Question to Californians

[Bandit]

What was the economy like in California before Bush* came to power. Davis was there for over two years before Bush*. Say in 2000 what was the economy like? or 1999? Not being from California I don't really know but I seem to recall California was doing very well until the 2000 election and the "so called" energy crisis that seemed trumped up by Cheney and Bush* It seems to me like all of California's problems started at the time Bush* came to power. Why can't people go back and look at Davis' early record, before Bush*? Still doesn't warrant a recall unless some criminal activity were to develope. There have been a multitude of bad governors and they were just voted out according to law and tradition. This recall is different in that no real reason is given other than politics.

[Capn Sunshine]

1. We ARE the 5th largest economy in the world

Things went south with the energy company ripoff. There was never a "crisis"; there was approximately 20% more capacity than peak demand during the blackout periods. It was a blatant, wholesale fraud perpetrated by cronies of the Bush White House. The removal of 70 billion in capital from the state went a long way towards our current deficit.
You could say it was the singlemost destructive factor.

NOW we get to pay BILLIONS more in interest payments for bond issues since by passing a recall, California will demonstrate that it is an unstable government.

By the time the neocons are done looting here the effects will have rippled into national scale; the economy will be circling the drain. But they don't care; the "long term progress" will be worth the sacrifice of the national middle class.
get ready, it's coming your way.
:nuke:

[salmonhorse]

2. For a multi-dimentional economy?

Holding our own well enough:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-07.htm

[Le Taz Hot]

3. I'll try to answer

but I'm not an economist. Before the .com failure in January 2000, California's economy was great. We had a surplus and DMV fees actually went down (under Davis). The .com hit us fairly hard but did not devestate the economy. What did that was the manufactured "energy shortage" and THAT was Bush's buddies at work trying to bankrupt California. The plan was/is to target 1-2 states (gee, wonder which ones THOSE would be -- look out New York) which would have a domino effect throughout the remaining states. Now, couple that with the "tax cut" which has virtually bankrupted the federal government and we can begin cutting all those nasty social programs so the remaining fed monies can go to worthy causes like the Pentagon, Haliburton, Carlyle, Duke, ad nauseum.

Davis had nothing to do with the pissy economy -- it was a planned, concerted effort to bankrupt California -- the coup for the takeover of state Governorship was an added bonus.

[slackmaster]

4. In 1999 and most of 2000 the economy was in the tech bubble

Just like the US in general.

I really don't believe the POTUS or the governator have much influence over the economy.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

9. Remember Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" speech?

The conditions that led to the collapse of the .com bubble were already in place before GWB took office. Investors had unrealistic expectations that Internet commerce was going to take off and keep going upward indefinitely.

If you had bothered to examine the state of the economy in different parts of California rather than the state as a whole you might not have your head so deep in the sand. Here's a hint: Look at San Diego County and compare it to the Bay Area.

[fob]

5. BB*, or Before Bush*, everything was fine. SB*, or Since Bush*

everythings been in the shitter, or headed that way at a quickening pace.

Here is the fundamental equation to note;

CA over charged approx $35 Billion by TX energy companies and Bush* buddy/contributors = CA $35 Billion deficit

Coincidence? I think not!

bush* are a national disgrace.

[Trajan]

7. Davis and the Democrats are NOT responsible for the weak economy ...

... in California ....

The ENERGY ripoff, which is the conspiratorial brainchild of the TEXAS energy moguls, of which Bush and Cheney are but team members ... THAT was the beginning of weakness in the California economy .... considering that spiking energy costs impact EVERYONE: .. including the small business supporters of the GOP ....

Funny how the GOP 'HATES" to tax the people, but dont really mind much if someone is ripping them off like they're rolling bums in a dark alley ...

And the REST of CA's problems is simply due to the same "GOP is in control of both houses of congress and the White House" malaise that we expect from these bums ...

Can ANYONE tell me of a single moment in time, when the GOP ran the economy and it actually benefitted the citizens in any way ? ...

"CMon ... Throw me a fucking BONE here ..... " ...

They are SUCH liars ! ... they have NEVER ran the US economy to the benefit of its citizens: .... ALL they have is EXCUSES why the economy is fucked up when they are running it: ...

Amazingly: .... when the DEMS take control, and things start to get better .... the GOP starts offering credit to GOP administrations past who sat decades earlier .... the massive non sequitur ...

[wryter2000]

10. What everyone else said

We were bound to hurt some from the dot.com balloon busting. Otherwise, we were in great shape. The energy "crisis" started us downhill, and BushCo took over from there.

[salmonhorse]

27. Agreed ~

It was a folly of the 1st magnitude for Silicon Valley, if you will, to somehow reckon that the entire world would be ruled by the point & click of a 'mouse that roared'; in the end no substitute for brick & mortar that's all.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. If it just had been the tech bubble bursting....

we could have rode it out and recovered.

It was the faux energy crisis that really did us in, plain and simple.

[slackmaster]

11. That's not the whole picture

Rising energy costs have certainly caused a lot of manufacturing businesses to leave California, but for industries that are not so energy intensive the real problems are runaway taxation and rising health care costs. Sony shut down its cathode ray tube plant in San Diego County simply because their electric bill got too high, but ask Buck Knives why they plan to move to Idaho and you'll get a very different answer.

[Trajan]

13. Are you a liberal and/or progressive Democrat ? ....

[slackmaster]

14. Why don't you try checking out the facts?

Businesses are leaving California because of the cost of doing business. Deny it at your own risk.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter98/whatsnew/wn_business.html

[Trajan]

18. The extention of this argument is ...

The LEAST expensive state should get ALL the business .... which is what I presume you tacitly recommend ....

Yet: ... those in the 'least expensive' states rarely receive decent wages like those that create a middle to upper middle class .... in fact: .... states that ARE "business friendly", IE Georgia, Texas, Alabama, ... are so called 'Right to Work' states ... which on the whole pay as much as 75 % LESS for the same jobs in California ...

There is good reason to support HIGHER wages for workers, in that THEY are the backbone of the broad economy: ... if the Middle class has money: .. THEY provide the stimulus that puts EVERY business into work ....

So ;..... yes: .... 'cheaper' costs means that businesses make more profit: ... but the eventual costs of these policies will be felt by all as a moribund economy without a decently populated middle class to prime the pump ....

The RICH can only afford so many mansions ..... The Middle Class MUST be 'enriched' if they are to stimulate business ...

Again: .... you present at best a libertarian argument .... I take it you are NOT a liberal democrat .....

[slackmaster]

20. That's exactly what is happening

The company I work for is headquartered in California but incorporated in Delaware.

Again: .... you present at best a libertarian argument .... I take it you are NOT a liberal democrat .....

I lost much of my liberal leanings when I got my first paycheck and saw how much of my earnings were taken by a government that does not always support my best interests or protect the environment. If businesses leave California for any reason we're all in a world of shit.

[Trajan]

23. Yes .... that IS what is happening ....

and it explains what is WRONG with the current regime ...

PURE PROFIT cannot be the ONLY motive in a representative republican democracy ..... the functionality of the state in providing for ALL its members the benefit of the state, MUST be held higher than the goal of profit for a few ... "To promote the general welfare", is key to rendering such a government, formed through 'consent' of ALL the people .... to actually benefit ALL the people who offered that consent ....

Capitalism is a wonderfully beneficial system IF contained by regulation that disallows the exploitation of the poor or the outright fraud of either the marketplace OR the state ....

The pure darwinian aspect of a 'free market' BEGS for controls ..... History PROVES that utterly free markets fail due to greed and plunder ....

As a citizen who consents to be governed: ... I demand our government place reasonable controls on the marketplace to assure that the greatest body of citizens benefit the greatest amount .. NOT the fewest number of citizens benefitting the most by enslaving the greatest amount of citizens ...

PLEASE note: .... this board is for liberals and progressives .... there are other forums on the internet that cater to rightist republicans and libertairians ....

[salmonhorse]

28. Agreed in full ~

We are, in theory, separated of our church & state :shrug: We should in all that is earnest separate our state & capitalism as well...

As-such-capitalism is poisoning the entire landscape we otherwise know & recognize as:

America The Beautiful ~

[slackmaster]

33. OT but since you seem to be attacking my politics...

Allow me to clarify: I am as liberal and progressive as you can be on most social issues. I'm one of those "fiscal conservatives" who always get accused of being hypocrites or spies.

PLEASE note: .... this board is for liberals and progressives .... there are other forums on the internet that cater to rightist republicans and libertairians ....

Oh really? From the Message Board Rules:

"We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals.

This is a "big tent" message board. We welcome a wide range of progressive opinion. You will likely encounter many points of view here that you disagree with."

IMO there's nothing inherently un-progressive about insisting that public money be spent cautiously and accounted for scrupulously. Financial ineptness and waste hurt everyone. Public expenditures should be subject to the same kinds of rigorous, dispassionate cost-benefit analysis that gets applied in successful businesses. My biggest beef with the present California legislature is that they have dropped the ball on controlling spending.

When you have a surplus as we did a couple of years ago, a wise steward will save up a reserve of cash rather than spending it all. I won't sully the reputation of honorable drunken sailors by making the standard comparison here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. The article is near VOID of facts and reads like the anti- labor articles

of the mid to late 80's that sparked a number of reforms in states around the nation including the RIGHT TO WORK states. It states 1 of 6 leaving due to an unfriendly atmostphere but also targets COUNTIES...that indicates to me a LOCAL problem not a statewide problem. BTW...what about the other 5? Why are they leaving? Seems to me it's a poorly written conclusionary article that has NO BYLINE and doesn't even refer the reader to the actual study.....really lame for a UC article and quite sloppy journalism if you ask me...and you are going to call this facts?

The business community did a similar thing with Workers Compensation in the late 80's. They put out studies claiming over 50% of work comp claims were fraudulent. They got massive reforms FROM WORKERS which resulted in a 500 billion dollar WINDFALL for comp carriers and some MODEST savings for businesses. Businesses left anyway.

Then in the mid 90's after the reforms, a REPUBLICAN journalist by the name of Mary Fricker who had previously written business friendly articles received numerous letters from injured workers harmed by the reforms or by carriers blatantly disregarding even the post reform laws after writing a very glowing article about comp reforms. She decided to search for the truth, got the funds from her newspaper to conduct a statewide study on workers compensation and the claims of the business community.

When she was finished, she wrote a 5 part award winning series of articles pointing out that less than 1 percent of California workers compensation cases were found or even accused by CARRIERS (according to dcouments they MUST file when THEY suspect fraud)to be fraudulent. She found that virtually every fact reported by business lobbyists was either vastly overblown or a complete fabrication..THIS WAS BY ONE OF THEIR OWN.

So no...you did not provide us with facts.

[salmonhorse]

29. What can you say but...

"Well, whadda'ya know; USC..."

[sandnsea]

31. cheap labor conservatives

Move to a state that doesn't protect its employees or the environment. Postpone the problems and pretend they don't exist. That's a real solution. When Idaho becomes a shithole, then what?

[Bandit]

12. Okay so why do so many Californians dislike Davis?

His poll numbers are pathetic. California is a Democratic majority state so most Democrats must have a reason to dislike him so much. Is it all economy or is there some underlying factor?

[Trajan]

15. There are TWO major reasons that democrats 'hate' Davis ....

1) Davis has all the personality of a rock ... I dont know if its his voice, his manner, or just the content of his ideas ....

2) As is their want: the enemies of the Democrats have been SLAMMING Davis for years about his being 'responsible' for the energy crisis, which has developed into his being 'responsible' for the state economy ... which we ALL know is symptomatic of the general malaise that is affecting the WHOLE nation .... not just California ...

MY problem is this: ... WHY do the Democrats allow themselves to be misrepresented like this ? ...

WHY would Davis take such broadsides over the last 25 months and NOT com,e out FORCEFULLY: defining the LIES of the GOP and the facts as they truly are ? ...

WHY do the Democrats just LAY OVER AND DIE when it comes to public discourse ? ...

SHEEEESH: .... you CANNOT just stand around with your fingers up yer nose, when your enemy is painting you as the worst being since Satan to walk the universe .....

The Democrats MUST get out there and MAKE A CASE for themselves ...

Honestly: . I have YET to hear Davis tell Californians, unequivically: "I regret signing those contracts, but I was FORCED to do something to stop the GOP ENERGY MOGULS from ripping us off any further .... who evidently had preplanned the wholesale fraud of the entire state of California, Republican and Democrat alike" ...

I mean CMON : ..... FIGHT it ! ... STOP falling to your knees and wimpering ....

The DEMS SO need some backbone ....

[PROGRESSIVE1]

17. The Repugs are going...

to attempt to get McClintock and Simon out of this race so that Arnie will win it!!! The Dem's should rally behind Davis EVEN if they do NOT like him. Many conservatives who are not fond of Arnie will back him and we LIBERALS should back Davis!

[Athletic Grrl]

22. Simon is a stubbron SOB

as are most fat cat Rethugs. He's our only hope. Better yet McClintock stays in...the Coalition loves him.

Hate to say it, but this battle will be won in the middle. We have to pray or hope that the wingnuts stay in. Otherwise, we're toast. The mere thought of Gov. Ahhnold nauseates me no end.

[salmonhorse]

30. Simon just said, "People need to live within their budgets..."

Shouldn't he be calling up the Nixon-Bush-Cheney Admin in the 'white house' and getting all pissy with them/him for having his/their energy contributors drain the Cali St Treasury?

:shrug:

[Athletic Grrl]

16. Simple

He is not a leader. He has no ideas. He's a great campaigner, but he is as dull as his name. I feel nothing eminating from him.

Still, those are not recallable offenses.

[Mairead]

21. "Still, those are not recallable offenses."

They are if the people say they are.

Recall is a vote of confidence. No confidence? Adiós.

[Bandit]

24. Gross mismanagement of taxpayers money

Who authorizes expenditures? Is it the Governor or the Legislature? Sounds to me like you don't like the legislature and are taking it out on the governor. We are not a parlimentary government where we have votes of confidence/no confidence. Your argument is lacking in knowlege.

[Mairead]

32. I think you're confused

The legislature authorises the money, the executive spends (i.e., manages) it.

You're also confusing the thing with its label: we do indeed have votes of confidence. We don't call them that, but we have them. Every time we hold an election in which the incumbent is a candidate.

[Mairead]

19. "Politics" is the only reason for ANY election

This is not some special travesty of justice--this is a vote of confidence. If he can't pass it, he deserves to be sacked.

[Hanuman]

25. That's the long and the short of it-

and it's exactly how I feel about this recall.