MetaChat REGISTER   ||   LOGIN   ||   IMAGES ARE OFF   ||   RECENT COMMENTS




artphoto by splunge
artphoto by TheophileEscargot
artphoto by Kronos_to_Earth
artphoto by ethylene

Home

About

Search

Archives

Mecha Wiki

Metachat Eye

Emcee

IRC Channels

IRC FAQ


 RSS


Comment Feed:

♦ RSS

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

28 January 2009

I know that there are many facets to this and I don't have an alternative solution to offer (fortunately, not my job). But. Schwarzenegger is a dick.
post by: mudpuppie at: 23:14 | 34 comments
He should go first.

I'm sure the poor state of California can go without Terminator protection a few days out of the month.
posted by Lipstick Thespian 28 January | 23:23
He'll be back.
posted by jonmc 28 January | 23:24
It's an interesting idea; certainly better than laying people off. I don't envy anyone who has to make such decisions.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 28 January | 23:29
"This is not an anti-labor thing by any means," Schwarzenegger said Wednesday. "I love our state employees. They are very dedicated individuals who do incredible work and we owe them a lot because they make the state run."

What a crocodile.
posted by Hugh Janus 28 January | 23:37
I think the point isn't that he's a dick for having a furlough (My mom is a civil servant in California so I know first hang that they already have periodic furloughs), it's that he's trying to intimidate the union by saying that if it doesn't go through he will lay people off. That kind of action weakens the union. If his idea is so good (and honestly, I do think it is reasonable) he should be able to pass it without swinging his dick around like that.

Oh, and I have a sneaking suspicion that even if it does pass, he will still be laying people off.
posted by piratebowling 28 January | 23:39
I think the point isn't that he's a dick for having a furlough ... it's that he's trying to intimidate the union by saying that if it doesn't go through he will lay people off.

That's exactly my point. The furlough is a really tough sell, and the unions are understandably against it. I mean, it screws the people they represent. But what he's saying is, "Okay, unions, if you don't do this shitty thing I ask, which is the only option I'm offering, I'll do *this* thing that REALLY fucks your constituency. So there!"

He's had a rough relationship with unions from the beginning. Now he's just extorting them -- at the expense of people who make, at best, paltry middle class wages.

(And he never has to worry about paying his mortgage or paying his grocery bills, so no boo hoos for him.)
posted by mudpuppie 28 January | 23:47
That's a hell of a deficit.
posted by Miko 29 January | 00:04
But wouldn't he have to lay people off? Or do something that the unions wouldn't like? The state doesn't have any money!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero 29 January | 00:25
Devil's advocate: as you say, you don't have an alternative solution, and I'm guessing neither does he. Perhaps another interpretation is that Schwartzenegger's not bullying, but simply saying "This is the best idea I've got, and the only alternative I can come up with is layoffs. So if everyone doesn't go along, my hands are tied." Which seems like a reasonable statement, if things are that serious. If the unions are pushing back on this, the smartest thing he can do is underscore the reality of the situation. (Disclaimer: I know fuck all about any of the details of CA's current problems other than what you linked in the post.)

It sounds in fact like exactly the sort of thing I'd say if I were in his shoes and didn't have a better idea: "Look, it's not a great solution, but it's the best one we've got, and if you don't go along with it, worse things are going to have to happen."
posted by middleclasstool 29 January | 00:26
But I want to believe that he's a dick. :(
posted by mudpuppie 29 January | 00:35
"you don't have an alternative solution, and I'm guessing neither does he." Yes he does!

Raise taxes!

There is not enough money coming in to pay the bills and the amount we owe on our bills is pilling up. We have two choices; raise revenue (read taxes) or cut costs (read number of employees or their total amount of pay).

Cali has a long history of wanting to both not raise taxes and not cut pay or number of staff or staff cumulative comp.

Hard as it is for me to say I do feel for the guy.
posted by arse_hat 29 January | 00:42
Of course I left out the Keynesian option.
posted by arse_hat 29 January | 00:43
Schwarzenegger's spent pretty much his entire time in office trying to bully people into doing things his way, so I'm not sure it's really a "I'm throwing my hands up here" thing as much as a "I'm trying to prove I'm more powerful than you" thing.
posted by occhiblu 29 January | 00:49
Yep, the guy's a shitbag made of dicks. And ever since he got elected on the "I'm going to cut revenues every vay I cahn und you can't stop me, girly man" platform, I've said this state was playing on borrowed time, finance-wise. And this was a state that was fiscally SCREWED to begin with.
posted by scody 29 January | 01:40
Yeah we are having this problem in Scotland, too. The leftiest, reddest liberalest government in the world will have this problem THANKS TO SHITTY FUCKING WALL STREET, and now we have to make cuts. over two dozen schools closing in Glasgow, and our fucking budget did not pass at Scottish Parliament yesterday which means everybody is running around like a shitty chicken and there could be a FUCKING ELECTION, which nobody needs.

The point is, what you want in government is to install leaders who will make better consensus and work better with stakeholders than this retarded shitpea Mr Schwartzenneger.

Now back to Wall Street: SERIOUSLY YOU COCKS, I AM THINKING LOTS OF CRUEL THREATS TO YOUR FAMILIES, IF YOU DIDN'T DO SHIT THIS WAY WE COULD HAVE BUILT UP VALUE INSTEAD OF WASTING IT ON DABA-GIRLS.
posted by By the Grace of God 29 January | 07:24
Gavin Newsom for Governer.
posted by Firas 29 January | 08:04
One of the reasons California finds it nigh impossible to raise taxes is that the Senate and Assembly have to get a two-thirds "yes" vote on spending plans. It means Republicans can block a budget despite being in the minority. Only a couple other states have similar requirements.
posted by Firas 29 January | 08:12
MetaChat: a shitbag made of dicks.
posted by middleclasstool 29 January | 09:05
Hey, as a dickbag made of shit, I resent that!
posted by Hugh Janus 29 January | 09:31
I believe if more people fashion bags made from spent dicks and excrement a cottage industry could be introduced into California's revenue stream and ease the pain of the deficit.

They could use Schwarzenegger's image as the company logo.

Think globally, act locally! Rock a shitbag!
posted by Lipstick Thespian 29 January | 09:42
One of Arnold's big deals was to get rid of the car registration tax, which seemed like a pretty progressive tax. My friend in Oakland said that if this tax were still in place, there would be no deficit.

I could be wrong, but that is what this guy told me.
posted by danf 29 January | 09:43
seriously - if someone came out with a line of deep brown-colored bags with the likes of Ahnuld and Dubya on 'em and marketed them as Shitbags(tm), how long before the lawyers would pop out?
posted by Lipstick Thespian 29 January | 09:44
What made anybody think he was going to be good at governing? Bodybuilder, actor, ???. They voted for the Terminator, and they got what they voted for. In this economy, unions are willing to negotiate, but he'd rather play the tough guy. Yep. he's a dick.
posted by theora55 29 January | 09:50
(mudpuppie, I figured that was your point, my comment was more directed at TPS.)
posted by piratebowling 29 January | 10:30
Schwarzenegger's spent pretty much his entire time in office trying to bully people into doing things his way, so I'm not sure it's really a "I'm throwing my hands up here" thing as much as a "I'm trying to prove I'm more powerful than you" thing.


This. Yes. Times a thousand.
posted by piratebowling 29 January | 10:32
Going along with theora. Not only is he an actor, he is a really bad actor. Coupled with that property tax cap whatever, you got exactly what you voted for. Just like Bush.

Well, hang in there. Obama's coming your way, and he's got his own badass posse of speechwriters and soundbite coaches.
posted by Ardiril 29 January | 10:51
(Wasn't arguing with you, piratebowling. I quoted you because you made my point better than I did!)
posted by mudpuppie 29 January | 12:04
"you don't have an alternative solution, and I'm guessing neither does he."

Probably the smartest solution would be for California to get rid of balanced budget "requirements" and allow it to easily issue debt during bad times that can, at least in principle, be repaid with higher tax revenue during better times.

Almost all states have balanced budget requirements of one form or another, and they're all among the stupider inventions of mankind. Times get bad and tax revenue falls, so what do the state governments do? Reduce services to people, stop working on projects or postpone planned ones and so effectively fire or lay off contractors, reduce pay to state workers or even fire them, or raise taxes, or both. At exactly the time when the economy needs an injection of demand, act to sharply reduce demand. S-M-R-T.

About the only thing dumber than state balanced budget requirements are the states that forbid their governments from running a surplus during good times that might get used during bad.

(what could make sense would be requirements for cyclically balanced budgets)
posted by ROU Xenophobe 29 January | 12:58
(aye! Alright then. Internet fails to deliver on tone once more...)
posted by piratebowling 29 January | 13:25
I'm just glad I don't live in California.
posted by bunnyfire 29 January | 15:29
Not to hijack, but I run into this problem around here in Illinois:
I did not vote for Governor Dumbass. I believe my Democratic or Liberal friends (with only one or two exceptions) when they tell me they did not vote for Governor Dumbass. I believe my Republican friends when they say they did not vote for Governor Dumbass. Yet the man was elected Governor. Who the hell voted for him? Did he get elected simply because enough of us did not vote against him by selecting the Republican opponent?

Granted, I know very few people who still live in California, but the ones I do know would not--under any circumstances--have voted for Schwarzenegger for Governor, so how did he get elected? Who votes for these people? Do they get elected because thinking people have no one they can support and leave the option blank? How does this happen?
posted by crush-onastick 29 January | 16:34
Well, crush-onastick, he got elected the first time because the Governor's race was a circus. He was the one with the highest name recognition and so many damn people ran that it makes sense that he won. Here is a sample ballot. Those first three columns? All people running for the position (and there's still a spot to write in a candidate!)

He was reelected in 2006. And, well, it looks like low voter turnout may have been a pretty big factor in that (39% turnout). The elections by county map looks pretty brutal though.

So, to answer your question, mass confusion the first time around and apathy the second.
posted by piratebowling 29 January | 17:15
Well. Too bad nobody has a Reagan clone on ice; ready to go. He'd fix Cali. J/k
posted by buzzman 29 January | 19:37
If they had Ronald Reagan clones I'd buy one and make a snuff film of Jodie Foster shooting it in front of the DC Hilton.

Or maybe send a dozen to Nicaragua for public execution.
posted by Hugh Janus 29 January | 22:20
← things I learned today || I think it will be difficult for me to have real friends for a while. →

HOME  ||   REGISTER  ||   LOGIN
All posts and comments © their authors