# Arnie predicted as winner in Calif.



## pknox (Oct 7, 2003)

It appears the recall has passed in California, and Arnold Schwarzenegger has been projected to be the new governor.  I know that there are still absentee ballots out there to count over the next few days, but evidently Arnie has enough of a lead for the networks to call it.

How's it sound out there in Cali?  Is it going over well on the news?


Here's the full AP Release:
*
Californians banished Gov. Gray Davis just 11 months into his second term and elected action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger to replace him Tuesday - a Hollywood ending to one of the most extraordinary political melodramas in the nation's history.

Voters traded a career Democratic politician who became one of the state's most despised chief executives for a moderate Republican megastar who had never before run for office. Davis became the first California governor pried from office and only the second nationwide to be recalled.

Schwarzenegger prevailed despite a flurry of negative publicity in the campaign's final days, surviving allegations that he had groped women and accusations that as a young man he expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler.

The 56-year-old Austrian immigrant - husband of television journalist Maria Shriver - finds himself in charge of the nation's most populated state with an economy surpassed only by those of several countries.

Schwarzenegger promised to return the shine to a Golden State beset by massive budget problems and riven by deep political divisions.

Voters faced two questions - whether to recall Davis, and who among the other candidates should replace him if he was removed. They chose to get rid of the incumbent and put Schwarzenegger in his place.

About seven in 10 voters interviewed in exit polls said they had made up their minds how they would vote on the recall question more than a month before the election.

Long lines were reported at polling places through the day. By late afternoon, Terri Carbaugh, a spokeswoman for the Secretary of State, said a turnout of 60 percent appeared likely, higher than the 50.7 percent who voted in last November's gubernatorial election. It would be the highest percentage to vote in a gubernatorial election since 1982.

Re-elected last year with less than 50 percent of the vote, Davis fell victim to a groundswell of discontent in a state that has struggled with its perilous financial condition.

As colorless as his name, Davis was also known as a canny politician with sharp elbows. Once chief of staff to Gov. Jerry Brown, he rose through the political ranks as a state assemblyman, controller and lieutenant governor, before becoming governor in 1999.

By contrast, Schwarzenegger's political inexperience seemed a virtue to many voters.

The actor's improbable rise to political power played out before a rapt international audience. He announced his candidacy in August on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" after aides said it was certain he wouldn't run.

Other major candidates seeking to replace Davis were the Democratic lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, conservative Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock and Green Party candidate Peter Camejo.

The campaign included a parade of bit players among the 135 candidates, including Hustler publisher Larry Flynt, former child actor Gary Coleman, a publicity-hungry porn actress who wanted to tax breast implants and an artist who dressed in all blue and described his candidacy as the ultimate piece of performance art.

The cast of characters and outsized ballot gave the campaign a carnival-like atmosphere and provided late-night comics with a stream of material.

But to many Californians, it was serious business.

"I'm horrified at the thought that Schwarzenegger can be our governor," said Gretchen Purser, 25, of Berkeley, who voted against recall. "I'm sick of Republicans trying to take over the state."

Ed Troupe, 69, of Thousand Oaks, voted yes for recall and for Schwarzenegger. "As far as I'm concerned," he said, "Gray Davis is one of the dirtiest politicians I've ever encountered."

Though Schwarzenegger held a commanding lead over his rivals going into the final week, his campaign was shaken by allegations published in the Los Angeles Times just days before the election from six women who said he groped them or made unwanted sexual advances. Allegations continued to surface over the weekend, and by election day a total of 16 women had come forward.

Schwarzenegger also was confronted with reports that he had praised Hitler as a young man - accusations he disputed.

Responding to the sexual misconduct charges, Schwarzenegger acknowledged he had "behaved badly sometimes." But he attacked the newspaper and some of his accusers for what he called a last-minute effort to derail his candidacy.

Also Tuesday, voters considered ballot propositions to prohibit state and local governments from collecting racial data and dedicate money to public works projects.

Davis' plight reverberated across the nation, to the 18 other states that have initiative, referendum or recall provisions. If the state that brought us right-on-red is again a pioneer, perpetual campaigns could become common.

Davis stood to become only the second governor in U.S. history to be recalled, after North Dakota's Lynn Frazier in 1921. The cost of the election to California taxpayers was estimated at $67 million.

The victor will face daunting problems, including an ailing economy, a budget deficit now estimated at $8 billion and a tax-and-spending system many believe needs serious reform.

The recall movement was launched in February by grass-roots activists, angered over a tripling of the state vehicle license fee and a 30 percent to 40 percent increase in student fees at state colleges and universities - measures taken at the start of the year to try to close a whopping $38 billion deficit.

The movement really took off when Darrell Issa, a conservative congressman from San Diego County, poured $1.7 million of his fortune into the campaign to get the measure on the ballot.

Criticism of Davis mounted, with recall proponents claiming he squandered the state's $10 billion surplus in 2000 and lied to voters last fall when he was running for re-election to conceal the dire state of the economy. He also was accused of being slow to respond to the state's energy crisis in 2001 and presiding over a "pay to play" system that rewarded lobbyists and special interests for hefty campaign contributions.

Schwarzenegger cast himself as an outsider - he showed up at the Capitol on Sunday holding a broom to "clean house" - and claimed to be beholden to no special interests, even though he, too, accepted large campaign contributions from developers and major business interests.

Democrats portrayed the recall as part of a nationwide GOP power grab and sought to keep other Democrats off the ballot. But party unity was shattered when Bustamante, a moderate from the agriculture-rich Central Valley with a history of chilly relations with his boss, abandoned his pledge not to run. The first Hispanic elected to statewide office in more than 120 years, Bustamante was seeking to become California's first Hispanic governor since Romualdo Pacheco in 1875.

But it was Schwarzenegger who was the overpowering presence, even without the 22-inch biceps that made him Mr. Universe. Other GOP candidates such as businessman Bill Simon, former baseball commissioner Peter Ueberroth and Issa dropped out of the race, with Simon and Issa endorsing Schwarzenegger.

Tracked by national and international media, the Austrian immigrant found frenzied crowds wherever he went; flashing an iridescent smile, he tossed campaign T-shirts into adoring throngs. He raised at least $21.5 million for the race, some $10 million of which came from his own pocket (a sum that represented about a third of his salary for the movie "Terminator 3." )

All together, the candidates and the pro- and anti-recall campaigns raised at least $75 million.

The election was nearly derailed last month when a three-judge federal appeals court panel ordered the balloting postponed - perhaps until spring - because some counties planned to use the punch-card ballots that caused the recount mess in Florida in 2000. The court said tens of thousands of votes could go uncounted. But days later, an 11-judge panel of the same court unanimously ruled the election could go forward, saying too much time and money already had been spent on the election to stop it now.

While the field of replacement candidates included such entertaining players as Hustler publisher Larry Flynt and a porn actress who wanted to tax breast implants, to many Californians, it was serious business.

"I think we could be setting a dangerous precedent that other states might follow," said Evelyn Collaco, 63, of San Ramon. She said she was no fan of Davis, but was voting no on recall and for Bustamante.*


----------



## Shodan (Oct 7, 2003)

Yikes!!  I'm afraid to turn on the TV!!  I didn't vote for Ah-nold.

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## arnisador (Oct 7, 2003)

Since I'm in Indiana, I'm pretty happy about this outcome because of the amusement value it will provide me.


----------



## pknox (Oct 7, 2003)

I'm sure talk show hosts and standup comedians everywhere are rejoicing as well.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Apparently the money Arnie put out is being repaid by unnamed donors. Good deal he isn't beholden to special interests.

Other tidbits...the thing about repealing the car tax? Apparently he can't. It's State law, passed by Pete Wilson. He'll need a supermajority, and the Dems just got on the radio aand basically said forget it.

Tax Indian casinos? He can't. Apparently they're soverign nations, and don't have to pay a dime--they pay tax only voluntarily.

This should be hilarious. Glad I moved out of Los Angeles...but Indiana would probably be about the right distance.


----------



## Shodan (Oct 8, 2003)

Great........and if the allegations are true........we now have who we can call "The Harassinator" for Governor.

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *Since I'm in Indiana, I'm pretty happy about this outcome because of the amusement value it will provide me. *



LOL, Me too! :rofl: 

And..who knows...he may actually do a good job. He has some good people in his transition team, and strategy teams. We'll have to see...


----------



## theletch1 (Oct 8, 2003)

> Great........and if the allegations are true........we now have who we can call "The Harassinator" for Governor


 At least he didn't flatly deny the allegations.  He could have said something like .... "I have never had sexual relations with that woman."


----------



## Ender (Oct 8, 2003)

the car tax increase was instituted by Grey Davis as an executive order. there were many who thot this was an illegal move, but no one challeneged it.

now, the Democrats are trying to start a new recall on Arnold for next year.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *
> now, the Democrats are trying to start a new recall on Arnold for next year. *



That's the whole problem with this recall business. It could start a trend where when one of the parties, Dem. or Rep., doesn't get their way, they go for a recall, wasting more tax $$.

Arnold won fair and square, so he should at least be given the chance. I am not convinced he'll do a great job yet, but I am not convinced he'll be a failure either.


----------



## pknox (Oct 8, 2003)

Good point.  I honestly believe that the situation in California is so bad now, that just about nothing could make it worse.  There's no harm in giving someone new a chance, especially as it seems that, based on the election results, that's what the people want.  The big trick is going to be getting Dems to work with him -- they're most likely going to be very obstinate, and do everything possible to make him fail, so as to make it look like the recall was a bad choice.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Let me repeat: the car tax is the product of Pete Wilson's administration. Governors cannot pass new taxes, in California or anywhere else, by executive order.

And it was probably good policy. First off, Californians drive too damn much (me included) anyway. Second, taxes tend to cut usages--and if nobody's noticed, the air quality around LA is the worst in roughly twenty years. Third, it seems fair to me that the folks gotta put up some bucks when the State's broke. Fourth, the tax was keyed to the California economy. And it still is. 

I might add that I've read and heard extensive discussions on the CA budget, and this tax was one of the reasons we even HAVE a budget. I realize everybody'd like to get something for nothing (Heinlein calls this the theory that, "Daddy will get them the pretty moon"), but alas...we still pay far lower taxes than any place in Europe...

Of course, the rational way to do things would be to educate people so they'd a) understand the issues, b) act morally. Then politicians could pretty much tell us the truth--believe me, these guys usually know damn well what it actually takes to run a state--voters would read the price tag, and make rational choices. But fat chance of that. It's much easier to blather about government waste (but never in the military! we NEEDED the B-2...two billion a pop, and designed to fly over the Soviet Union AFTER THE FIRST PHASE OF A NUCLEAR WAR and decapitate them, leaving nobody to negotiate with...), or whatever...

And, it's much easier to go off about public sector corruption (and believe me...I know more about that than you do...I taught at Compton College...keep scanning the news, and check out an LA Times article of last month), while claiming that the systemic corruption of American businesses (check out the trial of that guy from Tyco..astonishing thing is, what he was doing was clearly accepted practice!) isn't systemic. Hell, it isn't even corruption. It's accepted practice.

Apparently, we can't handle the truth. Things cost money. People need jobs. Our roads are overcrowded. SoCal is polluted, fortunately not as badly as parts of the old Soviet Union, but getting there. We can't afford to get rid of all immigrants. Our criminal justice system is systematically biased and crazy, so we've got far too many people in crappy jails that still cost money. We're getting way overpopulated. We can't afford to have everybody drive around in an Explorer. Rich people are sucking the society dry. Business ethics is an oxymoron. We've been too cheap to use our wealth to tool up for the next century. Too many of us think that what's on the tube is real. We exploit workers at home, and poor people abroad, to get by. 

You will NOT be hearing any of this from Arnold. Whatever he says, he'll be rearranging the deck chairs, with the help it seems of Pete Wilson's staffers. 

As for the dems..a) good to see the alibis for Arnold's upcoming disaster start early; b) the "recall Arnie," jazz is based on a Doonesbury cartoon, and a chant at Davis' concession speech...and he told 'em to cut it out, to support the new gov (hey...remember the coat Mel Brooks wore in "Blazing Saddles?" the one with "GOV" on the back?); c) why not? Are only Republicans allowed to launch irresponsible and expensive initiatives? Somewhere out there, there must be a rich liberal wacko equivalent of Darryl Issa, who's willing to  lose his Congressional seat, pour his own money to start a recall, cost the taxpayers 60 or 70 mil, run for office, do poorly & withdraw & burst into tears in public..

Oh well. Can't wait for the cartoons. Bad times, good art.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 8, 2003)

Nice post...I'm glad you said it.

What I am most interested to see if what economic solutions the new Gov. will come up with. He has Warren Buffet on his side who will be helping him with the planning; and Buffet is a hell of a lot more socially/economically conscience the Arnold ever will be.

I'll try to stay possitive, despite the negatives. I do hope it works out...California is a major economy that effects our entire nation.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Thanks, Paul. I hope we're wrong...I need my job.


----------



## Ender (Oct 8, 2003)

Let me repeat. th car tax was PROPOSED during the Wilson administration, but never implemented for for fear of an election backlash. Apparently the came to pass. Grey Davis intstituted the car tax ILLEGALLY by an executive order.

and all this nonsense about educating people, cying about how business is evil and other sorts of wishfull thinking will not get the job job done in Calif. The govenment is not the one to provide jobs because of inefficiency and waste.

And I do know what I'm talking about. I have an MBA, an electrical engineering degree and have run several companies. WE cannot continue the way we have been in calif. 

Liberals try to make a boogyman out of business and really, most businesses make about 3% profit annually. They sit down with their spreadsheets, make rational decisions and how in increase stakeholder wealth. Stakes holders are stock owners, managers, employees, and customers. yes customers because the aim of business is to add value for the customer or perish. also, 3 out of 5 people now have their 401k's in the stock market, so their retirements depend on business doing well.

I laugh when people start to complain about insurance companies because most people don't know that they provide most of the money for major infrastructure projects, like ROADS, FREEWAYS, HOSPITALS. They loan the money to state governements who in turn build these projects. In calif we now have to pay huge interest rates because of our junk bond credit rating. These increase costs make the 70 million used for the recall look like chump change. is that the insurance companie's fault?..no..it's the governments'.


----------



## Shodan (Oct 8, 2003)

Well, for those of you excited about the humor of our new Governor..........it's already started!!  And here you go:
http://www.internetweekly.org/photo_cartoons/cartoon_schwarzenegger.html

:asian:  :karate:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 8, 2003)

Sorry, Ender, but I looked it up--because I got on-line and paid mine today.

The original VLF tax dates to 1935. It was revisited in 1958 and confirmed; after Prop 13 began to hit during the 1980s, the VLF was apparently taken to voters and approved in 1988. With the economic boom of the late 90s (don't wanna mention, but who was President?), Tom McClintock proposed rolling the VLF back...the resulting bill, AB 2797, which Pete Wilson signed, had a trigger that would raise fees in it...apparently the bill Davis signed, AB 1121, used the previous bill but added an additional .5% to it...average fees were estimated to rise $130, not at all to triple. 

I suspect we are both confusing the new car tax and the VLF, but I'll get around to checking tomorrow.


----------



## Ender (Oct 8, 2003)

Senator Tom McClintock  
Date: February 3, 2003 
Publication Type: Press Release 

This measure was approved by the California Senate by a vote of 23 - 16.

With this action, you will ignite the biggest tax revolt that California has seen since Proposition 13.

So be it.

But before you do, I want to address the sophistries that form the foundation of this measure, so at least the record is clear.

The first we just heard is the notion that the legislature intended that the tax go up in bad economic times, and this bill therefore doesn't change existing law. Well, if existing law really did that, you wouldn't need this bill, would you?

The truth is that if this provision had been part of the original law, the car tax reductions could never have taken place even in the good times.

The provision they cite has been clearly understood and practiced by the state controller's office for the five years since that legislation was adopted.

Under that provision, there are only two circumstances that would trigger an increase. The first is gross incompetence by the Controller in failing to maintain sufficient funds to cover the anticipated obligations of the state. The other is if the state were closed out of the capital market. In the entire history of California, neither of these events has ever occurred.

This measure fundamentally changes existing law.

It redefines the general fund - in an unprecedented manner -- to remove from the calculation of fund balance any outstanding loans.

Even in good times, short-term loans are routinely made to the general fund - from both internal and external sources -- to even out the state's cash flow. That's what keeps the money in the general fund all year long to pay the state's obligations while revenues fluctuate month-to-month.

By deducting any outstanding loans from the general fund's condition, you have just guaranteed that the car tax will be tripled - even in good times -- because this is the condition of the general fund throughout much of the year - even in the good times.

So let there be no confusion: the effect of this measure is to automatically and permanently triple the car tax.

The second sophistry is that local governments will suffer without this bill. The truth is that in the five years since the car tax was reduced, local governments have not lost a penny of support. Indeed, the ONLY way local government support can be cut is by a vote of this legislature. And the budget committees of both houses have unanimously rejected any proposal to raid local government funds.

The third sophistry is that this measure only requires a majority vote. 





The Constitution is not ambiguous on this point: "any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues... whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the legislature."





So you are deliberately enacting an illegal tax by majority vote in direct and flagrant violation of the state constitution. So much for the rule of law.

The state's problems are not a shortage of revenue. AFTER the car tax was reduced and AFTER the dot-com collapse, and AFTER the state's revenues plunged, we're still taking in 28 percent more revenue than four years ago while the population and inflation combined have grown only 21 percent.

And AFTER the car tax was reduced, it is still the highest among the five largest states, and indeed is twice as high as the next runner-up.

You want to start a tax revolt? You're on. In the last three days, three thousand volunteers have logged on to my website and pledged 200,000 signatures toward a ballot measure - and that's just the result of a few radio interviews. If this response continues, I believe we'll have enough signatures to abolish the entire tax outright - which is what we should have done five years ago. And that's just the beginning of the tax revolt you are starting today.

So go ahead. Make my day.


----------



## pknox (Oct 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *He has Warren Buffet on his side who will be helping him with the planning; and Buffet is a hell of a lot more socially/economically conscience the Arnold ever will be.
> *



Too bad Arnie didn't hire Jimmy Buffett instead.  He may not be able to help your economy, but you guys would have a rockin' good time in the process.


----------



## theletch1 (Oct 9, 2003)

http://www.miniclip.com/arnie.htm 
Good for a chuckle.


----------



## pknox (Oct 9, 2003)

Sweet.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 9, 2003)

You're trusting POLITICIANS for the facts? I recommend going to the Legislature website. They are required to keep records.

I was glad to see, though, that you opposed Pete Wilson's bill on car tax as well as Davis'.


----------



## Ender (Oct 9, 2003)

the point is you start raising taxes and you're going to get burned. Tom McClintock was correct and 100% right on the money . And Davis paid for it.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *
> Liberals try to make a boogyman out of business and really, most businesses make about 3% profit annually. They sit down with their spreadsheets, make rational decisions and how in increase stakeholder wealth. Stakes holders are stock owners, managers, employees, and customers. yes customers because the aim of business is to add value for the customer or perish. also, 3 out of 5 people now have their 401k's in the stock market, so their retirements depend on business doing well.
> 
> I laugh when people start to complain about insurance companies because most people don't know that they provide most of the money for major infrastructure projects, like ROADS, FREEWAYS, HOSPITALS. They loan the money to state governements who in turn build these projects. In calif we now have to pay huge interest rates because of our junk bond credit rating. These increase costs make the 70 million used for the recall look like chump change. is that the insurance companie's fault?..no..it's the governments'. *



Your leaving out some points on both accounts. Sure, increasing stake-holders wealth is the main concern of a business. But this increase is not proportionate. The "owners" will rake in a ton more of a profit then employees with fixed wages. This is not exactly my problem, as an Owner with more "at stake" should make more profit. My problem is that it is often so out of porportion that the Workers are often not making a living wage, or at least not getting the wages and benefits that they should, while upper management and owners walk away with Way more then what should be comparitively acceptable. And sure, money is spent to add value for their customers, but I wouldn't throw them in the mix as an expense, because the customers are paying for the value eventually, and often an excess if it is in an industry where there is limited competition to drive prices down. The customers $$ is driving profits, as you know.

Plus, they are spending $$ to buy up stock, and to drive their own stock prices up. This still benefits the owners and upper-management far more, because they are the ones who own large positions in stock of their own company. So when money is spent here rather then on raises for employees (for example) the arguement is used that everyone benefits. Although this may be true, the worker only benefits minutely, when the reality is they need a higher wage, and the insiders of the company benefits tremendously. Plus owners and upper management are basically allowed to legally (or illegally) insider trade on their own stock, and stock of related companies, because they know when ups and downs are going to occur. This further locks in profits for the owners and insiders at the mercy of workers who don't have that kind of control.

Also, it is true that Insurance and Financial Firms facilitate the loaning of money to the states (Municipal Bonds) so projects can get accomplished. What you are leaving out is the fact that investors (usually the people of that state) are the ones buying the bonds, of which the insurance company/financial institutions directly profit. So, in reality, the state is borrowing from it's own people (investors), not the insurance companies. This is not a bad thing, but you made it sound as if Insurance Co. have been charitably giving to the states, which couldn't be further from the truth. Besides, when most people complain about insurance companies, it is on either the health side, or the property and causualty side. Health, and property and casualty are completely seperate from the financial/lending side, and one doesn't rely on the other, for one. For two, right now the health and property and causalty insurance co. have the unfair advantage over consumers due to the way our system is designed, and due to their lobbying power on both the state and federal sides.

Just thought I'd balance out what you've said, because it seemed a bit one sided. 

*Now here are some of my political views, as I am sure you are curious...* 

I don't fit well with either Conservatives or Liberals...I would be thrown out of both camps. Here are 2 issues I'd like to give my opinion on (which will look 'liberal' due to the nature of the issues).

Mutual Gain: This idea of mutual gain has got to go. We use it both in trade, and in business. The idea works like this: We make a decision where both you and I gain. Pretty simple eh? And...it sounds good. The problem this idea of "everybody gains" is that not everybody wins. For instance, I'll use my stock example for business. Let's say that the owner(s) decide that they aren't going to give out bonuses this year, but are instead going to give out stock options. This may sound like a win-win situation, but it isn't. A stock option will mostly benefit those with large stock positions, as the price of the stock drives upward, while the average employee really needed that bonus for Christmass money for their family. Not everybody won.

Or how about this, Let's issue a tax cut for everyone. That will help the economy. Problem is, the people who drive the economy are the lower to upper middle class. They only recieved a few hundred dollars worth of a cut...hardly enough to make an impact. Meanwhile the wealthy 1 percent recieved a much larger cut. These people in the working class still need better schools, better healthcare, etc. Money that these tax dollars could have went towards. Meanwhile the uber-wealthy got a big fat tax cut, and they don't need the things that the working class needs. And...there is only so much the wealthy 1 percent can consume, and the numbers are miniscule compared to the lower to upper middle class consumption. Therefore, it is clear that the lower-upper working class drives the economy, not the wealthy 1 percent. Therefore, the tax cut has failed, and will continue to fail, to drive the economy anywhere. Besides that....everyone benefited from the cut...right? Everyone benefited, but not everyone won.

Here is the idea of Mutual Gain applied to "free trade." 

"Hey..India! We (the U.S.) will trade with you, no problem. We make computers and cars. Now...don't you make computers and cars! We, and a select few other countries, have a world wide patton on computers and cars, so you aren't allowed to make them for yourself, so don't even try it. But...you are good at making rice. So...we'll trade you, rice for our computers and cars. Everybody gains this way, right?"

Right....problem is, how many tons of rice, labor, etc. do you think it takes to buy a car? Exactly...sure we both gain, but a third world country will never go beyond their status with this idea of mutual gain. They will never gain "enough" comparitively.

Same with this idea applied to business; the consumer/worker will never gain "enough" compared to the owner, thus the worker is in danger of always being in debt, behind the 8 ball, and enslaved. The "owner" depending on what they "own" of course, will always get wealthier, and usually at someone elses expense.

So...this idea of Mutual gain has got to go.

How to treat "Big Business":

Business has one purpose in mind...to make money. I say, that there is nothing wrong with this. They should be allowed to make money. This drives the economy. Every decision by big business is related to how they can make $$. Compenies will only spend $$ on labor, environmental cleanliness, safety/quality of work environment and product, etc., when they absolutely have too. This is fine. A business should be working hard to make money, and should not be expected to be socially conscience unless it effects their ability to turn a profit.

The above, many would consider, is a very conservative view. However, where I differ from most conservatives is my feeling about the governments role in business. Most conservatives believe in the above, whether they say so or not. But when asked about governments role they say 'leisse Fair' (sp?), and 'deregulation'; basically they say "let businesses take care of themselves." I couldn't disagree with this more.

Governments role: I think that to say that Businesses should only worry about making $$, and then to say that Government should let Bussiness regulate themselves, because they will do what is socially/environmentally/economically conscience due to consumer pressure is a great falicy. This idea has been failing us on different levels. Business is there to make $$, not to do what is socially conscience, so to say that they will regulate themselves is a contradiction. They will only regulate themselves as far as they need to to turn a profit, which is not always the best thing for the environment, the consumers, or for the populus. Consumers aren't there to research the hell out of every product they need just to make socially conscience decisions. They are their to raise families, work, and buy what they NEED to do so.

The Government is basically an entity who we, the people, 'hire' to keep us safe and protected. So, our Government should be allowed to keep us safe and protected from Bussiness. They should be allowed to have a more active role in the regulation of our businesses to ensure that workers make a decent wage, that environment is protected, and that products are safe. This, I feel will adequetly check and balance out the way we do business in our country.

So...those are some fo my views. They are not really open for arguement, but are there for you to read about.

Have fun.


----------



## Ender (Oct 9, 2003)

And you are also leaving out some important facts. first market forces determine wages as it should. the more skills and/or knowledge a worker has the more valuable he will be. A fork lift driver should not be paid the same as a doctor for instance. The doctor has invested alot of time, money, and training where a forklift driver has not. the same goes for electricians, carpenters, etc. they are paid more in different sectors because they are worth more. 

no one should be GIVEN a living wage. we are all responsible for rewards on our own merits.  many times people will just skate by in school, drop out to have a boat load of kids, or simply do nothing to further themselves. I see no reason to provide them with a living and rewarding poor choices and bad behavior. I also have no problem with owners of companies reaping big rewards because many of them risked everything they had to create a business. they put up their homes and bank accounts as collateral. so if they hit it big, i say good for them.

next, buying up one's own stock does not tranlate into a higher stock price. it only lowers the debt the company has. a stock price is only a price that investors will pay in HOPES that the stock price will go up or will pay dividends. even then, it does nothing to benefit management unless they have stock in the company and SELL their stock.  the worker and management only benefit by having a stable company and when growth occurs, can have incresaes in wages. remember that most businesses only yield about 3% profit. 

the insurance companies do not make huge profits as many suppose. if they did everyone would just invest in these insuance companies. the point i was making is that without the insurance companies, capital would not be available to municipalities to undertake these projects.

now, for taxes. the top 3% pay about 40% of ALL taxes. the top 50% pay 95% of the tax bill (the rich). you can look at the tax tables if you like. the poor (under around $25K) pay NO federal taxes. so you are considered rich if you make over $36k a year. But putting that aside, for every $25k a person earns, that puts 4 people to work. the more income people receive, the more jobs are created. 

and to refute the argument that what the rich spend are miniscule in the economy is flat out wrong. the economy is driven by cash, plain and simple. The more cash that flows in the ecomoy the better. no matter who spends it. but, there are 3 components to the cash in the economy. 45% consumers, 35% business, and the rest is the government. So you see the government can only do a small bit to help the economy with "Tax dollars" couple that with the fact that the US government is only around 60% efficient, we can see that almost half the money from tax dollars are wasted. So the best tactic is to put the money in the hands of the the consumers and business. tax cuts do just that. in fact, many very prominent economists credit the tax cut for softening the blow of the recession. if fact many are calling it a maqrket adjustment and slowdown and not a real recession. You can look at "the economist", forbes, money magazine etc.

Laizze Faire went out with the horse and buggy. No one subscribes to that theory anymore. Business today  recognizes that government needs to be involved but in a  very limited capacity. one very good example is the pharmaceutical industry. It does not make good business sense to spend huge amounts of time and money on diseaes that are rare. That should be the role of government, to fill in the gaps and regulate when NEEDED. the problem is government over regulates and chokes off risk and innovation.


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *And you are also leaving out some important facts. first market forces determine wages as it should. the more skills and/or knowledge a worker has the more valuable he will be. A fork lift driver should not be paid the same as a doctor for instance. The doctor has invested alot of time, money, and training where a forklift driver has not. the same goes for electricians, carpenters, etc. they are paid more in different sectors because they are worth more.
> 
> no one should be GIVEN a living wage. we are all responsible for rewards on our own merits.  many times people will just skate by in school, drop out to have a boat load of kids, or simply do nothing to further themselves. I see no reason to provide them with a living and rewarding poor choices and bad behavior. I also have no problem with owners of companies reaping big rewards because many of them risked everything they had to create a business. they put up their homes and bank accounts as collateral. so if they hit it big, i say good for them. *


*

I agree...no one should be given a wage, and people should be paid according to their job. The Doctor shouldn't make the same as the forklift driver. However, the forklift driver should still be able to earn an adequete living. I just feel that we don't have the balance that we need right now, and that too many people are undervalued.




			next, buying up one's own stock does not tranlate into a higher stock price. it only lowers the debt the company has. a stock price is only a price that investors will pay in HOPES that the stock price will go up or will pay dividends. even then, it does nothing to benefit management unless they have stock in the company and SELL their stock.  the worker and management only benefit by having a stable company and when growth occurs, can have incresaes in wages. remember that most businesses only yield about 3% profit.
		
Click to expand...


Buying ones own stock often does translate into higher prices, even though not always. And...management often does sell their own stock, or short their own stock accordingly. To say it doesn't benefit management is wrong, in my opinion.




			the insurance companies do not make huge profits as many suppose. if they did everyone would just invest in these insuance companies. the point i was making is that without the insurance companies, capital would not be available to municipalities to undertake these projects.
		
Click to expand...


Understood...although profits are higher then we think, but often legally "hidden." But that's another arguement. I understand your point, though, and I agree that insurance companies do have their place.




			now, for taxes. the top 3% pay about 40% of ALL taxes. the top 50% pay 95% of the tax bill (the rich). you can look at the tax tables if you like. the poor (under around $25K) pay NO federal taxes. so you are considered rich if you make over $36k a year. But putting that aside, for every $25k a person earns, that puts 4 people to work. the more income people receive, the more jobs are created.
		
Click to expand...


I highly doubt these stat's. I don't know where you get the idea that people under 25K a year pay no federal taxes, because I know when I was in college and I made under 25K a year, I certainly did have to pay federal taxes. I am not an accountant, but when did this change? Plus, the idea that every 25K puts 4 people to work is a debatable formula.




			and to refute the argument that what the rich spend are miniscule in the economy is flat out wrong. the economy is driven by cash, plain and simple. The more cash that flows in the ecomoy the better. no matter who spends it. but, there are 3 components to the cash in the economy. 45% consumers, 35% business, and the rest is the government. So you see the government can only do a small bit to help the economy with "Tax dollars" couple that with the fact that the US government is only around 60% efficient, we can see that almost half the money from tax dollars are wasted. So the best tactic is to put the money in the hands of the the consumers and business. tax cuts do just that. in fact, many very prominent economists credit the tax cut for softening the blow of the recession. if fact many are calling it a maqrket adjustment and slowdown and not a real recession. You can look at "the economist", forbes, money magazine etc.
		
Click to expand...


Again, your statistics are very debatable, which I really don'e have the time to deal with right now. 

However, the Wealthy 1 percent has too much cash to put back into the economy. Most of it gets banked or invested. If I am worth, lets say, 50 million liquid, and I get a tax cut for a few thousand dollars, do you really think that it is going to increase my spending? It doesn't. There are only so many cars, houses, food products, entertainment, etc., that one family can buy, regardless of their net worth. And...if you have millions....a few grand extra isn't going to change your spending habits.

However, a lower middle class family who is fighting to be upper middle class, and spending money on starter homes, second homes, new stuff, food for the new baby, etc. These people are more in #'s then the wealthy 1 percent, and they are the ones driving the economy because as a whole, the lower-upper working and executive class are consumers, and are much higher in #'s then the uber-wealthy.

I say that my point still stands. Also...I read all the financial news. It is part of my Job. And Trust me...when you know too much it changes your views. But, there are plenty of economists who say that the tax cut will not help the economy, as much as there are who say that it will. I trust my research, not the financial media in either case.  




			Laizze Faire went out with the horse and buggy. No one subscribes to that theory anymore. Business today  recognizes that government needs to be involved but in a  very limited capacity. one very good example is the pharmaceutical industry. It does not make good business sense to spend huge amounts of time and money on diseaes that are rare. That should be the role of government, to fill in the gaps and regulate when NEEDED. the problem is government over regulates and chokes off risk and innovation.
		
Click to expand...

*
At least we agree with this. However...I think a lot of people subscribe to the old view still, and many of them are in our government. I also agree that over-regulation could be a problem. I don't think it has been a problem yet, though. I think the problem has been "miss-regulation" if anything. In other words, regulating one aspect that doesn't need it, while other area's run rampent.

All good points, though.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Oct 9, 2003)

Quote: "market forces determine wages as it should. the more skills and/or knowledge a worker has the more valuable he will be."

I quite agree that market forces determine wages (as well as the value of things) in a capitalist economy. However, this utterly contradicts the statement about skills and knowledge determining how valuable workers are--and, regrettably, how much a worker makes is a different issue still. 

Why? Well, because market forces are fundamentally indifferent to anything other than what Marx called, "exchange value," (i.e, a thing is worth the amount you can sell it for) and are interested in what Marx called, "use value," (i.e., a thing is worth the cost of its raw  materials, plus what it takes to turn the raw materials into a sellable object) only to the extent that the basic logic of capitalism says, buy low, sell high. 

Let's compare me and--oh, say, Kobe Bryant. I teach; I have an advanced degree. I am paid decently, and I have good benefits. Kobe Bryant makes roughly what...100 to 200 times what I do a year. Why? Well, it's not social usefulness. Sorry, I think teaching is at worst, half as valuable as basketball...so why don't I make 3 mil a year or more? Well, it's not skill altogether...without flattering myself, I think it's fair to say that I am...oh, let's say at least half as good at what I do as Mr. Bryant is at what he does. So why don't I make a mil and a half? It's not knowledge at all, I guarantee, since the degree and the fact that I've been teaching since Mr. Bryant was...ah, three.

So what makes the diff? Exchange value. In our society, basketball is valued far more than teaching. How do we know? Easy...it pays way more. 

Market forces encourage meritocracy ONLY in the sense that they help define the most meritable as, "whatever you get paid most for." 

Capitalism does not value people. It values capital.


----------



## Ender (Oct 9, 2003)

businesses sell stock for capital to invest in growth and machinery for the company. buying back one 's own stock costs the company money but gives it more control over it's operations. there is no gaurantee for the stock price to go up.

you can check that tax tables anytime you like. and don't forget the $1500 income tax credit. which is really just a hand out to those at the low end. 

and even if these "rich" people didn't spend their extra thousands they get on from a tax cut. At least they put it in the bank, which in turn has more equity now to loan. which goes out to consumers and business to borrow. which in turn puts more cash into the economy.

the statistics I quoted came to fruition during the calif financial crisis. the taxes are skewed so the "rich" pay a higher percentage than the rest (the top 3% pay 40% of the taxes). the trouble came when the dotcom bubble burst and many of these "rich" people lost a ton of money (mostly in silicon valley). that translated into alot less revenues in taxes from them. calif is more dependent on "rich" taxes than non-rich taxes. therefore any losses are amplified thru the economy and in the budget.


----------



## KenpoTess (Oct 9, 2003)

Since the Topic was getting off onto Teachers.. I've split the thread and you will find your posts Regarding Teaching etc in Teachers Discussion.  Please post further info on California's New Governor in this thread and teaching in the new one.

Thanks!


Tess


----------



## arnisador (Oct 21, 2003)

When is he taking over?


----------



## Cruentus (Oct 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *When is he taking over? *



Mid-November, I believe, but I don't have an exact date.


----------



## pknox (Oct 22, 2003)

taken from http://www.redding.com/news/apstate/past/20031007apbrk092.shtml

The 56-year-old Austrian immigranthusband of television journalist Maria Shriverfinds himself in charge of the nation's most populated state with an economy surpassed by only five countries. He takes office as soon as the election results are certified, no later than Nov. 15.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 26, 2003)

I'm ready for him!


----------



## Elfan (Oct 27, 2003)

Muscleman Put In Charge Of World's Fifth-Largest Economy 



> SACRAMENTO, CAPolitical observers are struggling to understand exactly how, on Oct. 7, Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian-born, movie-star muscleman with no political experience, was elected to govern the state of California, the world's fifth-largest economic region.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2003)

Heh.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 17, 2003)

It's a done deal:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../schwarzenegger_inauguration&cid=519&ncid=716


----------



## pknox (Nov 17, 2003)

Kind of a shame that President Reagan wasn't able to attend.  That would have been one very interesting photo op.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 20, 2003)

It's made for fun Tonight Show monologues already.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 20, 2003)

He must be a liberal Republican--he immediately repealed the car tax, and started floating a 15-20 billion loan to balance the State's budget.

Is there an Internet symbol or acronym for explosive derisive laughter?


----------

