100,000 in taxes per year?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #50 November 18, 2009 QuoteThis whole thing can translate over from another joke. You know what ATC and a pilot have in common: If ATC screws up,pilot dies. If pilot screws up, pilot dies. Now its if the government screws up you pay and if you screw up you pay. What business can withold its employees pay just to pay there own damn bills, except the government. The govt. is not a business, it is us.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
