Author Topic: Why would someone vote against Prop 23?  (Read 321 times)

virtuoso

  • Shot Caller
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3048
  • Karma: 332
Re: Why would someone vote against Prop 23?
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2010, 04:03:13 AM »
I was against prop 23 because it dwells in such a shady grey area. There's no conclusive evidence that it would even lower the unemployment rate. Then there's the actual stipulations. It seems like just an excuse for major corporations to get out of going green. And look who were the major backers of Prop 23. Is it that hard to put 2 and 2 together? Going green will have a much more positive affect on our economy in the long run. There's ways to fix our short-term problems without giving up our future.

So because big oil backed this bill it couldnt possibly benefit the working person of California? I know you didn't state that directly, but come on.  2 + 2 for me on this issue is, cost goes up for business, they hire less.  Pretty simple.  We'll see how it plays out, but why do you think that businesses don't wanna be here?  California, according to Forbes, is the 10th worst state for business.  Its like people wanna cut off their nose to spite their face because an "undesirable" element was behind a proposition.

I agree with you about the long run.  But we cannot afford to make these changes now.   

Looking at who is financing a bill is extremely important as it makes it clear what parties the bill is intended to benefit, especially one where the stated reasons for its existence are speculation at best. Its not a solution, in fact its effectively suspending indefinitely the resolution of another problem.

For me to okay a proposition it has to have a clear-cut goal. This is a bill for crying out loud! If it has problems or murky areas in it, it shouldn't be passed into law. I have an idea, how about supporting a bill that is actually intended to help fix the unemployment issue?

Then you just play a bluff card, like the insurance companies being against the health care bill when it turns out it was actually written by the insurance company. Or the big oil corporations supposedly being against carbon cuts when instead it is beneficial to them. Saying simply look who finances is too simplistic because they finance both sides, the only way to ensure that you can steer the boat fully. You have to look at who makes the major gains and when you do, it's always big business who make the major gains, since most of these bills are drafted by them. It's not even difficult to pinpoint either since a lot of the advisers have direct conflicts of interests with these very corporations. Here for example the government openly uses advisors who are still employed with business interests, so they essentially lease them lol.