rpm wrote:

I knew Junior Brown slightly, and disliked him, when his father was governor before Reagan. (My father knew Pat at Lowell High School in San Francisco) The irony of the creator of the problem, Junior, having to deal with the mess the public employee unions and their now-wholly-owned subsidiary, the California Democratic Party, made, is delicious.

Never 'knew' any of them, but back then I was working at Paramount Studios, and following some shoots we'd head over to Lucy's for a bite to eat and some pitchers that may have had processed cactus as an ingredient. He and Linda were fixtures there back then.

[edit] For those to young to remember, Ronstadt, then of Stone Ponies fame.

rjquillin wrote:Never 'knew' any of them, but back then I was working at Paramount Studios, and following some shoots we'd head over to Lucy's for a bite to eat and some pitchers that may have had processed cactus as an ingredient. He and Linda were fixtures there back then.

[edit] For those to young to remember, Ronstadt, then of Stone Ponies fame.

I also remember running into the two of them a couple of times in restaurants in LA in the mid-1970s, including one in Topanga Canyon that was popular at the time, but the name of which escapes me. I was very surprised he remembered our having met when he was in college and I was a kid (my dad was visiting his dad).

rpm wrote:He was ABSOLUTELY right about public employee unions - allowing them was possibly the single worst decision made in state and federal government in the second half of the 20th century.

It's a close run thing between that and Medicare/Medicaid, or that and Reagan's 1986 Amnesty for Illegals, but it's right up there.

Of course he was right, but the propaganda machine (media) really made him seem like the very essence of smug, privileged, Republican evil. A lot of people bought into it (or gleefully watched it happen). Then the dust settled, most peoples services were not affected and people realized how much of a ride they had been taken for. Yay, responsible politicians! Now...we gonna see him run in 2016 if Romney doesn't win this year or will his momentum have died off too much by that point?

bhodilee wrote:most peoples services were not affected and people realized how much of a ride they had been taken for.

and...
They saw their TAXES REDUCED!

rjquillin wrote:and...
They saw their TAXES REDUCED!

now see, that part I didn't know. Did they cut teacher salary or was it just paying more for benefits? I can't remember.

bhodilee wrote:now see, that part I didn't know. Did they cut teacher salary or was it just paying more for benefits? I can't remember.

I believe savings in health care costs, by allowing the market to work and not requiring care to be purchased from providers specified/controlled by the unions, they realized savings; so, benefits, and wasn't this done without the loss of jobs?

rjquillin wrote:I believe savings in health care costs, by allowing the market to work and not requiring care to be purchased from providers specified/controlled by the unions, they realized savings; so, benefits, and wasn't this done without the loss of jobs?

I saw they lost 1400 teachers on the news, but I'm thinking that was more bitter grapes than cuts.

bhodilee wrote:Did they cut teacher salary or was it just paying more for benefits? I can't remember.

It amounts to the same.

chemvictim wrote:It amounts to the same.

Does it? Benefits are pre tax. They're probably out less pocket money than a salary cut.

bhodilee wrote:Does it? Benefits are pre tax. They're probably out less pocket money than a salary cut.

I might be off base here, but when they were talking about doing the same to federal workers it worked the other way. We would have to pay tax on it coming and going. Not sure though, that hasn't actually materialized yet. Pay cuts happen, sucks if it's you.

chemvictim wrote:Pay cuts happen, sucks if it's you.

I well remember a ~20% event in the 80's, working at the University of CA in San Diego, when California went through a crunch. Hurt, bad, but I survived to get retired in 2010, again due to lack of funds, and get rehired there again last year.

Go figure.

But it helps support my habit here, and that's a good thing!

Holder's going down! Couldn't happen to a nicer or more honest guy.

Can't wait for his boss to follow suit.

Asserting exec privilege was a monumentally stupid choice, as now Barry's implicated too!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

PetiteSirah wrote:Holder's going down! Couldn't happen to a nicer or more honest guy.

Can't wait for his boss to follow suit.

Asserting exec privilege was a monumentally stupid choice, as now Barry's implicated too!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

I was coming to post the same thing and ask for the opinions of the community. Holder seems to be shooting himself in the head and Obama asked if Holder would mind shooting him first.

The republicans are doing this to make the Dems look stupid and to take Holder's power away, at least in perception. Well, yes. But they are asking for the paperwork for other reasons also.

PetiteSirah wrote:Holder's going down! Couldn't happen to a nicer or more honest guy.

Can't wait for his boss to follow suit.

Asserting exec privilege was a monumentally stupid choice, as now Barry's implicated too!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

I don't know what this is about yet, but I don't like Holder. He's a seaweed.

chemvictim wrote:I don't know what this is about yet, but I don't like Holder. He's a seaweed.

Google "fast and furious". A Border Patrol agent was murdered with a gun suspected to be part of this gun walking.
wiki

PetiteSirah wrote:Holder's going down! Couldn't happen to a nicer or more honest guy.

Can't wait for his boss to follow suit.

Asserting exec privilege was a monumentally stupid choice, as now Barry's implicated too!

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

I have laid in a substantial supply of popcorn....

seems due for a bump.

Fingers crossed for complete rejection of Obamacare tomorrow...

kylemittskus wrote:Fingers crossed for complete rejection of Obamacare tomorrow...

QFT - I'd say I'm hop(e)ing the Supremes will Change the dynamic of the ever greater encroachment of federal power into our lives, but Bambi (or Obummer, as a friend calls him) has those words all staked out.

ObamaCare upheld. Constitutional limits on Federal power meaningless.

rpm wrote:ObamaCare upheld. Constitutional limits on Federal power meaningless.

I found this amusing:

abcnews article wrote:The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that President Obama’s health-care law, his top domestic policy achievement, is constitutional because the “individual mandate”–the penalty individuals must pay for not buying health insurance–can be considered a tax.

As Congress crafted the law, there was some dispute over whether or not to consider the mandate a “tax” or a “penalty.” In this September, 2009 exchange with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, President Obama maintained that the mandate is not a tax.

Luckily for Obama, the Supreme Court held that he was wrong. The law stands, only because Congress has the authority to tax–something Obama maintained it wasn’t trying to do.

F*** all. I am shocked.

So is this it? Nothing can be done and we're stuck with it?

kylemittskus wrote:F*** all. I am shocked.

So is this it? Nothing can be done and we're stuck with it?

Not at all - it's a legislative issue, and can be repealed or changed by the legislature. That's where the focus of anyone who disagrees with this law (including me, if you recall the discussion at the time) should be.

My favorite tweet so far to describe this debacle:

John Hayward - So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.

Obama laughed at the idea that this was a tax. I see a lot of Romney ads in the near future with that clip. It should play along with his repeated statements that no one making under $250K annually will see any new taxes since this doesn't affect the uber-wealthy in the slightest. It hurts the poor, middle-class, and small business owners.

Apparently, SCOTUS really wanted to energize the Republican base.

Off to watch a completely meaningless contempt of Congress vote. Yay!

coynedj wrote:Not at all - it's a legislative issue, and can be repealed or changed by the legislature. That's where the focus of anyone who disagrees with this law (including me, if you recall the discussion at the time) should be.

Indeed. The only way to stop ObamaCare is to give the Republicans the Presidency, the House and 60 votes in the Senate.

The real tragedy of this is that Roberts could have killed the entire bill by siding with Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. 5-4 and the whole damned thing would have been toast.

The next few months will be terrible as people figure out just how much the taxes will cost, and how much insurance costs will go up!

Time for Tar and Feathers! Pitchforks! Hanging and Burning in effigy (a small town outside of Ottawatomie).

How is a monetary fee on something you DON'T buy considered a tax?!

While I didn't like the bill as it was written, I did and still do think that fundamental change needs to come to the health care system in this country. The current mish-mash is leading us down a perilous path, and too many people out there are proposing simplistic "answers" to a very complex issue, that would only replace one mess with another.

While I didn't like the law, I never considered my objections to be Constitutional. Some commentary I've read recently have essentially said that the Supreme Court should have overturned it because it was the wrong approach to take on the issue, and that to me isn't the Court's job - that's what legislatures are for.

Surprised and disappointed. Especially that it was Roberts and not Kennedy that provided the 5th vote to uphold.

Not sure that any real limits now exist on congressional power whatsoever, given that they can apply a tax to inaction - no need to mandate anything when you can just tax anyone who doesn't buy or do what you want them to.

Very sad day.

I have a question for the lawyers out there. If this is a tax, which has to be applicable to all individuals, how is it that certain Unions are being given waivers? Can a tax waiver be granted?

abrahamz wrote:I have a question for the lawyers out there. If this is a tax, which has to be applicable to all individuals, how is it that certain Unions are being given waivers? Can a tax waiver be granted?

Well, those who don't pay taxes are also exempt. This may well be the subject of future litigation whether, if it is a tax, waivers are constitutional.

kylemittskus wrote:How is a monetary fee on something you DON'T buy considered a tax?!

Probably the same way that crops you grow for your own consumption can be regulated by the Feds using the Commerce Clause (1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, link in the article).

5 Most Unlibertarian Supreme Court Rulings Still Standing. And the Individual mandate doesn't even make the list!

rpm wrote:Well, those who don't pay taxes are also exempt. This may well be the subject of future litigation whether, if it is a tax, waivers are constitutional.

And if it is a tax, wouldn't the bill have had to originate in the House, and not the Senate where it did..?

MarkDaSpark wrote:Probably the same way that crops you grow for your own consumption can be regulated by the Feds using the Commerce Clause (1942 ruling in Wickard v. Filburn, link in the article).

5 Most Unlibertarian Supreme Court Rulings Still Standing. And the Individual mandate doesn't even make the list!

Thanks for the link.

I absolutely HATE Miller v. CA.

kylemittskus wrote:Thanks for the link.

I absolutely HATE Miller v. CA.

Especially considering that I find people who lie about their service (and any associated medals) obscene and indecent.

Thanks to all who serve(d) our country.

A disturbing new trend by Democrats?

GOP unnerved by Democrats' candid camera techniques.


While Republicans have video'd Dems in public, they haven't actually posted anything personal (supposedly only public events and public spaces).

One of the Democrat trackers even knocked on the door of the family's home. And commented on the video when no one answered: “Well, I guess he’s not home. Where’s Mike? We’ve been trying to find him.”

Probably in Congress stupid.


What gets me is that they are trying to portray the Republicans as out of touch with normal people, yet there are more millionaire Democrats than Republicans in Congress.

And especially aggravating when my local rep (Democrat) has 3 homes.

I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

kylemittskus wrote:I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

Indeed. The state vs. the individual - does the state obtain its legitimacy from the consent of the governed? (in which case we're in trouble because only 22% think the US government has the consent of the governed today). How large should the role of the state be? Should there be a "safety net?" A "welfare state?" What's the difference? Should we have a tax system where ~50% of households do not pay income tax, but can vote to raise it on those who do? Should laws (e.g. immigration laws) be enforced? Have the intended limits of the Constitution been traduced since the '30s? Is it even possible to rein in the federal government to something like its Constitutionally-imposed limited role?

kylemittskus wrote:I am so unbelievably sick of both sides muckraking. I want issues discussed. Period. Don't hang on every word, don't throw BS accusations around -- just discuss political stances, issues, and resolutuons.

So it is in the perfect world we will never live in.

Either I don't watch much network TV (probable) or they don't bother with Nebraska (likely), but I haven't seen hardly any of the muckraking I've been reading is so prevalent. What I have seen has been relatively tame.

Un-fffing-believable.

'And what do you know?': Business leaders hit back at Obama after he says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success


Obama quotes:

'The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.'

Correct. Oh wait, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet on his own? IIRC, DARPA invented the Internet, but it was businesses (not the government) that made it take off.

If not for business usage, the Internet would still be in test mode.


'Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

True, but that someone includes all the business owners who pay taxes, plus the trucking companies who pay taxes and usage fees.

And the reason the government helped build the Interstates was so that they could move troops and tanks quickly.


It is truly amazing how incompetent Obama is regarding business and the economy.

MarkDaSpark wrote:Un-fffing-believable.

'And what do you know?': Business leaders hit back at Obama after he says the wealthy AREN'T responsible for their own success


Obama quotes:

'The internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet.'

Correct. Oh wait, didn't Al Gore invent the Internet on his own? IIRC, DARPA invented the Internet, but it was businesses (not the government) that made it take off.

If not for business usage, the Internet would still be in test mode.


'Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business - you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.'

True, but that someone includes all the business owners who pay taxes, plus the trucking companies who pay taxes and usage fees.

And the reason the government helped build the Interstates was so that they could move troops and tanks quickly.


It is truly amazing how incompetent Obama is regarding business and the economy.

1. Yes, the "internet" was originally known as the "DARPA net" and it was turned on in October 1969. I know because I was there, in the computer center at UC Santa Barbara when it was first turned on. A computer science major friend was a sysop and happened to see me walking from the history department to the library past the computer center, came out and grabbed me excitedly, explaining that they were about to turn on this new "network" among UCLA, Stanford, USCB and UUtah. There was a little celebration. I seem to recall it crashed after an hour or two. But it was way cool to be able to say I was there at the birth of the internet. Even before Al Gore....