Posted on 04/08/2009 8:46:59 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
I think that's where we're going.
Yeah, Arnold's sick charade ended long ago. Anybody who still considers Arnold a "Republican" has their head up their behind.
Listen, I’m not an Arnie apologist. I despise the guy as much as I do any witless, destructive, liberal politician.
You and I just have differing recalls about what he attempted to accomplish in his first days in office.
From what I recall, he started off with every intention of bringing some sanity back to Sacramento, but soon caved in to the non-stop pressures of the leftist moonbat establishment.
He’s now fully re-aligned as little more than a liberal Democrat governor with an R behind his name. Arnold is worse than a failure. He’s a disaster.
Not to mention that their pension and health benefits are better than mine! They get to bank all of their unused sick time and apply it towards their pension calculation whereas I lose whatever I don’t use. And they get every stinkin’ holiday off that the gov’t so gratiously affords them. Having at one time when the kids were younger make me take days off of my job to stay home with my kids so they can enjoy their holiday.
I have no love left to give!
Not that I think the feds can do a better job, but can receivership really be any worse than things are now? The best option would be for the state to go the way of Vallejo, CA, and declare bankruptcy, but under Chapter 9, I think only municipalities, counties, etc. can declare BK, not the state itself. Of course that's not going to happen. If CA does go into federal receivership would the receiver have the ability to break the union contracts and cut spending on state services to more reasonable levels?
Yep! That’s a pretty good summary of the planned path to destruction.
I haven’t looked at the numbers, but I think the State backing bonds issued by local governments is also going to play into the implosion. If just one county goes belly, it makes the problem worse and spreads the blame.
Of course, Milken and his boys raiding CalPERS is an obvious contributor, too.
Whatever.
If you could recall anything other than "they were good props" I would happy to refute your assertion that they would have made anything better, point by point. Unfortunately, you cannot/will not do that so there is little reason to discuss the issue.
He’s now fully re-aligned as little more than a liberal Democrat governor with an R behind his name.
If you looked at his actions, going all the way back to Prop 49 (before he was elected), his environmental platform (published before he was elected), his public comments about his father-in-law, and many other things, you would find that he was always aligned with the liberal Democrats. Now he is just more honest about it -- but still refuses to remove the "R" from next to his name.
Arnold is worse than a failure. He’s a disaster.
Agreed.
Yep. Been there too. It'll be analogous to carving up the old Soviet Union.
What is the basis of the "federal receiver" theory?
What happens when a State goes bankrupt? The creditors sue, in Federal court. Are there laws regarding the procedure? If there aren't Chris Dodd et al. will produce one in a heartbeat. Whether a judge will be assigned or a board convened, it will be Obama who picks the people to pick the carcass. That's all I'm saying.
Accordingly, I'm making the point that the standard wish, that the State goes insolvent to stop its spending spree, will carry a nasty backlash because all of the parties involved in the "restructuring" will want more. It's a bottomless pit. Doesn't that suck?
That was the pitch. He was lying.
Shrugging works. In my case, my customers can't come up with money or contracts. I'm considering alternative employment that pays almost $40K less annually to keep the bills paid. It's not an act of voluntary shrugging. Just a survival tactic.
Thanks. I also noticed (after posting) that Villines is quoted in the article mentioning federal receivership. Has any State gone completely belly-up before? I know NY got a massive bailout/Loan a few years back. But Schwarzenegger has taken us beyond a cash crisis -- he's literally bled every artery dry.
It's a bottomless pit. Doesn't that suck?
Yep. Is it SW that talks of sucking "canal water" In this case, I'm thinking "sewer."
Part of the reason that Arnold was elected, is that most California conservatives and Republicans had never paid close attention to his politics prior to the recall election, and had scant data about his actual record on the issues.
Like most conservatives in the state, I felt squeezed between wanting a real conservative for governor (Tom McClintock), and fearing a win by the liberal lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, so I reluctantly gave my vote to Arnold.
I learned a valuable lesson in that election, in that when faced with the pressure to give your vote to a RINO, or lose an election to a committed liberal, it's probably better to vote your conscience and go down swinging.
If the RINO wins, he or she will likely do the same damage as the liberal, but our side will be (rightfully) blamed for it. The people still won't become educated to the fact that it's liberal policies that don't work. Even worse, they'll be more likely to vote in a liberal in the next election to "fix" the damage caused by "that Republican".
In many ways, George Bush is responsible for Obama winning the Presidency because he did not govern conservatively. If he had, the Democrats would never have taken Congress in 2006, and they wouldn't have stood a chance at re-taking the White House in 2008.
You can substitute any number of names for "Bush," including his father, Nixon-Ford, Wilson, Eisenhower... ALL of whom were followed by Democrats.
Many canals used to be used for sewage and still are in Tijuana!!!
You're going to equate drilling for oil with selling San Quentin and leaglizing marijuana? You dumb*ss!
Drilling for oil would pretty much make CA solvent again w/o raising taxes. But ohhh noooo, we have to make the "greenies" happy and bankrupt the state. What a maroon!
Oh yeah....me? I'm voting no on all of 'em!
And likewise, Democrat Presidents have often been followed by Republican Presidents.
But - isn't it interesting that a Republican President was elected after the eight years of conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan?
When did a Democrat President ever produce that level of confidence among the American people?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.