Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · Nov 7, 2006, 09:27 AM

Since it's Election Day, I wanted to read people's predictions on the fate of California's proposition 87 - the Alternative Energy proposition. It's a $4B additional tax on California oil producers for the creation of an alternative energy bureaucracy. The initial ads for the measure claimed that oil producers would be legally barred from passing the tax on to consumers, which is a ridiculous claim. Now the ads have shifted to extolling the supposed environmental benefits of the plan, with Bill Clinton serving as cheerleader. I hope fellow Californians realize that we already have one of the most heavily taxed oil/gasoline market in the country, and an additional tax will simply be an invitation for companies to hike prices or exit the market altogether. Bill Clinton's advocacy has many concerned that people will support it, but even proponents acknowledge the polling is tight. Will this large new tax go down to defeat?

smacintush · Nov 7, 2006, 09:55 AM

The short answer is: no, they aren't.

California is very liberal and if there's one thing liberal's LOVE it is taxes.

Even more than that they ADORE "sticking it" to the rich corporations.

More than even that they are ORGASMIC when they can "stick it" to one of the most evil of corporations, Big Oil™ being one of the "main" ones.

Combine that with the "warm fuzzy" they get from any supposed "environmental benefit" and they will be all over this like Bill Clinton on a fat chick.

They'll probably need jîzz-moppers at the polling places.

Dakar² · Nov 7, 2006, 09:58 AM

Can we hold the bitterness til after the election is over?

BlueSky · Nov 7, 2006, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The short answer is: no, they aren't.

California is very liberal and if there's one thing liberal's LOVE it is taxes.

Even more than that they ADORE "sticking it" to the rich corporations.

More than even that they are ORGASMIC when they can "stick it" to one of the most evil of corporations, Big Oil™ being one of the "main" ones.

Combine that with the "warm fuzzy" they get from any supposed "environmental benefit" and they will be all over this like Bill Clinton on a fat chick.

They'll probably need jîzz-moppers at the polling places.

So please, let's get out political fix in moderation, get it from as neutral a source as we can, and temper our thoughts and opinions with experience and common sense.

-from "Just a Friendly Reminder, Folks by smacintush, 08-31-2006

BRussell · Nov 7, 2006, 11:52 AM

There are way too many initiatives, especially in California.

Big Mac · Nov 7, 2006, 11:58 AM

We agree on that, BRussel. I'd favor an initiative to amend the state constitution to allow for no more than four initiatives per state-wide election unless the governor certifies a state emergency.

itai195 · Nov 7, 2006, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The short answer is: no, they aren't.

California is very liberal and if there's one thing liberal's LOVE it is taxes.

I call bs. Do you know how many tax increase measures are defeated every election in CA? I think we shot down at least two in the last primary, one of which was a local sales tax increase that had been supported by every politician, business, and political organization in the area.

I think Prop 87 will fail personally, I don't know anyone who is voting for it.

TheWOAT · Nov 7, 2006, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

I call bs. Do you know how many tax increase measures are defeated every election in CA? I think we shot down at least two in the last primary, one of which was a local sales tax increase that had been supported by every politician, business, and political organization in the area.

I think Prop 87 will fail personally, I don't know anyone who is voting for it.

I agree...BUT... this proposition might pass because CLinton has pulled out all of the stops, is using images of babies in the commercials, and I bet many Californians will get the warm fuzzies by voting yes... even though this proposition won't improve a damn thing... its just a money grab.

smacintush · Nov 7, 2006, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by BlueSky

-from "Just a Friendly Reminder, Folks by smacintush, 08-31-2006

Quick, read this.

typoon · Nov 7, 2006, 06:10 PM

The funny thing is people like Clinton and Gore who are supposedly the biggest proponents of "Saving the Environment" have no problems flying around in their Private Jets and travelling around in their gas guzzling SUV's and Limos. But they seem to have a problem with other trying to make money and the "little guy" driving an SUV or other fossil fuel Burning Autos or planes. Why don't we just go back to the age of the Sailing ship. That's where all this is leading us back to.

BlueSky · Nov 7, 2006, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

Quick, read this.

Done. Here you go.

placebo1969 · Nov 7, 2006, 06:57 PM

We have something sort of similar here in Washington. They want alternative, green energy sources. However, hydropower (we get about 60% from it), isn’t counted. It’s just going to jack up our rates and have some other places get our cheaper (relatively) and clean (definitely) energy. But it will pass because no one wants to vote “against” the environment.

ink · Nov 7, 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

The short answer is: no, they aren't.

California is very liberal and if there's one thing liberal's LOVE it is taxes.

Even more than that they ADORE "sticking it" to the rich corporations.

More than even that they are ORGASMIC when they can "stick it" to one of the most evil of corporations, Big Oil™ being one of the "main" ones.

Combine that with the "warm fuzzy" they get from any supposed "environmental benefit" and they will be all over this like Bill Clinton on a fat chick.

They'll probably need jîzz-moppers at the polling places.

And they'll continue to be the #1 economic engine in the USA, because they'll have all the companies that innovate in renewable energy (with all the help from those amazing illegal immigrants); the red states will continue to laugh at those liberals out in crazy California -- and the liberals will still not quite understand what y'all are laughing at.

ink · Nov 7, 2006, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

The funny thing is people like Clinton and Gore who are supposedly the biggest proponents of "Saving the Environment" have no problems flying around in their Private Jets and travelling around in their gas guzzling SUV's and Limos. But they seem to have a problem with other trying to make money and the "little guy" driving an SUV or other fossil fuel Burning Autos or planes. Why don't we just go back to the age of the Sailing ship. That's where all this is leading us back to.

You folks hate Clinton and Gore. Okay. It's a bit obsessive with you, but.. OK.

What's the solution to the problem then?

No gas = No SUV. Unless you're going to write a bill that forces Clinton and Gore to go to jail so that we can use up the oil that they would have used on their vast arrays of private jets....? That gives us, what, like 5 seconds of additional fuel?

nonhuman · Nov 7, 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by placebo1969

We have something sort of similar here in Washington. They want alternative, green energy sources. However, hydropower (we get about 60% from it), isn’t counted. It’s just going to jack up our rates and have some other places get our cheaper (relatively) and clean (definitely) energy. But it will pass because no one wants to vote “against” the environment.

I think hydro is generally frowned upon because it still has a tremendous negative impact on the environment. Unless you're talking about tidal generation...

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Nov 7, 2006, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by ink

Unless you're going to write a bill that forces Clinton and Gore to go to jail so that we can use up the oil that they would have used on their vast arrays of private jets....? That gives us, what, like 5 seconds of additional fuel?

Wow. Way to purposefully miss a point.

He's talking about the hypocrisy of politicians who preach one thing for common people, while using extreme beyond-luxury amounts of resources themselves. IE: the "Do as I say, not as I do" disease that affects many politicians, and in particular, the limousine/Learjet liberal set.

hyteckit · Nov 7, 2006, 08:53 PM

Go Prop. 87!

Damn, I still haven't voted yet. Prop. 87 - YES.

ink · Nov 7, 2006, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Wow. Way to purposefully miss a point.

He's talking about the hypocrisy of politicians who preach one thing for common people, while using extreme beyond-luxury amounts of resources themselves. IE: the "Do as I say, not as I do" disease that affects many politicians, and in particular, the limousine/Learjet liberal set.

I GET IT.

It's not link you don't repeat it often enough.

NEWS FLASH: Clinton isn't perfect!

When are you going to stop bitching and moaning about Clinton and start doing something about our oil problem?

I don't think whine fuels a car.

TheWOAT · Nov 7, 2006, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Go Prop. 87!

Damn, I still haven't voted yet. Prop. 87 - YES.

Prop 87 is scientifically proven to have ZERO redeeming qualities, which is probably why it will pass in California. I guess those baby videos worked.

natnabour · Nov 7, 2006, 10:34 PM

i voted no.

itai195 · Nov 8, 2006, 01:14 AM

Prop 87 currently getting an 18% beat down

TheWOAT · Nov 8, 2006, 01:15 AM

with 7% in...

58.7 NO
41.3 YES

Nice to know the majority of Californians are not stupid.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · Nov 8, 2006, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by ink

I GET IT.

Clearly, you didn't. You're just pissed that someone pointed out Clinton and Gore's hypocrisy.

When are you going to stop bitching and moaning about Clinton and start doing something about our oil problem?

Geeze, don't have a hissy. It's not my job to fix whatever 'oil' problem you're whining about.

I don't think whine fuels a car.

If it did, we'd all gas up on liberalism.

Rumor · Nov 8, 2006, 03:21 AM

PROPOSITION 87
Total
Number of Precincts 208
Precincts Reporting 173 83.2 %
Total Votes 9812
YES 4810 49.02%
NO 5002 50.98%

TheWOAT · Nov 8, 2006, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Rumor

PROPOSITION 87
Total
Number of Precincts 208
Precincts Reporting 173 83.2 %
Total Votes 9812
YES 4810 49.02%
NO 5002 50.98%

Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production,
Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers Choice Votes %

Yes 1,682,272 44.0%
No 2,142,817 56.0%

52% votes in

SFGate: 2006 General Election

tie · Nov 8, 2006, 04:17 AM

Alaska and Texas have oil production taxes. I think it is stupid for California not to.

But I don't know that it makes sense to tie the collected funds to alternative energy. For most people, dependence on foreign oil is still an abstract threat -- not enough Americans have died in Iraq yet for anyone to care.

Crash, I don't have a problem with politicians doing their jobs. They fly around in private jets because it is more efficient, and I don't see why they should seriously handicap themselves for such a tiny symbolic effort. At times, it goes too far, of course (like Al Gore driving a Prius, while his escort is in SUVs, perhaps). But I'm not willing to say no politician who thinks we should reduce on dependence on foreign oil should ever use a private jet. And celebrities, I don't care about.

TheWOAT · Nov 8, 2006, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by tie

Alaska and Texas have oil production taxes. I think it is stupid for California not to.

But I don't know that it makes sense to tie the collected funds to alternative energy. For most people, dependence on foreign oil is still an abstract threat -- not enough Americans have died in Iraq yet for anyone to care.

Since a good percentage of the gasoline used in California is from oil from Calif, it would raise prices, which I wouldnt mind if it were spend on Cops, Firefighters, K-12 education, and Universities, and fixing roads, not some BS like ending global warming.

tie · Nov 8, 2006, 04:37 AM

Global warming is not BS, as any climate scientist will tell you. But I do agree with you on targetting of tax dollars. A lot of people, though, love the idea. I've never understood why gasoline taxes should only be spent on road maintenance, for example -- I understand why it might be politically advantageous, but I've never understood why the idea is popular.

I also don't like how California is trying to set the lead by itself on issues which the federal government should be leading on. Global warming is a national and international probem, and the federal government needs to be leading research efforts, not California by itself. It was the same deal with stem cell research; the NIH should be funding it, as they have extremely good controls over evaluating research and spending money (IHMO). It didn't make sense for California to set a new bureaucracy that won't do half as good a job.

n8236 · Nov 8, 2006, 08:19 AM

Yes On 87! Yes Yes Yes!

Sky Captain · Nov 8, 2006, 08:49 AM

I bought gasoline for $1.94 last night.
The same station had the same fuel for $2.09 this morning.
Why? Oil is still dropping in price per barrel.

osiris · Nov 8, 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

I bought gasoline for $1.94 last night.
The same station had the same fuel for $2.09 this morning.
Why?

Because the elections are over.

Sky Captain · Nov 8, 2006, 10:10 AM

Blame the democrats, right?

TheWOAT · Nov 8, 2006, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by tie

Global warming is not BS, as any climate scientist will tell you. But I do agree with you on targetting of tax dollars. A lot of people, though, love the idea. I've never understood why gasoline taxes should only be spent on road maintenance, for example -- I understand why it might be politically advantageous, but I've never understood why the idea is popular.

I also don't like how California is trying to set the lead by itself on issues which the federal government should be leading on. Global warming is a national and international probem, and the federal government needs to be leading research efforts, not California by itself. It was the same deal with stem cell research; the NIH should be funding it, as they have extremely good controls over evaluating research and spending money (IHMO). It didn't make sense for California to set a new bureaucracy that won't do half as good a job.

To clarify: Global Warming is not BS,but trying to end Global Warming by creating State Govt panel IS. I thought of Prop 87 as just a feel good initiative that would produce ZERO results. Glad to see its gone...

hyteckit · Nov 8, 2006, 02:50 PM

Well, it's research. Research can't guarantee results. It's like California embryonic-stem cell research. They can't guarantee we will have breakthrough's and a dozens of cures.

I don't care about Prop. 87 either way. I think it might be better if it is federally funded.

Rumor · Nov 8, 2006, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by TheWOAT

Proposition 87 Alternative Energy. Research, Production,
Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers Choice Votes %

Yes 1,682,272 44.0%
No 2,142,817 56.0%

52% votes in

SFGate: 2006 General Election

I goofed and was posting the results from my county. Oops.

Big Mac · Nov 8, 2006, 05:43 PM

My faith in fellow Californians has been bolstered significantly by the result. WOOT!

typoon · Nov 8, 2006, 09:45 PM

I'm somewhat surprised by this but not entirely. When it comes down to it there are still some SANE voters in our country.