It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

S.F. Mayor, You want entitlements? We invent entitlements in San Francisco.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Mayor Newsom admits that his city runs a proportionally higher deficit than the state of California, but he maintains that such debt is worth the multitude of services that the city provides.
"You want entitlements? We invent entitlements in San Francisco," he said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source: Santa Barbara News-Press
This is it. I have to draw a line in the sand at some point.

I know this is California, a very Liberal state. I know I live in Santa Barbara, which is a very Liberal city.

What I did not know, was that a person running for Governor of the entire state would come to a rally to drum up support for his election, and then say this!

The man has said, RIGHT THERE, and in context, that not running a balanced budget is OKAY. That the $73 million in federal money his city gets would not, and could not, solve their deficits, because they will create ENTITLEMENTS above their ability to afford them. He KNOWS they are in the red, and yet feels that it is worth it.

How is this worth it? At what point will this spending be paid for? At what point will basic services be unavailable due to the ENTITLEMENTS that he and his city vote themselves?

But this isn't enough to use the word HATE, is it?

No, for that you would have to move on to the next paragraph in the article;


Mayor Newsom has also made the environment a key issue in his gubernatorial run. He has effectively banned the use of bottled water in the city government, as well as single-use plastic shopping bags in the city. He has higher aims for the state if elected, promising to crack down on offshore drilling. Green technology and innovation, he said, was the key to not only protecting the environment, but stimulating the economy.

PAY ATTENTION
"An area where I will be disproportionately committed to is green collar jobs," he explained. "I don't care if gas is $35 per gallon because I believe in green technology . . . innovation."

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

(bolded and underlined by myself to emphasize point)

Look here folks;
It would take many years, even if every factory in the world switched to new hybrids and electric engines and ONLY made cars for the U.S., before we could stop using fossil fuels.

Look what ONE year of high gas prices did to our economy... The cost of EVERYTHING went up, and LESS money was spent elsewhere, destroying some industries and killing many small businesses.

What about a compromise? Nearly free gas, drilled here, that is taxed to pay for the green change-over?

Nope. Instead, we get this complete MORON to suggest that $35/ gallon gasoline and unlimited entitlements are they way that California will one day see prosperity again.

I hate you, liberals. You are all trying to destroy my beautiful country.





[edit on 27-3-2009 by asala]




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

I have to agree with almost everything that you said. The only correction I would make is the last line of your post. I would correct that to say that they already HAVE destroyed our country.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Thats funny, I was going to say that about my state, and then I realized that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't too late.

Maybe it is, though.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I can only speak for one person.

I care if gas is 35 dollars a gallon.

Just sayin



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Why, was bush a liberal when HE wrecked the country?

Better learn how to ride a bicycle! Sorry, couldnt resist.
Gotta have a big car to make up for lack of something else!
(Even though we live in a tent,go figure)
I know how much we are addicted to our wheels. Carry on.
Be glad, we could be starting another war.......
or maybe even just sitting back letting the rich ruin things.

P.S. Hate's not the answer



[edit on 23-3-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Some how, Liberals have created this fantasy that says us CONSERVATIVES hate the environment.
We don't hate the environment, we just realize what destroying our economy really means.

What happened to compromise people?

Why not solve many issues in one stroke, and drill the heck out of the state? Use the taxes gained to establish grants and projects, (teamed up with private enterprise) that would transfer the state to green technology?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

I'm afraid that it too late for the entire US, and perhaps the world economy. Despite Obama's late attempt to portray the US economy as "not as bad as we thought", it IS in shambles.
Ron Paul now predicts that we are in for a 15 year Depression with a complete collapse of the US monetary system in 1 to 4 years:
www.lewrockwell.com...


March 23, 2009 Ron Paul: We Face a 15-Year Depression Posted by Lew Rockwell at March 23, 2009 10:29 AM Reports the Financial Times: Pension trustees and insurance company portfolio managers look away now. Your increased commitment to government bond holdings in recent times is about to blow up spectacularly. At least, that is the view of Ron Paul, the US congressman who ran against John McCain in last year’s Republican Party presidential nomination. His is a minority view. Yields on government bonds worldwide have been falling fast over the past few months and in the UK, the commencement of “quantitative easing” this month sent bond prices soaring. But the credibility of both western governments and their currencies is waning, and has been ever since the gold standard was abandoned in 1971, says Mr Paul. And that means even “safe” investments are far from safe, he claims. “People will start to abandon the dollar as current and past economic policies create a steep rise in interest rates,” Mr Paul says. “If you are in Treasuries, you will need to be watchful and nimble to time your escape.” Unfortunately, cashing out will not protect the value of investments, he insists, because “fiat” currencies will all decline over the coming years as measures to try to haul the world economy out of recession fail. “The current stimulus measures are making things a lot worse,” says Mr Paul.


Dr. Paul has been right on target all these years. No one listened to him, and now "the chickens have come home to roost". (couldn't resist borrowing from the Rev. Wright )



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Bush did not adhere to conservative principles while in office, and by the time it was noticed, we had been too wrapped up in 9/11 for too long.

And tell the mother with 4 kids, and grocery shopping to do, practices to pick up and drop off to, and doctors appointments to make, to ride a bike.

Get real.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Well, even drilling more here won't help in the long run.
But I consider myself liberal and I think that making gas that expensive is just ridiculous... no matter what the motive.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


We are starting another War, more troops are being sent overseas, don't you read the papers?

- Boat



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


But drilling WILL help out in the short term, wouldn't it?

Not to mention the middle east, and how we could finally leave that place, but wouldn't the economy be greatly boosted if the price of fuel were to rest at about .75- $1 per gallon?

Do you realize how much of our money is spent on freight travel alone? On trucking?

We need a comprehensive plan with short and long term goals that allow for prosperity during BOTH periods.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 





Why, was bush a liberal when HE wrecked the country?


Actually, things didn't turn to you-know-what, until Bush started acting like a liberal, by pushing the treasonous "Bailout Bill" which started the demise of the economy. He should have let the failing companies fail. You may argue with my "solution", but then, tell me, did they "Bailout Bill" money accomplish what they wanted it to? I don't know anyone that felt it improved things.
Still no credit available, to all bu those that don't need credit. Housing still tanking ever lower. Unemployment going through the roof, with U6 at about 17% and climbing....need I go on?



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 

Make the kids pedal too!!!
Thanks for the replies.
I edited my post above.
Peace be with U, OP!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 

I agree with it took everyone to ruin things.
Goes all the way back to the bankers manifesto.
To blame other citizens is not the answer.
This country hasn't been for the citizens for a long time.
I agree with Ron Paul being the right choice.
It just doesnt help when we throw names out in hate.
Seems to me as someone from the rational middle anyway!
Indeed the country was founded on LIBERAL principles, get over it.
One can be liberal AND moral at the same time!
He can love guns AND clean water for fishing.
A person can be religous AND tolerant at the same time!
Wow maybe someone could be liberal but ALSO conservative?
What are the chances?




[edit on 23-3-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I'm not liberal or conservative, but out of the lot of you - I have to say I hate liberals with a deep inner passion.

So maybe that makes me conservative?

Who knows.

Star and Flag JUST for the title.



[edit on 23-3-2009 by mf_luder]



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Librals destroyed the country???



Ok





posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


I am sorry, but my time with Liberals has shown me one thing above all else;

The end ALWAYS justifies the means.

There is no room for compromise, just overreaching.

Note, that I am a conservative, not a republican, and that I seriously doubt George Washington would have aligned himself with EITHER of the positions that this Liberal mayor has.



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by mf_luder
 


I appreciate your comments and have respect and point is taken.
However, hate will not ever be an answer for our ills.
If we REALLY CARE, we will stand TOGETHER and take our country back.
Otherwise you are right about us on here,
we are just blowing smoke up each other....
Peace be with U



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I love you guys so much...

anyhow this episode of bankers gone wild was brought to you by



GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via mortgage refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]

May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]

November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

February 24, 2004: At a Senate Banking Committee hearing, Norman Rice, President and CEO of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle questioned having low-income Americans use ARM's to finance their homes. In addition, Senator Sarbanes questioned the Federal Reserve's promotion of alternative mortgage products over traditional fixed rate mortgages:
* Norman Rice: "Particularly if you're talking about serving an underserved constituency. Adjustable rate mortgages for a low income constituency is a nightmare."
* Senator Sarbanes: "[The Federal Reserve] is pushing adjustable rate mortgages.and throwing this risk back on the consumer." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 2/25/04]

June 30, 2004: After encouraging the use of non-traditional mortgages, many of which re-set with rising interest rates, the Federal Reserve begins to raise rates-17 consecutive, 25 basis point increases that take the Federal Reserve Funds rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent in June 2004 to 5.25 percent in June 2006. [Market News International, 4/29/08]

October 26, 2005: House of Representatives passed regulation reforming the GSE's. The bill passed the House 331-90 (Republicans: 209-15; Democrats: 122-74), and would have given the new regulator broad authority over setting capital requirements and limiting portfolio size. Senate Democrats picked that bill up and offered it, but the Administration opposed that legislation. According to Mr. Oxley, the White House gave Congress and the GSE reform legislation "a one-finger salute."
* "We missed a golden opportunity that would have avoided a lot of the problems we're facing now, if we hadn't had such a firm ideological position at the White House and the Treasury and the Fed," Mr. Oxley says." [Financial Times, 9/11/08]

February 7, 2007: Federal banking regulators released their voluntary Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgage Products for mortgage lenders. However, the guidance did not apply to subprime mortgages. [Senate Banking Committee Transcipt, Prepared Statement of Martin Eakes, 2/7/07]

March 22, 2007: Senator Dodd laid out how the Federal Reserve was responsible for the "perfect storm" sweeping over American homeowners. At a Banking committee hearing Dodd said, "By May of 2005, the press was reporting that economists were warning about the risks of these new mortgages. In June of that year, Chairman Greenspan was talking about "froth" in the mortgage market and testified before the Joint Economic Committee that he was troubled by the surge in exotic mortgages." [Senate Banking Committee Transcript, 3/22/07]

August 6, 2007: At a White House morning press briefing, in response to a question whether the housing market is correcting or in crisis, President Bush says that the economy is stable: "[I]t looks we're headed for a soft landing." [Remarks By President Bush, 8/9/07]

November 15, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 11/15/08]

December 4, 2007: In response to a question about whether the Administration was too slow to recognize the subprime problem, President Bush said: "We've been working on this since August." [Remarks By President Bush, 12/4/07]

December 6, 2007: Senator Reid asked unanimous consent to pass the FHA Modernization Act, but Republicans objected. [Congressional Record, 12/6/08]

October 4, 2007: At a news conference on Wednesday, House and Senate Democrats outlined a plan to help low- and middle-income families keep their homes." [New York Times, 10/04/07]

January 9, 2008: The Federal Reserve finally proposes rule pursuant to the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, to combat abusive and deceptive lending practices. Congress passed the law in 1994. [Federal Reserve System, 1/9/08; Public Law No: 103-325]

February 14, 2008: Senate Democrats announce The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which would keep families facing foreclosure in their homes, help other families avoid foreclosures in the future, and help communities already harmed by foreclosure to recover. [HR 3221, 2008]

February 26, 2008: After Senate Democrats introduce The Foreclosure Prevention Act, White House issues a veto threat and Senate Republicans block consideration of the bill. [Statement of Administration Policy, 2/26/08; Senate Vote #35, HR 3221]

February 28, 2008: Senate Republicans blocked consideration of the Foreclosure Prevention Act. The bill provided $10 billion in bond authority to refinance subprime loans, $4 billion in grants for the rehabilitation of foreclosed homes and tax relief for struggling homebuilders. The bill also included a provision that would allow bankruptcy courts to modify the terms of a mortgage on a primary residence that could have helped 600,000 families stay in their homes. [Senate Vote #35, HR 3221; CRS Summary; Finance Committee Press Release, 2/15/08; Center for Responsible Lending]

March 14, 2008: Federal Reserve and JP Morgan Chase Bailed Out Bear Stearns. "On the verge of a collapse that could have shaken the very foundations of the U.S. financial system, investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. was bailed out Friday by a rival and the federal government. The near-miss raised new alarm about the credit crisis -- and whether other big firms might be in jeopardy." [AP, 3/15/08]

April 1, 2008: Republicans Stall Housing Bill. Republicans force cloture vote on motion to proceed to energy bill. [Senate Vote 86, HR 3221, 4/1/08]

June 19, 2008: After measure is reported by the Senate banking committee, White House issues a veto threat against the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008, which includes GSEs reform, on the grounds that the bill provides $4 billion in grants to communities struggling with foreclosed properties. [Statement of Administration Policy, 1/19/08]

June 24, 2008: Republicans Stall Housing Bill. Republicans forced Democrats to file cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Housing bill. [Senate Vote 155, HR 3221, 6/24/08]

June 25, 2008: 79 Senators vote to pass the bipartisan housing bill while some Republican Senators announce they would use procedural maneuvers to delay final passage until after the July 4th recess. "Sens. Jim DeMint and John Ensign both said they were willing to run out the clock on a major housing bill.'I don't intend to allow any unanimous consents to shorten the debate time on the housing bill,' DeMint said." [Roll Call, 6/26/08]

July 7, 2008: Republican Senators force a procedural vote in order to further delay the passage of the comprehensive housing bill. [Senate Vote #163, HR 3221, 7/10/08]

July 10, 2008: Several Republican Senators force another procedural vote in order to delay passage of the housing bill. (Senate Vote #170, HR 3221, 7/10/08) "By a vote of 84-12 Thursday, the Senate cleared away the last procedural hurdle hindering the measure in that chamber, but lingering objections by a GOP critic pushed off passage until Friday." [AP, 7/11/08]

July 11, 2008: White House spokeswoman Dana Perino renews veto threat against the housing bill. [AP, 7/11/08]




posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 





One can be liberal AND moral at the same time!

That is certainly possible. In fact, 30 or 40 years ago, I would say that most were. What changed things? Well, for one, the "litmus test" for liberals today is their unswerving support for abortion. I just can't call someone moral who believes that it is ok to kill an innocent unborn child, or even one that is born alive, after a botched abortion, and then crushed to death. Just call me old-fashion.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join