Californians How Do You Plan To Vote On the Propositions.

[DCal430]

For me it is:

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): YES, BIG YES
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): NO
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): NO
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): YES
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): YES
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): YES

Originally I was very much for a Yes on 32, I am still very unhappy about the things my union does, but I decided to wait for a better reform bill then this. One that seeks to ban all corporate and union money from political donations.

30 is the one I know must pass, I fear people just do not get the disaster that will befall all of us if it fails.

 

[Chris A]

Prop 30? Comcast, cambles soup, eBay,claim jumper, bubba gump shrimp, Rockwell,


Several hundreds more moved out of state to avoid high taxes and regulations.

 

[Slew Foot]

Prop 30? Comcast, cambles soup, eBay,claim jumper, bubba gump shrimp, Rockwell,


Several hundreds more moved out of state to avoid high taxes and regulations.

That's OK, well just raise taxes more!

 

[schneiderguy]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): NO
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): NO
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): NO

I like voting no.

edit: oops voted yes on 32 also

 

[schneiderguy]

That's OK, well just raise taxes more!

And after we rid the state of all of the evil privately owned businesses, we can just tax the government to close the budget deficit!

Spoiler

this is what libruls actually believe

 

[monovillage]

Yes on 32, No on the rest.

I like voting No also.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): NO

 

[chowderhead]

For me it is:

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): YES, BIG YES
Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): NO
Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): NO
Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): NO
Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): NO
Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO
Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES
Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): YES
Proposition 38 (Taxes Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase): YES
Proposition 39 (Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): YES
Proposition 40 (Redistricting): YES

Originally I was very much for a Yes on 32, I am still very unhappy about the things my union does, but I decided to wait for a better reform bill then this. One that seeks to ban all corporate and union money from political donations.

30 is the one I know must pass, I fear people just do not get the disaster that will befall all of us if it fails.

I am not in California so cannot vote but my understanding is that Props 30 and 38 are competing measures. If both passes, the one with more votes goes into effect. 38 is trailing and will probably fail. 30 is on the edge and may or may not fail depending on the turnout. The Field poll has it under 50% and most props under 50% for passing heading into the election typically fails.

 

[DCal430]

There is no reason to vote No on 40. Voting no on 40 only cost the state money and the people who placed it there are now changing their mind, and are urging a Yes vote. Everyone is saying vote yes from democrats to republicans.

 

[redgtxdi]

http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/Election.html?feed=452967&article=10448674

And I would implore anyone considering yes on 30 and 38 to ask yourself how more money will fix the problems our schools have now. It won't. They don't need more money, they need more fiscal discipline and less administration, unionization and black hole pension obligations! Then and only then will we have more than enough money to provide far more than either of those tax & spend props will merit.

NO ON 30

YES ON 32

NO ON 38

:thumbsup:

 

[DCal430]

http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/Election.html?feed=452967&article=10448674

And I would implore anyone considering yes on 30 and 38 to ask yourself how more money will fix the problems our schools have now. It won't. They don't need more money, they need more fiscal discipline and less administration, unionization and black hole pension obligations! Then and only then will we have more than enough money to provide far more than either of those tax & spend props will merit.

NO ON 30

YES ON 32

NO ON 38

:thumbsup:

Many school districts will be forced to end after school programs including athletic programs. What do you think kids who can't play football after school are going to do instead, they are going to go around getting into trouble.

Likewise many locals won't be able to afford police and fire protection, again crime will run wild.

 

[Slew Foot]

http://www.kfiam640.com/pages/Election.html?feed=452967&article=10448674

And I would implore anyone considering yes on 30 and 38 to ask yourself how more money will fix the problems our schools have now. It won't. They don't need more money, they need more fiscal discipline and less administration, unionization and black hole pension obligations! Then and only then will we have more than enough money to provide far more than either of those tax & spend props will merit.

NO ON 30

YES ON 32

NO ON 38

:thumbsup:

BUT BUT BUT, think of the children!!!! How are they supposed to learn the alphabet without a billion dollar network of ipads and administraitors retiring with 300k pensions?

 

[ivwshane]

Why no on the car insurance one? Seems like a good idea to me.

 

[schneiderguy]

Many school districts will be forced to end after school programs including athletic programs. What do you think kids who can't play football after school are going to do instead, they are going to go around getting into trouble.

Join one of the many private leagues? Oh the horror D:

 

[DCal430]

Join one of the many private leagues? Oh the horror D:

You think a single mother with 4 kids can afford a private league.

 

[Slew Foot]

Join one of the many private leagues? Oh the horror D:

The douchebags that would get into trouble instead of playing football are the same douchebags that get into trouble after playing football.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Proposition 30 (Taxes Jerry Brown's Tax Increase): NO ! BIG NO ! As this is yet another scam to fleece taxpayers for additional revenue that will eventually be siphoned away to further prop up run away spending.

Proposition 31 (State budget Two-Year Budget Cycle): YES - Puts in more oversight and adds a bit more transparency to the budget process so that taxpayers have a better idea as to where most of the spending is going.

Proposition 32 (Ban on corporate and union contributions): YES - Unions shouldn't get a free pass to tax their members to support their political agenda and neither should corp's and government contractors.

Proposition 33 (Car insurance rates): YES - You should be rewarded for your driving record and frankly the state shouldn't be involved in the process what discounts insurance companies can and should offer.

Proposition 34 (End the Death Penalty): YES - The way California has been practicing the death penalty we might as well not have it at all.

Proposition 35 (Human Trafficking): NO - This bill has possible unintended consequences in that consensual acts of prostitution could be lumped into the rush for feel good legislative action on the issue.

Proposition 36 (Three Strikes): YES - Still will go after repeat offenders by doubling sentences while preventing those committing non-violent crime from receiving life sentences

Proposition 37 (Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food): NO - Frivolous fear-mongering regulation which will only increase the cost of food in the state.

Proposition 38(Income Tax increase): NO - Same deal as prop 30. You really have to be a fucking moron to believe that an increase in the state's income tax will solve our mess caused by democrats spending like drunken sailors. Furthermore the money raised has no guarantees to ever reach schools and will no doubt be used to prop up pensions and/or other spending initiatives.

Proposition 39 (Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses): NO - Like we need more reasons for businesses to flee the state or to increase our unemployment rate (currently 3rd highest in the nation).

Proposition 40 (Redistricting): Doesn't matter but the 2 major parties have agreed that this is a Yes vote for them.

 

[IGBT]

NO on ALL tax increases.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Why no on the car insurance one? Seems like a good idea to me.

It's stupid that the state even has a say on the issue of what discounts car insurance companies can offer their clients.

 

[novasatori]

Its stupid that the state even has a say in the issue on what discounts insurance companies can offer their clients.

Insurers may increase the cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.

Seems kinda dumb, if you have a lapse in insurance you are going to get higher rates.

I haven't had car insurance since 2006, because I don't drive. So if I decide to start driving again and get insurance my rate is higher, why?

Also I wouldn't hold my breath for discounts.

 

[Printer Bandit]

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Seems kinda dumb, if you have a lapse in insurance you are going to get higher rates.

I haven't had car insurance since 2006, because I don't drive. So if I decide to start driving again and get insurance my rate is higher, why?

And for those of us who have not had lapses we cannot benefit if this does not pass and we decide to switch insurance companies. Either way it should not be up to the state to decide who gets a discounted rate.

 

[jackstar7]

Why no on the car insurance one? Seems like a good idea to me.

It opens up a means for drivers to be punished if they have any gaps in their coverage, like if they stop driving due to injury recovery or whatever. If they drop insurance, then they can be screwed.

It's a means for insurance companies to cut through regulations that prevent shitty practices.

 

[ivwshane]

It's stupid that the state even has a say on the issue of what discounts car insurance companies can offer their clients.

Yeah until you realize that insurance in California is mandatory, so why wouldn't the required buyer have a little power?

Your argument seems to say that companies profits come before the people. Sorry, this country wasn't founded for the benefit of businesses, it was put together to empower the people.


Anyone have a better answer?

Seems kinda dumb, if you have a lapse in insurance you are going to get higher rates.

I haven't had car insurance since 2006, because I don't drive. So if I decide to start driving again and get insurance my rate is higher, why?

In your case your rates would still be higher than a similar good driver who has had continuous coverage (there are exemptions but I don't think you qualify for any).

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Yeah until you realize that insurance in California is mandatory, so why wouldn't the required buyer have a little power?

Your argument seems to say that companies profits come before the people. Sorry, this country wasn't founded for the benefit of businesses, it was put together to empower the people.


Anyone have a better answer?




In your case your rates would still be higher than a similar good driver who has had continuous coverage (there are exemptions but I don't think you qualify for any).

If insurance is mandatory then this is a non-issue and a Yes vote helps everyone who drives since they should be carrying insurance period as per requirement from the state. Those of us who keep our insurance up to date and current should be rewarded for being responsible drivers.

Edit: Furthermore this proposition would allow/incentivize auto-insurance companies to compete for new customers from their rivals in the market by allowing them to offer discounts to them for being insured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C9ghMKwPWv8#!