Ouch, Arnie is stuttering. I feel bad for him. Is that p*rn star also in the debate? That would be cool .
I saw it, and I wish it did have the p*rn star on it...that really would have been cool!,...and uh more interesting!
Damnit, isn't it bad luck to congratulate prematurely?! I was not even at 5,000 yet!!! Well, now I am . But after you congratulated early, I see bad luck (banning) on the horizon!
Well, out of those, just judging by their performance tonight, I would vote for Schwarzenegger or McClintock. Bustamante: Is he not responsible for the state California is in right now? Huffington: It seemed to me that her only agenda in this discussion was to attack Arnie. Camejo: Seemed like an honest, nice guy, but he did not really manage to get a simple enough message across. After some initial stuttering I saw from Arnold, I was surprised by how aggressive he was, and I think he did not do badly. His attacking of Bustamante when Bustamante presented raising taxes as the solution to the budget crisis was done very well, and I think he was right on the money. What do you guys think?
Maybe Arnie would have been smarter not to take Huffington's bait. It seemed to me that she had some secret agreement with Bustamante...she would be the one attacking Arnie and she would make him look bad, and Bustamante could appear reasonable and not as the attacker. Also, this way, they might have reinforced the impression that Arnie has problems dealing with women. I think that was their strategy, and I think they agreed on it beforehand.
More than 50 % of the voters at MSNBC think Schwarzenegger delivered the best performance in the debate.
not surprising he had a script he is a actor But I did not see it perhaps he did do well . . . I just don't like Pre-Scripted Debates in general Rocket River
I'm glad I'm not in California...... A few things that seriously bothered me: Cruz Bustamanted said that and I just rolled my eyes. California has some of the most exorbiant income taxes on the wealthy in America and yet they aren't paying enough taxes? Well, if he thought things out, he would see that raising income taxes on the evil rich would only send them moving out of state. And how can they attack Arnold on a ballot issue that would've prevented services for the children of ILLEGAL immigrants? They are here ILLEGALLY, therefore breaking the LAW. Since Cali is getting flooded everyday by illegals demanding various services, no wonder they are going bankrupt. And to Huffington, the anti-SUV crusader herself, what does the Bush admin have to do with your state's budgetary process? Did Bush come in and spend more of the state's money than coming in revenues? In any case, I feel sorry for you California folks.
The children of immigrants have no say on whether they are here legally or illegally. If there is a sick or injured child it's reasonable to think he should get health care. As for Huffington, she is right that Bush does have a lot to do with the state's budget. If, for instance, Bush implements a 'no child left behind' mandate but doesn't fund it then the state has to fund it. There are several other examples of where the states must pay if the feds don't fund certain mandated things. On to my own observations: I like Huffington's ideas, but she was annoying at the debate, and was too focussed on Arnold. Camejo expressed his ideas clearly and was always respectful of other candidates. Bustamante was ok, but the outsiders in the debate(Huffington and Camejo) made him seem too much a part of the system. Arnold went after Bustamante most with occasional jabs back at Huffington. Bustamante is his main competition so it made since. But Arnold once again got away without being very specific on things that he would do.
And how can they attack Arnold on a ballot issue that would've prevented services for the children of ILLEGAL immigrants? Because they are the CHILDREN of illegals. It wasn't their fault they are in the situation they are in. What ever happened to "compassionate conservatism"? Oh yeah, that's just a campaign slogan. And to Huffington, the anti-SUV crusader herself, what does the Bush admin have to do with your state's budgetary process? Did Bush come in and spend more of the state's money than coming in revenues? If you argue that Bush wrecked the economy, then that resulted in lower revenues for California (along with higher expenses in social services). However, the stronger argument is that many of the tax cuts resulted in cuts of federal funds for a number of things, which forced states to make up the shortfalls. This has also been a state-local problem as local governments are having to make up shortfalls as state governments cut funds.
I was surprised in Bustemante's performance. Despite what would seem like an easy debate for him with the scripted setup was a bit painful to watch. He presented no viable grounds as to why voters should throw away their vote on giving him a second chance to plunder the state. He didn't even attempt to defend Davis and their policy's. When Huffington directed a question to Bustemante on Davis Cruz responds with, "Talk to him about it." Andy finally despite the states woes with employment and businesses Bustemante still attacked company's like Walmart. As for Huffington and the other irrelevant candidate the most they really can do is become the Ralph Nader for the liberals in this race. Quite frankly they didn't seem very serious and Huffington had a bad habit with attacking Arnold. Speaking of Arnold I didn't consider him a serious candidate either until he finally attacked Huffington and Bustemante. When Arnold made reference to Huffington's tax evasion I thought he really turned the corner and became more comfortable. From then on out Arnold was strong in just about every issue he tackled. Except for the most important issue - the illegal alien problem. The three serious candidates to begin with were Bustemante, Arnold, and McClintock. McClintock seemed very consistent throughout the debate and might have had the best performance of the debate. I really liked the way he went into the real problem in California. The problem with the illegal aliens. I thought that was the best moment in the debate. My biggest problem with the debate were the questions. It was like a democratic presidential debate. The question of what should we do about the children of illegal aliens was the worst. We all knew what the socialists on the left were going to say but I thought when McClintock came and addressed the problem of illegals head on it was very strong and honest.
Nope. Roll your eyes all you want based on whatever preconceived conjecture you want to believe; facts are facts. California's tax structure and its various caps contains enough loopholes so that rich, in fact, DO pay far less than the poor: WHO PAYS TAXES IN CALIFORNIA? April 15, 2003 How Much Do Californians Pay in State and Local Taxes? Measured as a share of family income, California’s poorest families pay the most in taxes. The poorest fifth of the state’s non-elderly families, with an average income of $11,100, spent 11.3 percent of their income on state taxes in 2002. In comparison, the wealthiest one percent, with an average income of $1.6 million, spent 7.2 percent of their income on state taxes.1 The total tax burden on California’s families is a function of the state’s highly progressive personal income tax and regressive sales and excise taxes. Higher income households pay more in income taxes. Lower income households pay more in property taxes. Households also bear a share of the burden of taxes imposed on business through higher prices and reduced corporate earnings. Higher income households pay a relatively greater share of the corporate income tax, while lower income households pay a greater share of businesses’ sales and excise tax burden. A single mother with one child will have no income tax liability for 2002 unless she earns over $34,059. A family of four with two children will have no 2002 state income tax liability unless their income exceeds $42,359.2 California’s high income tax threshold is attributable to the increases in the dependent credit enacted in 1997 and 1998. The state’s high tax threshold also means that low- to moderate-income families receive minimal or no benefits from the state’s various credits, deductions, and other tax benefits since they have little or no tax liability to offset. How Much Does the “Average” California Family Earn? California’s 2001 median household income, the income where half of all households earned more and half earned less, was $47,262.3 The median income for all California personal income taxpayers was $31,122 in 2000, the most recent year for which data is available. The 2000 median income of married taxpayers filing joint returns was $57,979. Who Pays Corporate Taxes in California? Small business pays a very small share of the corporate income tax. While 497,844 corporations filed tax returns in 2000, the 1.9 percent with taxable incomes in excess of $1 million paid 82.2 percent of the tax. The most costly corporate tax credit is the Research and Development (R&D) credit. In 2000, 1,767 corporations claimed $564.4 million in R&D credits, averaging $319,439 per firm. In the same year, 4,961 corporations claimed Manufacturers’ Investment Credits (MICs) totaling $410.1 million and averaging $82,669.6 However, 12 oil and gas companies claimed MICs averaging $3.0 million per firm.7 Is California a High Tax State? In past years, California has been an average tax state when state and local taxes are combined. However, the dot com boom in the late 1990’s, combined with the state’s progressive personal income tax structure, significantly increased state tax revenues derived from stock option- and capital gainrelated income. This trend disproportionately affected California since a greater share of the state’s income came in the form of stock options and capital gains. Furthermore, tax revenue from these income sources as a percentage of personal income is overstated because the Census Bureau does not include stock option- and capital gain-related income in its calculation of personal income. This overstatement, in part, moved California’s rank to 11 among the 50 states. How Have California’s Tax Policies Changed Over Time? Over the past two decades, the burden of funding state services has shifted from corporate to personal income taxpayers. The personal income tax is forecast to provide 48.9 percent of state General Fund revenues in 2003-04, up from 34.8 percent in 1980-81. Corporate tax receipts are expected to provide 9.2 percent of General Fund revenues in 2003-04, down from 14.4 percent in 1980-81. New, increased, and expanded corporate tax breaks are responsible for the decline in the share of state Manufacturer’s revenues provided by the corporate income tax. Tax reductions enacted between 1998 and 2002 alone will reduce 2002-03 revenues by $4.6 billion. Who Doesn’t Pay Taxes in California? In 2000, the most recent year for which data is available, 412,351 taxpayers reported incomes in excess of $200,000. However, 739 of these households paid no California personal income tax.How did they do it? The largest tax breaks claimed by “no tax” households include enterprise zone tax breaks, the manufacturer’s investment credit, Los Angeles Revitalization Zone, and miscellaneous credits and deductions. http://www.cbp.org/2003/030304whopaystaxes.pdf
