jadewahoo wrote: 
Lou Dobbs, last night. 

Arnold will maintain all programs for illegals as mandated by the Fed at the expense of the citizens of California.  It is the old case of unfunded federal mandates.  Arnold is making the same point that the city / county of Stockton made some 20 years ago when faced with the burden of unfunded federal mandates, the county government stopped prosecuting all misdomeanor offenses.  It could not afford to fund the mandates so they cut expenses by stopping the prosecution of these cases in protest.  You were arrested and promptly released, the end, case closed.  Dan Rather did the story for 60 Minutes back in the day.  Shortly after national exposure on TV, the situation was resolved and quickly and quietly swept way under the rug.  Well now the rug has been rolled up for all to see what was hidden under it.  This stuff just isn't going to go away. 

Once again California is faced with funding unfunded federal mandates and Arnold is like you said, going after a piano with an axe.  There are several Governors including the Governor of Minnesota who are refusing the federal money because of the strings attached to it.  Since there is no discretion allowed in the use of these funds, they are being rejected.  The citizens of California are the pawns in this game of chicken.  Arnold would rather shut down services than cowtow to DC.  This is about state's rights.  I remember back in the day when Arizona refused to lower the state speed limit to 55 mph during the 70's, thumbing their nose at the the Feds and sacrificing federal highway funds in so doing.  Arizona also does not participate in the Daylight Savings program for the same reason.  Arizona used to be a shining example of how to maintain individual state rights and tell DC to basically F off.  Then came the Governor who only believes in man caused disasters, not terrorism.  Now she is in charge of protecting us from the rest of the world.

I see very little difference between Obama and Bush.  Obama to me, is Bush on steroids.  Obama is not in charge, Pelosi and her monkeys who are in some of the safest seats in the country are running the show.  I am pleased that Arnold is drawing a symbolic line in the sand to make his point.  Who is going to pay for these unfunded mandates ?  The citizens are, at their expense, for the benefit of those who have contributed nothing and are not even here legally.  Who gets to sit at the table to eat ?  The pie is only so big and I feel that Americans should have first crack at the pie, not last. 

Again I see this as a protest against unfunded mandates and nothing else. 

 hippiechick wrote: 
Pro-life, if you please. I won't call choice folks, pro-abortion...
Btw, 51% now id themselves as pro-life. Not that that would settle this endless debate but, worth noting indeed.

 kurtster wrote:Oh Kurt... where the hell are you getting your info from? In October, 2008 Arnold Schwarzenegger notified the US Treasury that he was considering asking them for a $7 billion dollar loan.

In a letter sent on Thursday to Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, Mr Schwarzenegger, California's governor, made clear that his state was running out of money because its usual borrowing channels had suddenly closed.

He made clear there would be grave consequences for the ability of American states to keep providing basic services if the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan is not passed by the US House of Representatives.

That even America's richest and most populous state should face such severe financial problems illustrates the extent to which credit markets have seized up in the two weeks since the failure of the investment bank Lehman Brothers.

The US government has not been called on to make such a large emergency loan since New York City borrowed $2.3 billion – equivalent to $9.4 billion today – to stave off bankruptcy in 1975.

In his letter, obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Mr Schwarzenegger pointed out that his state planned to issue $7 billion in revenue anticipation notes in the coming days to pay for its short-term cash needs.

He wrote: "Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis, California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the federal treasury for short-term financing."

A senior Schwarzenegger aide followed up the letter with a call to the Treasury Secretary on Thursday night, said the newspaper.

This turn about on the part of the Guv has nothing whatsoever to do with any Obama program. Arnold is not refusing money from the US Govt's bailout money of some $700 billion. In fact, the Governor of California was in the forefront of insisting that the US House of Representatives pass the bailout:

He made clear there would be grave consequences for the ability of American states to keep providing basic services if the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan is not passed by the US House of Representatives.

Far from being the rebel that you would fantasize him to be, Arnold is a willing participant in Federal monies being allocated to the states.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is threatening the gutting of state funded programs as one waving an axe in front of two peopel fighting over a piano, saying if they (the California Dems and Republicans) will not address the reality of California's monetary crisis, he will destroy th whole f*ckin' thing. It is an internal play.

He is not cutting off funding for the 'illegal aliens' nor any other Federally funded programs (such as highway and dams projects) because, were he to do so, he would lose that infusion of monies into the state coffers. He is threatening the cutbacks on state programs.

Sorry, your anti-Obama glee is, once again, misplaced and is evidence of your pretty obvious bias, despite your protestations to the contrary.

Ok, and this from one (me) who sees a very real danger in the usurpation of our basic choices of life and lifestyle by the forces of Corporate Socialism, of whom GWB was the biggest proponent, and Obama is the one chosen to simply carry the torch forward into wholesale Corporatocracy. As long as you are caught up in this chest thumping lip-snarling anti-Obama frenzy, you are just showing how deep the wool is pulled over your own eyes. C'mon man. You are brighter than that.

This just in.

The Governator is refusing to borrow money to keep California afloat.  He is going to cut services and take money from local governments to keep necessary services in operation.  He will empty the prisons, end welfare for legal residents and lay off state workers.  Obama will not let the states use Federal money for needed purposes.  The states may only use it for Obama's purposes.  Arnold is one of several Governors who are refusing Obama's strings.

Most importantly, he is not cutting welfare services to illegal aliens as required by Federal Law.  The costs of these welfare services for illegals is estimated to be 17% to 20% of the budget deficit or only 4 to 6 Billion dollars.  Some estimate the actual cost to approach 9 Billion.   Legal California citizens should be grateful to have the opportunity to give until it hurts to support the illegals and the sanctuary cities.  Pelosi must be real proud of Arnold for seeing things her way on illegal aliens.

So to all you who support illegal aliens, you can now move to California and pay your taxes to support these poor trespassers and get nothing in return.  Ain't America great !

I love Arnold for having the cajones to put the illegals first as required by law.

GO ARNOLD !!!!

 hippiechick wrote: 
We're cool. I'll make sure that you're not to blame.

 dionysius wrote: 
All true. Notice that I did address the progress made. Also, I didn't say that all issues pertaining to race or equality were bogus and I don't "do" bits.. I said that the bogus accusations seem to have an equal power over opinion and that this serves to destroy  progress already made.
If we ever are able to overcome the constraints of freedom, we might just make it to liberty and justice for all.

 oldviolin wrote: 

I'm not saying we're done with it, by any means. But look at the South (or a lot of places) fifty years ago, and look at it now. Some of the same old purblind conservatism concerning most issues (and this means Yellow Dog Democrat as well as Neocon Repub), but even this conservatism is washed clean of most of the racist taint of the segregationist Faubus/Wallace/Strom Thurmond years. It would be silly to say that no progress has been made since then. But we're not there yet. Lagtime is nasty. No reason to slow down now; that place Dr. King visualized for us is closer, which is heartening, but not here yet, which is a continuing call for action.

I don't buy that "bogus cry of racism" bit either. There is still racism to contend with in public and economic life, and productivity and progress depend on justice, first. If we're ever going to bridge that "great divide" you speak of, we can't minimize, trivialize, work around or ignore bigotry when we encounter it. It has to be challenged, engaged with, argued with, and (let's hope) persuaded away. I celebrate what we (of whatever community) have done so far. But we have to do a lot more to close the deal and fulfil the promise made in the Declaration concerning equality and rights.

/soapbox dismount

 oldviolin wrote: 
People who are stuck in these cycles, be it poverty or any kind of hatred are suffering because their needs are not being met, and I would guess that most of them do not know how to meet those needs, so they become angry and act out. They need help breaking these cycles, through the ways I have mentioned before, among others.

(BTW I don't think I mentioned anything about race, except in stating a fact about abortion)

 oldviolin wrote:

 
agreed. 

 (how was that Jen?  )

 dionysius wrote: 
So then, why is it that all it takes is a hint, a wiff of some bogus cry of racism to turn productivity and progress into a shambles?
It's got nothing to do with the South in particular. It has to do with attitudes in general of folks, regardless of race.. I'm not saying that progress hasn't been made.
I'm saying that lagtime is a nasty business, and people of color are just now making the inroads into our cultural development
that was the promise of our very Declaration Of Independence. Imagine that.
There is still a great divide in this country as regards race and racial issues, and as long as there is I believe that we are vulnerable
to be manipulated accordingly.

 meower wrote: 
you said it well...and i agree...

AND what Dio said...Amen...

 dionysius wrote: 

thanx you responded to a different post, but said what I wanted to say, way better. 

 arsenault wrote: 

don't misunderstand me, please, I think that there was a time when it WAS important to look at American cultural/economic issues through the lenses that saw racism, and it was a time that necessitated that society become more aware of the need for social change in so far as race went.  I'm just saying that today to refer to black people as if they are all one group doesnt really present any true picture.....

 oldviolin wrote: 

 Consciousness-raising and education DOES work. The change I witnessed over the past four decades is instructive. I grew up in part of the thoroughly, publically, officially racist American South. I allowed education to work for me, and (slowly and painfully, perhaps) most of the white folks I grew up with cast out their old opinions, the ones they inherited from our parents. Racists and racist opinions persist even today, as we have just been tragically reminded of, but they are marginalized and cannot affect public policy anymore. Expressing racist opinions has become no longer acceptable in public. Hate speech codes are deplored by some on the right, but they have proved essential and helpful in eliminating the discourse that provides the matrix for racism to grow and survive (now if we could just filter hate out of the internet!). The change has been remarkable and heartening, and should remind everyone that drastic social change for better IS possible.

 islander wrote: 
Isn't it enough that he condemned the killing of the doctor? Must he abandon his moral position as well?

 woozurbuddy wrote: 



As an EEO/ADA professional, I concur...add disability, national origin, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion, blah, blah, blah to the "seriously offensive" fill-in-the-blank statement.

off soapbox now

 meower wrote:

wait...

....so we shouldn't judge or dismiss or excuse or condemn someone based on the color of their skin...hmm....

paging Dr, King....

 meower wrote: 

Thanks meower, I was going to make this point and now I don't have to!

 hippiechick wrote: 
I can't plan anything for anyone else. I can plan for myself. I grew up surrounded by racial hatred. I have learned to be insulated from guilt ridden attempts to make things right without being isolated from every day interpersonal commonalities. Skin color means only as much or as little as your attitude toward it. You're not going to succeed in legislating hearts. Not going to happen.
You have an opinion. I accept it. I understand it. I am empathetic towards it. But I also have a difference of opinion as to how all this disentigration of the truths we hold to be self evident has progressed to where there is no man made solution. I am deeply saddened but not defeated every day by the pitiful attempts to build the Tower Of Babel. If you were to work your personal power toward solutions to these problems out there in the world, you might find the grace to actually be a part of the change of heart that it will take to change the world.
IOW, be the change that you want to see in the world.
I think we both can admire the Mahatma...

 dionysius wrote: 
exactly.  at this point i do think it has to do with classism / take care of me and mine and not feel responsible to the other as opposed to racism.  When there is racism/sexism/ anti-semitism it needs to be dealt with, but the problems facing women and people today in this part of the world anyway have mainly to do with people only caring about themselves and imediate family.  MHO