It's May 04, 2024, 02:01:02 AM
Real unemployment levels are above 20% by the way, as horrifying as 12% is, it's nowhere near the full picture.
The economy isn't everything. Some things are more important, one of which is the environment. That's why I voted no on 23.
See, this is where I have a fundamental difference with the modern GOP. Not everyone who use social programs are 'leeches', or even most of them. There are truly sick and disabled and disadvantaged people who get left to die if we just tell them to fuck themselves...and a democracy cannot exist with large mobs of sick, disabled or poor people just staying in the street. They suffer, and it wounds society creating a festering sore which makes people angry and crazy, which you can see a bit of now with how many people are losing their homes and people get more and more bitter and our economy worsens. Imagine if we abolished Social Security tomorrow like the Rs want. There are so many people who have either lost everything or never had anything in the first place for whom $500 a month (SSI maximum payment) is their only resource at all. And protecting the environment is more important than jobs. You're argument is basically one of the arguments for making all drugs legal as well, because all the various drug jobs are better than no jobs at all, right? But hard drugs (not weed) damage society because they are addictive and cause crime as people are essentially slaves to the high. In that same way we have to protect the environment because if sea levels rise and the climate changes severely it will affect food and water supplies for the entire world.It's like saying don't shit where you eat."
Would you have the same opinion if you were working in a machine-heavy industry (Im assuming u dont), like construction or agriculture?
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.
Quote from: rapsodie sees the bitch in you on November 05, 2010, 05:52:59 PMI 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.
Quote from: Russell Bell on November 05, 2010, 07:00:48 PMQuote from: rapsodie sees the bitch in you on November 05, 2010, 05:52:59 PMI 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?