Random Post Election Thoughts

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You know the old expression, "Be careful what you hope for, you may get it." As you said, the democrats have controlled the California state assembly and state senate for years now. How has that been working out for you? It is beyond mind-boggling that people here in California could keep voting for these clowns. Could they have done a worse job? Look at the condition of our state.

When it comes to national politics, it's a little different story. You could blame either party. You could say that the republican controlled house is to blame. You could say Obama is to blame. You could say that Bush is to blame. It's not like one party has controlled everything. But in California, the democrats have basically had sole control for years. They are the only ones to blame for the condition of our state. How could anyone keep on voting for them? I will tell you how. Many of the people here are so stupid that they just vote for anyone with a "D" by their name. I don't understand it. People see what a terrible job the hacks in the state assembly have done. Why do people even care what party they are in? If they're doing a bad job, vote for someone else.

you can't pass a budget without a 2/3 vote of both the assembly and state senate. republicans have used that to block any attempts at raising state revenue and it's partially (note i said partially) the reason the state has been in such fiscal trouble.

when i take a look at the fact that the state's voters have just passed a tax hike on themselves (prop 30) while also reducing republican members of the legislative branch to a level that they're now virtually inconsequential, i have to wonder why california republican's keep signing grover nordquist's pledge.

you can fairly say that state democrats won't be able to avoid full responsibility for the condition of the state in 2 years. i don't think there will be any argument. but republican intransigence on the revenue side has a lot to do with what conditions are now.

and so long as you view "voter stupidity" as the main reason your side isn't winning elections you've pretty much guarenteed you won't be winning many in the future either.

republican's in california have had to work hard at offending people to lose the proportion of the hispanic vote that now votes democratic. there is no reason that gap wouldn't close if your leaders could put a muzzle on the party xenophobes.

i think republican idea's on fiscal responsibility should to be part of the debate. but your party has forgotten that responsible governence requires compromise. you don't start a good faith debate by saying that revenue increases are off the table and you'll only be discussing cuts to services.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you can't pass a budget without a 2/3 vote of both the assembly and state senate. republicans have used that to block any attempts at raising state revenue and it's partially (note i said partially) the reason the state has been in such fiscal trouble.

when i take a look at the fact that the state's voters have just passed a tax hike on themselves (prop 30) while also reducing republican members of the legislative branch to a level that they're now virtually inconsequential, i have to wonder why california republican's keep signing grover nordquist's pledge.

you can fairly say that state democrats won't be able to avoid full responsibility for the condition of the state in 2 years. i don't think there will be any argument. but republican intransigence on the revenue side has a lot to do with what conditions are now.

and so long as you view "voter stupidity" as the main reason your side isn't winning elections you've pretty much guarenteed you won't be winning many in the future either.

republican's in california have had to work hard at offending people to lose the proportion of the hispanic vote that now votes democratic. there is no reason that gap wouldn't close if your leaders could put a muzzle on the party xenophobes.

i think republican idea's on fiscal responsibility should to be part of the debate. but your party has forgotten that responsible governence requires compromise. you don't start a good faith debate by saying that revenue increases are off the table and you'll only be discussing cuts to services.

You make some good points. Maybe things would be better if the dems had been able to raise taxes like they wanted to. But on the other hand, taxes are already very high in this state. I think they really need to cut back on spending. If the democratic legislature had total control to do whatever they want, would they ever cut spending? I'm thinking they would probably just keep raising taxes.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You make some good points. Maybe things would be better if the dems had been able to raise taxes like they wanted to. But on the other hand, taxes are already very high in this state. I think they really need to cut back on spending. If the democratic legislature had total control to do whatever they want, would they ever cut spending? I'm thinking they would probably just keep raising taxes.

and if they do they'll be voted out in two years.

i'm hopeful the message received by democrats isn't that the locks are off the candy store. if they act the way you suggest, they'll be just as irresponsible as republican's have been for decades where they would only discuss 1 side of the fiscal problem.

republican's could have been part of the solution but chose to stick by a pure ideology rather than make reasonable compromises. so they're out of the conversation entirely now.

i wish it were different. i don't think it's good when either side has the kind of power democrats will have. but i think it's minimally preferable to the permanent state of crisis that the republican abdication of legislative responsibility has brought on.

[Danzig]

But he (Obama) will be venturing back into a Congressional environment similar to that of his first term, with the Senate under the control of Democrats and the House under the control of Republicans, whose leaders have hinted that they will be no less likely to challenge him than they were during the last four years.

that's from a ny times article.

challenge or be completely unwilling to work with him, or find compromise or solution?
i recently read 'america's great debate" that is about clay, douglas and others finding a solution to the many issues (cali statehood, slavery, texas threatening civil war over land that is now part of new mexico just to name a few) that were tearing the country apart. it would be nice if we could get people willing to work together now. but i'm not sure we have people similar to clay, douglas, benton, webster and the others involved.