Yep, you read right. Phil Angelides won the nomination, by a margin of 67% to 28% (with the remainder voting for a dual or no endorsement)…
I was there most of yesterday helpin’ out (I’m still a little hoarse) - it was incredible when we all heard the news! This is a pretty big deal since the California Democratic Party hasn’t nominated a candidate for Governor since 1990!
Makes me glad that the party is making a stand and taking the lead once more, especially for a solid candidate like Phil.
I’ve been waiting since the state of the state address to see if the party would give a nomination. A few of the things Arnold said in that state of the state speech, most significantly that the state minimum wage should be increased, seemed like an effort to take away or at least limit the relevance of some of the boiler plate democratic party issues; the theory being that without these issues being so prominent in the election that the assorted democratic candidates would have to resort to some mud slinging, thereby souring some voters on them. I think this endorsement will help avoid a lot of this potential mud slinging.
[quote]BigPaul wrote:
I think this endorsement will help avoid a lot of this potential mud slinging.[/quote]
I sure hope it will - Phil and Steve can’t afford to weaken each other so tremendously before the fight against Arnold - neither financially or politically. I only hope Westly will stop dumping tens of millions of dollars into his campaign from his own pocket and plastering the airwaves with his commercians in an attempt to break Phils’ bank. Tactics like that are just plain sleazy if you ask me.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
I was there most of yesterday helpin’ out (I’m still a little hoarse) - it was incredible when we all heard the news! This is a pretty big deal since the California Democratic Party hasn’t nominated a candidate for Governor since 1990![/quote]
Incredible!
How did that last nomination work out for the Democrats?
[quote]doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
I was there most of yesterday helpin’ out (I’m still a little hoarse) - it was incredible when we all heard the news! This is a pretty big deal since the California Democratic Party hasn’t nominated a candidate for Governor since 1990!
Incredible!
How did that last nomination work out for the Democrats?
[/quote]
Democrats won the last scheduled election for governor.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
doogie wrote:
knewsom wrote:
I was there most of yesterday helpin’ out (I’m still a little hoarse) - it was incredible when we all heard the news! This is a pretty big deal since the California Democratic Party hasn’t nominated a candidate for Governor since 1990!
Incredible!
How did that last nomination work out for the Democrats?
Democrats won the last scheduled election for governor.[/quote]
Weird. I thought Pete Wilson beat Feinstein in 1990 (the last time the democrats nominated a candidate).
California is so deeply in debt, all they need is another liberal in there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a California default starts an avalanche of debt repudiation throughout the country.
Ah, California — always the leader.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
California is so deeply in debt, all they need is another liberal in there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a California default starts an avalanche of debt repudiation throughout the country.
Ah, California — always the leader.[/quote]
As opposed to the country as a whole, which is enjoying the bountiful surplus provided by the Republican-controlled government.
Do you EVER think before you type?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
California is so deeply in debt, all they need is another liberal in there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a California default starts an avalanche of debt repudiation throughout the country.
Ah, California — always the leader.
As opposed to the country as a whole, which is enjoying the bountiful surplus provided by the Republican-controlled government.
Do you EVER think before you type?[/quote]
Do you, Mr. Rolling Turd? This country was set on a collision course with reality long ago, by Kennedy, LBJ, and all the other ‘big-hearted’ libs.
The Republicans were handed a bucket of shit, created by your heroes. Saying otherwise is just more Harris horseshit.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Do you, Mr. Rolling Turd? This country was set on a collision course with reality long ago, by Kennedy, LBJ, and all the other ‘big-hearted’ libs.
[/quote]
Yeah, right. Look at the chart above and tell me again who’s in a “collision course with reality”. I’d look myself in the mirror if I were you.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Do you, Mr. Rolling Turd? This country was set on a collision course with reality long ago, by Kennedy, LBJ, and all the other ‘big-hearted’ libs.
Yeah, right. Look at the chart above and tell me again who’s in a “collision course with reality”. I’d look myself in the mirror if I were you.
[/quote]
I have to doubt this graph. If you look at all the spending LBJ did on 'Nam and the Great Society, and the relative deficit goes down? Provide a link.
We also have to keep in mind that the 50s and 60s were times of great American hegemony. It simply took less relative resources to police the globe.
Want to see the link.
HH
[quote]doogie wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
doogie wrote:
How did that last nomination work out for the Democrats?
Democrats won the last scheduled election for governor.
Weird. I thought Pete Wilson beat Feinstein in 1990 (the last time the democrats nominated a candidate).
[/quote]
Yes, they won the last scheduled election for governor - that was Gray Davis (who was a real tool with anger-management problems). Feinstein lost in '90 to Wilson, a repub, after receiving the last Democratic endorsement for governor, but she also won the primary, and then went on to win a Senate seat, along with Barbara Boxer.
As an aside, Phil was the chairman of the California Democratic party during that period of time, and he mobilized over a MILLION NEW VOTERS for the 92 election, which saw Clinton, Boxer, and Feinstein elected. It’s no surprise to me that Boxer, Feinstein, and even Pelosi have endorsed Phil, and spoken on his behalf.
Read down to where it is ENTITLEMENT SPENDING which screws us over, creating a virtually worthless dollar. Some of it is downright frightening.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
California is so deeply in debt, all they need is another liberal in there. I wouldn’t be surprised if a California default starts an avalanche of debt repudiation throughout the country.
Ah, California — always the leader.[/quote]
You’re neither a Californian or a Democrat, and we REALLY don’t care what your opinion is.
Fact is, Arnold cut both spending AND taxes, but didn’t do much investment to see revenues increase by much at all. The state is STILL in debt, but truth be told, we’d be a lot worse off if it hadn’t been for State Treasurer Phil Angelides closing so many corporate tax loopholes.
We’ve rolled back so many income and corporate taxes for several years now, the economy in California is kicking ass and taking names - it’s time for a SMALL, GRADUAL tax increase to bring up revenues without hurting the economy.
…besides, Californa is the 6th largest economy in the WORLD. We have the best public higher education system in the COUNTRY. This is a great state, and it will continue to be, as long as we keep making the necessary investments into education, both primary and secondary.
We also need to maintain environmental protection programs, drug rehab programs, and community outreach programs so that the quality of life here can continually improve for everyone. All the while, we need to continually plan and impliment infrastructure that can accomodate the incredible ammount of growth that we’re expecting. All that “I say BUILD it” stuff that Arnold was spewing, that was essentially in our state “roadmap” already, bond initiative and all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Want to see the link.[/quote]
Why do I bother? Really, why? You’ll just believe whatever you want to believe, irrespective of its correlation (or lack thereof) with reality…
The data is from the historical tables in the OMB Budget as downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov, Historical Tables(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf). It was plotted without modification. It’s all on Table 7.1 in the PDF.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Read down to where it is ENTITLEMENT SPENDING which screws us over, creating a virtually worthless dollar. Some of it is downright frightening.[/quote]
That’s precious. You can’t even type (or copy and paste) the link properly and we’re teaching ME about what screws up our Economy?
Your conclusions are so overly simplistic and wrong it’s not even funny.
You also ignored the part where it shows that your beloved late 19th century and early 20th century (where you claim we had a true period of laissez-faire capitalism) the debt also increased.
Your vision is irresponsible, utopian and just plain insane.
You might not like, grasp or understand reality, but that doesn’t make it any less real.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
it’s time for a SMALL, GRADUAL tax increase to bring up revenues without hurting the economy.[/quote]
Knewsom,
I agree with most of what you have written, but be careful there: if the wrong taxes are increased, that can be a really bad idea, one that will create tremendous backlash.
Currently a large percentage of Californians are looking at leaving the state, simply because they cannot afford the costs – between health, education, housing and retail prices, it costs up to US$2 MILLION to raise ONE child (from birth to graduation in a decent college) in urban California. A lot of people are already leaving, and if we raise income taxes, for example, there will be many more.
Raising the car registration costs was, on the other hand, a good idea, and Arnold was wrong in killing that. One of the most fundamental problems of California – one that is horribly expensive for everyone – is the reliance on cars, and we need to seriously start moving away from that and betting on public transit.
We should not only increase Car Registration costs, we should have a special tax for Car Sales (on top of the Sales Tax), with a system that would be similar to basically every other country out there: low to no tax on smaller, economy cars; progressively higher tax on larger cars. You can base the tax on weight, size or a combination of both.
Businesses would obviously be exempt, since they might actually need the large cars to haul cargo.
You can easily rationalize this tax by pointing out that heavier, bigger cars damage road more and take up more public space.
The money from both increases would have to automatically go into public transit first, road maintenance second.
Cars and Car Sales can be an excellent source of income for the State, with only a very small risk; people will not move to other States just to buy a slightly bigger car. They will complain, but stay – with a smaller car. Everybody wins.
Now, at the same time, the State Government absolutely needs to work on lowering the cost of living, so that more people – and, especially, affluent people – stay and/or come back; but that’s a whole thread in itself.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Want to see the link.
Why do I bother? Really, why? You’ll just believe whatever you want to believe, irrespective of its correlation (or lack thereof) with reality…
The data is from the historical tables in the OMB Budget as downloaded from WhiteHouse.gov, Historical Tables(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf). It was plotted without modification. It’s all on Table 7.1 in the PDF.
[/quote]
It’s really not even worth it arguing with him.
He’s not part of the “reality-based community.”
[quote]harris447 wrote:
It’s really not even worth it arguing with him.
He’s not part of the “reality-based community.”[/quote]
True… I’m just afraid his disease is contagious…
HS,
I hear ya on income tax - although I think that a one or two percent increase to the richest 10% of Californians won’t really make much of a difference. I agree that the upper middle class has certainly been punished enough by federal taxes and the ungoldy cost of living well in California. I hesitate to re-impliment the vehicle tax, simply because it affects the poorest people the most, but I DO like the idea of pro-rating it based on vehicle size/efficiency.
The reason I support a tax increase for the wealthiest in the state is that the poor pay a MUCH higher percentage of their overall income in taxes than the rich do - a small increase to the rich would help meet revenue goals, and prevent an increase in sales tax or income tax to poor or middle class families, thereby helping consumer spending along.