In this thread we discuss the California Propositions

[XOMichelle]

I spent 5 hours last night researching those darned propositions. What did the other CA voters think of them? I was really up in the air on 72 and the three strikes revisions.

[SapphireSphinx9]

personally, i didn't think the wording on 72 was quite right...

i looked up how many employees a "medium" sized company would have to be, to make them offer health care for their employees... and it's 50 people.

i didn't like how i had to look that up. it should have been stated in the description of the proposition.

i also don't like how it offers tons of "outs" for the larger corporations: they can make their full-time employees work less time, just so they don't have to offer health care (which is what albertson's has been doing to their employees for years!) and i also don't like the idea of these corporations moving out of california to other states, or even out of the country, because they don't want to provide health care.

i do believe that EVERYONE should be able to have health care available to them... but that isn't what this proposition is about.


about the three strikes, prop 66... i was on the fence about this one until last night. in all honesty, i believe that a crime is a crime and criminals need to be brought to justice. BUT i also think their sentence needs to be appropriate for the crime. no one should serve live in jail for stealing a snickers bar, or for diapers for their baby!!! since i couldn’t figure out which side i decided was fair, i voted how the Govenator said to…


prop A is one of them that i had to sit and think about... and even now, after i voted, i don't know if i am sure about the "right" decision... higher sales tax for more police??? i think we need more cops, but i also don't want to pay more on taxes! it's bad enough already!


and it’s a no brainer on prop. 71, for me. my mom is a paraplegic, and so there’s no question on this one.


**i just wished they would put a little bit more detail in the descriptions on all the propositions.**

[DeltaSigStan]

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the three strike one was pretty clear from how i read it. I rather see t he more violent nailed than say someone who stole a gallon of milk for a pety theft sentence.

No offense please taken if your indian but i voted for them to pay their share of taxes. to me it was only fair they have to pay too just like every other citizen.

the DNA one was interesting. It got very little to no coverage in the media.

the Health Insurance one.... i worked for Wal Mart once a long time ago and they will cheat you out of ins if they could and i think with rising cost of coverage if you work FT you should get benefits and that includes health insurance no matter large or small the business is.

I didnt see on there the measure where they want to clean and purify water.

I voted for more police on the streets.

I debated about stem cells......one hand i had a granddad who died of parkinsons and then i thought how they would go about gaining the stem cell and it was a hard one t o vote for.

other than that it was local council members and assembly seats and state senator and presidency

[chideltjen]

I studied the big name ones last night and left a lot of blank answers. I was only for sure on Prop 71 and that's the one I did the most research on. But the others: Prop 68 and 70 confused the crap out of me. I voted for one and not the other. I dunno... 70 just sounded better.

Voted no on 66 and 64.

Voted yes on 61 and 63.

There were a couple others I couldn't tell who was right or wrong (64 for one of them) so that's why I voted no.

Originally posted by cutiepatootie
the DNA one was interesting. It got very little to no coverage in the media.

What's funny is that I actually did the stationary (letterhead and envelope) for this PR group's stance. It told me to vote "yes," but I voted no.

[SapphireSphinx9]

Originally posted by DeltaSigStan
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what is this one about?? living in la county, i didn't have prop b.

[XOMichelle]

There was quite a bit of description in the ballot I thought. Still not enough, but I was happy they included the text of the laws in the back. I read through most of each one. I'm glad I am not a laywer!

The deffinition of the corperation size was listed in a handy pop-out chart on the 4 page description of 72, FYI. The only corps that get out of providing health care are ones with less than 19 people. I really like the idea of having a health care cooperative for the state

I thought the big deal on the two gaming casino propositions was that the governor thinks he can score MORE state revenue from them than either proposition. I thought both of them really fell short- pay us money or we will open more casinos. What's with that? They weren't going to say yes to paying taxes, and we would have a bunch of new casinos everywhere. The alternative was pretty bad too: pay the state less money than the state thinks it can get. Indian or not, I think the casinos should pay taxes. I voted no for both.

[BetteDavisEyes]

I voted yes on measure A. It raises the sales tax in L.A. County in order to hire more police officers.

[AKA_Monet]

I voted NO on all propositions that cost me a taxpayer any more money I have to lay out in taxes... I don't give a dayum what it was, I ain't paying no more CA State Taxes...

But I did vote yes on the stem cell research proposition...

[XOMichelle]

Issuing bonds can raise your taxes indirectly because at some point in time that debt needs to be paid back from the general fund (both 61 and 71 had provisions for bonds to be re-paid fom the general fund). I actually think bonds are less fiscally responsible than straight up taxes. Why pay twice the amount to get half the money if you don't need to?

[HBADPi]

My favorite was proposition 0...I'm still baffled why that one didnt get a number.

[polarpi]

Yes: 1A, 59, 60, 61, 64, 69, 71

No: 60A, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72


Local Ones: (San Diego)

A: yes
B: no (this was the ordinance to repeal an earlier election result for the Gregory Canyon Landfil)
C: yes
BB: yes

I, too, spent a couple hours last week reading over the wording of the different propositions. I mainly focused on the impartial analysis of each proposition (describing it in "layman's terms), then the pro/con con/pro for each proposition, and that helped make my decision.

I'm kinda bad, though....if the same people were providing both the pro and con for one side of the proposition, then I voted the opposite way as they were advocating!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by XOMichelle
Issuing bonds can raise your taxes indirectly because at some point in time that debt needs to be paid back from the general fund (both 61 and 71 had provisions for bonds to be re-paid fom the general fund). I actually think bonds are less fiscally responsible than straight up taxes. Why pay twice the amount to get half the money if you don't need to?

I just saw this but this is an example of how confused I get knowing you went to Stanford.

Bonds and Equity/Stock are the simplest financing techniques out there. Bonds=Debt and Equity/Stock is part ownership in a company. Public finance is conducted without equity financing.

As for how a municipal entity pays for something, it is done through issuing debt. It can issue bonds to create capital in a fund, it can issue bonds specifically for a project like building an airport, etc. The bonds can be paid for through many different ways including taxes and often through revenue streams like parking meter revenues. In fact you can securitize a revenue stream much like David Bowie sold bonds on his songs.

I have absolutely no idea where you came up with this awful understanding of what a bond is and how taxes are raised but you may want to study the things you vote for in the future.

-Rudey
--Oh and don't use phrases like fiscally responsible