Log in

No account? Create an account
01 March 2004 @ 11:39 pm
Been watching lots of Stargate season 5, and i suddenly thought of it in terms of a Civ type game. The Goa'uld just finished researching the Improved Shields advance, and are trying to take as much advantage of it as possible before the other players research it as well :)

I just finished watching the last episode of the season tonight, and my ashke happened to tell me that Season 6 comes out on DVD tomorrow! I'll have to stop by Best Buy and see if they have it in while i'm out doing chores.

I've been reading up on the issues for the elections tomorrow. I'm both amused and annoyed by the "arguments" in the voters guide which would probably get flaged as spam by spamassassin. The Con for Prop 56 is especially bad. "If Prop. 56 passes, expect HIGHER CAR TAXES, GAS TAXES, INCOME TAXES, SALES TAXES, TAXES on HOMEOWNERS. Don't give Sacramento a BLANK CHECK. California Taxpayers' Association recommends: NO, NO, NO on 56!"

I'd already decided to vote for 56, but if i hadn't i would be strongly tempted to change my mind in the face of such blatent FUD tactics.

I'm thinking i'll vote against 57, not sure about 58. 58 sounds okay, but it seems to be tied to 57 in ways i don't fully understand. Unfortunatly it looks like both will pass because of the millions of dollars Arnold is spending to promote them =/

Should go to bed soon, i need to get up at 8ish if i'm going to be sure i get everything done before i need to be back at 2pm for my phone interview.
Current Mood: stressedstressed
academicerrificmerchimerch on March 1st, 2004 11:48 pm (UTC)
yeah the amount of advertising bucks rich people have to throw at these ballot initiatives is what makes me think that they are not always a good idea. The thing to raise taxes only takes it from a 2/3s majority to a 50 or 55% majority and will also penalize the legislature for not balancing the budget. But they don't mention that one. Also I love the Arnold TV ads for 57 and 58 which will majickally put the state in debt to fund itself rather than drain rich people - becuase apparently property taxes are something like $35 for most homes? At least thats what the lefty propaganda I heard was (which admitedly I tend to believe more than righty propaganda)
DonAithnendonaithnen on March 2nd, 2004 12:34 am (UTC)
I don't know the exact amount, but my understanding is that property taxes are indeed set at rediculously low levels due to a voter initiative from years back. The worst part is that passed propositions are included as part of the state constitution, so lawmakers can't change them without getting a new porposition passed.

Refinancing debt can be a good idea, but i've heard some pretty good arguments against 57. However the personal influence is that it seems like after getting elected on the promise that he was going to magically fix the deficit, Arnold is trying to sweep the issue under the rug and let us pay for it in the future rather than actually dealing with it now.

I've also heard that taxes on the higher tax brackets used to be greater under Reagen than they are now, which sounds odd but there were some republicans in the debate too, and they didn't object to the claim.
angelicdaemon on March 2nd, 2004 05:54 pm (UTC)

Don't vote yes on the Balanced Budget Amendment!!!!!


I know it seems like I'm being overdramatic, but it's a very, very bad idea. What it says is: no deficit spending. Sounds cool, because that means we can't spend what we don't have and won't get into problems like the one we have now, but it also means that if California has a recession, the state government can't do anything to get us out of it. Basically: we're screwed.

Vote yes on anything else, even to keep Bush for the next four years, but please don't vote for the Balanced Budget Amendment!!!