Posted on 09/02/2005 2:59:40 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO -- Facing widespread opposition to his special election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that if voters reject a proposed spending restraint on the November ballot, he might be forced to raise taxes.
Schwarzenegger previewed a campaign theme in a morning radio interview, predicting that new taxes might be the only alternative if voters reject Proposition 76, the "Live Within Our Means" act.
Asked on Sacramento station KTKZ-1380 AM what he might do to avert future budget deficits if the spending control is defeated, Schwarzenegger said:
"Then we have to look at raising taxes, because this is the only option we have, in order to create the money. And this is why I tell people vote yes on Proposition 76 and make sure that we do everything that we can to pass this proposition so that we force our legislators once and for all to live within their means and not to continue spending money and to keep making promises to people that they can't keep."
Schwarzenegger's comments came amid a new statewide poll showing little appetite for the Nov. 8 special election that he depicts as central to his "year of reform" agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"I said: "IMO, if Arnold starts governing like the fiscal conservative he campaigned as, he will get support."
Oh, got you, we go down through Cary's laundry list, and all of the ones that don't concern fiscal policy won't matter.
BTW- does your comment about blowing up clinics mean that you DO believe that there are fanatical conservatives ?
BTW2-My tagline is a homage to one that many consider a great conservative ... ( but I suppose he's not fanatical about it )
Damn this buzzing is getting louder - have to pick up a can of Raid...
There it is again--that lack of reading comprehension.
I made no comment about clinics--You did!
I told you guys to vote for Tom...and few listened....
Reap what you sow...Arnie is Rhino piece of crap...always has been, always will be...
California will be soon bankrupt if they raise taxes again...
>>Oh, got you, we go down through Cary's laundry list, and all of the ones that don't concern fiscal policy won't matter.
Most all on the list deal with fiscal issues or have fiscal implications. To me, TAXPAYER FUNDING of stem-cell research, that Arnold endorsed, is a FISCAL issue. But seeing your tactics, you would probably like to paint anyone who opposed it as a terrorist blowing up abortion clinics.
Carry_Okie's list:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1474325/posts?page=107#107
It's the truth going off in you're head while you're arguing against it!!! Truth or consequences, buzz-head!!!
Good... it's starting to fade away... leaves room for intelligent conversation ...
What a bunch of convoluted BS!
So, RS, you are now free to cross check the numbers in the table.
>>If we can't even agree that "fanatical conservatives" and/or " right wing crazies" even exist, then YOU have accepted them under the blanket of conservatism.
Arnold called those supporting the racial privacy act, Prop 54, "Right Wing Crazies". Do you think those the are "fanatical conservatives", also?
"To me, TAXPAYER FUNDING of stem-cell research, that Arnold endorsed, is a FISCAL issue."
Y'know, I'm not too happy about that one either, for the same reason ( goes against some of my libertarian tendancies )
... the only way to rationalize it is that medical research is a clean, brain-power intensive industry, the kind of thing that we need more of in CA.
If we don't grab onto it when it is in it's infancy, we won't get a second chance. It could very well spark the next Silicon Valley, and we don't want it to be in Calcutta.
He's a good businessman, and knows you sometimes have to prime the pump.
"...his data comes directly from the Secretary of State's office."
"So, RS, you are now free to cross check the numbers in the table."
Somehow I doubt that the SS office has a catagory of donation called "special interest".
You didn't read the rest of two of my posts where I mentioned it appears that ANY contributions whatsoever is tossed into "special intrest" buckets ?
If you go along with what appears to be their way of adding up the figures EVERY dime that EVERY politician takes in is "special interests" money.
( I wonder if they included HIS OWN personal contributions, or from companies he controls, to the funds as "special interest" money ? )
Any money is special interest money if it is sufficient in magnitude to get access to a politician. As Arnold himself says, nobody donates that kind of money without expectations of said access. In a top 100 donors list they would all qualify. All ArnoldWatch does is categorize them and add them up to make the graph.
Strike one "logician."
You didn't read the rest of two of my posts where I mentioned it appears that ANY contributions whatsoever is tossed into "special intrest" buckets ?
Strike two. Apparently you don't believe business donations constitute special interests. There Arnold would agree with you, stating after the fact that "special interests" are prison guards and Indian tribes, one of his more dishonest dodges on the record.
( I wonder if they included HIS OWN personal contributions, or from companies he controls, to the funds as "special interest" money ? )
In Arnold's case it would be, as he refused to divest himself into a blind trust prior to running for office.
BTW - the tables don't add up to the top figure that they have as the total of Special Interest Contributions.
Well duh, the top figure says it is total contributions, not the total on the graph, but we already know about your reading skills.
Isn't that what he is doing?"
RS, I really don't think so. The entire approach on the propositions seems to me to be weak and disorganized. And what about "blowing up the boxes"? He has done nothing of which I am aware to streamline state government, eliminate unnecessary departments, cut the state payroll or eliminate all of those commissions, boards and committees that do nothing but consume scarce resources and obstruct progress in the finest tradition of bureaucrats everywhere.
See the posts of calcowgirl for a much more comprehensive analysis of Arnold's problems. Her comments are right on target.
I had high hopes for Arnold, I really did. If he ever decides to get serious, really serious and not with just a few weak initiatives here and there for appearances, then I would be willing to support him. Sad to say, I just don't see that happening.
I'm afraid Arnold is simply not the kind of Governor he promised us he would be.
It's his juvenile arguing skills that are causing me to roll on the floor in fits of laughter!!!
I'd be willing to bet this guy could filibuster his inane arguing into a marathon that would make a Senate Demonicrat blush!!!
Oh! I forgot!! He's a Liberaltarian!!!
I can kinda understand how you must feel. I know how absolutely proud I was of Ronald Reagan when he was first elected Governor and I'm certain I'd have been seriously disallussioned had he turned out to be as shallow and disappointing as A.S. has turned out to be.
Well there is more oxymoron logic.
Do you also agree with Arnold that raising taxes is the only way to "create the money?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.