Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Gray Davis

http://cbs5.com/local/Governor.Schwarzenegger.Davis.2.652751.html

So how about it, is Arnold Schwarzenegger just as bad or worse than Gray Davis? Lets compare the two. Since Arnold was elected in 2003, with a recall vote that cost the tax payers some $43 million, Governor Schwarzeneggar and company have run up a $14 billion deficit. In addition, Gray Davis was notorious for taking special interest money and chastized for doing so, however, the now governor Schwarz has increased this under his own watch. And lastly, Gray Davis ran up spending some 34% while in office, however, Arnold has increased spending some 32%. I guess defenders of governor Schwarzenegger can proudly point to a decrease of 2% spending. LOL.

Its like I have said for some time on these boards, there is really very little difference between the two parties. They both pretty much do the same thing which is spend like drunken sailors and beg to increase taxes so as not to go bankrupt as a result.

Its just sickening!! I suppose now Obama will bail them all out because no doubt California is too big to fail. I would just like to applaude the voters who recently voted down a number of tax increases the governor proposed. I hope it sends a message, but more than likely will change nothing.

Originally posted by whodey
http://cbs5.com/local/Governor.Schwarzenegger.Davis.2.652751.html

So how about it, is Arnold Schwarzenegger just as bad or worse than Gray Davis? Lets compare the two. Since Arnold was elected in 2003, with a recall vote that cost the tax payers some $43 million, Governor Schwarzeneggar and company have run up a $14 billion deficit. In addition, Gray Da ...[text shortened]... ses the governor proposed. I hope it sends a message, but more than likely will change nothing.

Ahnold is the Terminator. That's all that matters. Maybe if Stallone ran against him...but no, Terminator is still on top of the charts. Rambo's gone.

I'm impressed by your willingness as a right wing sort of person to look critically at both Schwartzenegger and GWB. Your principles seem consistently followed.

California funded this country for quite a long time. If CA goes down all those welfare states in this country would go down with it. Texas and New York would be all right I suppose.

You can blame me for political apathy. I didn't vote that stuff in but then I didn't vote at all.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Ahnold is the Terminator. That's all that matters. Maybe if Stallone ran against him...but no, Terminator is still on top of the charts. Rambo's gone.

John McClane puts them both to shame!

Originally posted by leestatic
John McClane puts them both to shame!

Hmmm. Was there a Die Hard out during or recently before or after the election?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You can blame me for political apathy. I didn't vote that stuff in but then I didn't vote at all.[/b]

Blame you for political apathy? Why when it matters little who you vote for now days or which party. They all wind up doing the EXACT same things.

If anything, as Americans we can be blamed for putting up with both political parties.

I wonder if the CA housing market would have collapsed if we weren't paying so much to the Feds?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I wonder if the CA housing market would have collapsed if we weren't paying so much to the Feds?

So are you in favor of continuing entitlements with increased taxes or are you in favor of fewer entitlements? I don't think anyone can be in favor of the status quo, could they?

Originally posted by whodey
So are you in favor of continuing entitlements with increased taxes or are you in favor of fewer entitlements? I don't think anyone can be in favor of the status quo, could they?

I have not done much economic research, although I have done a little. Because of this I look to experts for guidance. Warren Buffet says Obama's doing the right things, and recently I saw another financial expert say the same thing on Yahoo! News.

Laissez-Faire capitalism has some very negative consequences. Those who are not good at the game or who are born into the wrong circumstances must live in horrible poverty. I do not think that the Right to Property is absolute. To protect that Right requires either anarchy and personal might or a system of law that protects it. In addition certain methods of acquisition do not make one the proper owner, e.g. theft. Overall I find the Right far too interested in that Right and too little interested in others, like the Right to Pursue Happiness.

Right wing economic theory seems to embrace laissez-faire capitalism as well as unlimited breeding and inheritance. This naturally leads to a small class of hereditary elites and hordes of poor people. I don't like that outcome. I have seen no research to support trickle down economics with minimal government interference, though I haven't looked either.

It is my belief that if people feel secure and respected they are likely to leave "emergency" mode psychologically, and then can rationally plan to become a productive worker. I know I have received enormous help from family and country and would be dead otherwise. For example, free meds for my depression, an appendicitis operation and care afterwards, a job when I was 16 and a high school dropout (AmeriCorps), unemployment insurance, disability checks and medications for my family's hereditary illness when my family members were not able to work because of it (only in the women fortunately for me), etc.

So, I am in favor of some government interference in a regulated capitalism-based economy. With this in mind, I support Obama's decisions and trust him unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

To directly answer your question, I need clarification on what you mean by 'entitlements'. Very likely I am in favor of some 'entitlements' as you put it, and not in favor of others.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]I have not done much economic research, although I have done a little. Because of this I look to experts for guidance. Warren Buffet says Obama's doing the right things, and recently I saw another financial expert say the same thing on Yahoo! News.

So why does Warren Buffet say he is doing the right things? That is the key. In fact, Warren supported Obama long before he made such economic moves, so the question is why?

Originally posted by whodey
So why does Warren Buffet say he is doing the right things? That is the key. In fact, Warren supported Obama long before he made such economic moves, so the question is why?

You imply bias. Fair enough. I am aware there may be bias. So, tell me why you think Buffet's bias means I should ignore what he says. It seems to me that you assume bias. Do you? And even if the man is biased, who or what else is there to counterbalance his bias?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Right wing economic theory seems to embrace laissez-faire capitalism as well as unlimited breeding and inheritance. This naturally leads to a small class of hereditary elites and hordes of poor people. I don't like that outcome. I have seen no research to support trickle down economics with minimal government interference, though I haven't looked either.

The entitlement society began at the turn of the 20th century with the implementation of the federal income tax and New Deal from FDR. That was the beginning of the change I am talking about. Do you find that the society within the US before that time was repugnant? Were they the right wingers you are referring to?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
To directly answer your question, I need clarification on what you mean by 'entitlements'. Very likely I am in favor of some 'entitlements' as you put it, and not in favor of others.[/b]

Entitlements like social security, nationalized health care, etc. Whether you favor them or not, from all indications, these entitlements are unsustainable. The experts tell us that social security and medicare/medicaid will go bust yet Obama wants us to go even further with medical entitlements. The options are, go bankrupt with the current set up, decrase the number of entitlements substantially, or increase taxes substantially in order to keep the country and respective states from going belly up. So are in you in favor of surrendering more of your hard earned money to have the government take care of you or leave more money for yourself so that you and your famiy can take care of yourselves?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
So, I am in favor of some government interference in a regulated capitalism-based economy. With this in mind, I support Obama's decisions and trust him unless someone can give me a good reason not to.

You trust Obama? Why? Has he given you a reason to trust him? I would say whoever I trust they must first earn my trust. A better question to ask is, do you trust your government? Do you trust a government that steals from social security and continues a ponzi scheme that is sure to go belly up as ALL ponzi schemes do? The founding Fathers did not seem to trust governemnt much. Why else would they create such an inefficient form of government with checks and balances via all three branches?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You imply bias. Fair enough. I am aware there may be bias. So, tell me why you think Buffet's bias means I should ignore what he says. It seems to me that you assume bias. Do you? And even if the man is biased, who or what else is there to counterbalance his bias?

Forget about Warren Buffet and Barak Obama for a second. This goes much further back than these two clowns. They are just playing the same games. Do you think government is on the right track piling up such debt as they have over the years?

In short, are you happy as a Californian being $16 billion in debt? Are you happy as an American citizen being....what is it now.....$10 trillion in debt? Do you see a problem with such mounting debt? Is not this mounting debt the same sort of thing that triggored the credit crisis? Do you see problems with just printing money like we are doing now? Show me a country who has dome similar things that has survived.

Originally posted by whodey
The entitlement society began at the turn of the 20th century with the implementation of the federal income tax and New Deal from FDR. That was the beginning of the change I am talking about. Do you find that the society within the US before that time was repugnant? Were they the right wingers you are referring to?

The society before that collapsed in economic failure. I think this is a poor outcome. I prefer the society after the New Deal. Roosevelt got results.