Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Why would someone vote against Prop 23?
Sami:
California's welfare system has been largely abolished and the maximum CalWORKS payment was $221, *before* Schwarzenegger got rid of it. And I think you had to prove you were getting job training, and you were limited to 2 years (for life). And most studies said it was effective at getting people independent.
And I'm with you when it comes to kids. Society should encourage the poor to get an abortion. There are so many people who shit out kids and dump them in the system and to me the system was worse than death in terms of how shitty it is (and I was only in it a few years, imagine what it is to be in the system from birth).
If it were up to me senior year in high school would be all about life skills like parenting, how to get a job, how to cook instead of fast food and how basically to function independently. So many kids don't have that and it would reduce poverty right there.
The oil industry and big polluters will prosper regardless of the economic or legal situation and they certainly aren't small businesses. See, even after the Gulf disaster BP made record profits so I really am not concerned about them.
If you really support small businesses we need to handle the severe shortage of credit so business can expand, hire and create domestic demand. We need that, because the big banks are too busy investing in China and leeching from our government to pay for it.
Sikotic™:
--- Quote from: Russell Bell on November 04, 2010, 08:26:18 PM ---Would you have the same opinion if you were working in a machine-heavy industry (Im assuming u dont), like construction or agriculture?
--- End quote ---
No, I don't work in a machine-heavy industry. If I did of course I would feel differently.
I understand where you are coming from too. I never look at issues like this as black-and-white. I feel whether the proposition passed or got rejected, there would be some negative consequence, which have been pointed out in here. I guess it all boils down to a voter's individual priorities. We differ on that, but I understand your viewpoint completely.
Triple OG Rapsodie:
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.
Russell Bell:
--- Quote from: rapsodie sees the bitch in you on November 05, 2010, 05:52:59 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Triple OG Rapsodie:
--- Quote from: Russell Bell on November 05, 2010, 07:00:48 PM ---
--- Quote from: rapsodie sees the bitch in you on November 05, 2010, 05:52:59 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version