Comments by OldDawg

Previous | Page 3 of 12 | Next

Posted on October 11 at 6:07 a.m.

Don McD, your ideas about JohnLocke's income just make no sense.

You say: "Investment income, whatever the vehicle, comes from 'someone else' doing work." Wrong again. Investment income comes from loaning money to other people, in the great majority of cases from accumulated wages you earned on your own work. These borrowers ask for the money so they can buy houses, cars, boats, build factories, employ people, and innumerable other good things. Are you saying the world would be a better place if JohnLocke had not saved up his wages that made these loans possible?

You say "Pension distributions are deferred wages (looks like you didn't work for a union shop.)" Yes, they can in part be considered deferred wages ... to the extent that an employer would have to offer higher wages now if it did not offer a pension plan. It works that way regardless of the plan being negotiated by a union. Regardless, distributions from a pension plan consist of return of principle (wages that were saved, not spent) and that evil investment income you're so worried about. Why do you hurl venom on JohnLocke's living off his own prior wages that he deferred from spending, and the associated investment income ... but glorify distributions from pensions (especially ones negotiated by unions) which operate on the same principle? How can you sleep knowing that union negotiated pensions rely on investment income, which you claim "comes from 'someone else' doing work"?

On Occupy Santa Barbara Mobs De la Guerra Plaza

Posted on October 8 at 6 p.m.

DonMcD, if as you say "Corporations own our government and conservatives modify our government in their favor" then why did the Wall Street bail-out, TARP, fail to pass the first time it was put to a vote? Why was it that the R's in Congress voted it down, while most of the D's supported it? I think you should closely review the links supplied by howgreenwasmyvalley. The D's and R's are equally corrupted by Wall St. money, just as they’ve both been corrupted by Union money.

I agree there is a difference between "the average Dawg in a union … and the multinational-corporations." But that’s hardly relevant and I never suggested otherwise. I said there’s no difference between the average Dawg in a union, and that average Dawg holding his pension stock in Apple, the big bad multinational. The Dawg is the Dawg, a sovereign citizen collecting his rightful earnings as a worker and a shareholder, and he's quite capable of deciding for himself what legislation he'll support with contributions from his own wages and dividends. Further, the Dawg would appreciate the reduction in his union dues, and the increase in his dividends --- that would come with prohibiting his servants, the Union Managers and Corporate Managers, from using his money politically and presuming to speak for him.

On Occupy Santa Barbara Mobs De la Guerra Plaza

Posted on October 7 at 6:59 a.m.

Don McD, I must respectfully disagree. Unions are not "a very basic part of democracy". Neither are Corporations. I can't recall any mention of these organizations in the Constitution. And I don't recall Jefferson bringing them up in the Declaration of Independence.

Let me know when you're ready to "reach across the aisle" so to speak, and consider proposals to limit political contributions to individual citizens, and prohibit donations from the clubs they're members of, whether they're called unions or corporations.

On Occupy Santa Barbara Mobs De la Guerra Plaza

Posted on October 6 at 7:15 a.m.

DonMcD, I think the Republican's just might bring it up, to the extent that they will feel beholdin' to the Tea Party, and to the extent that the Tea Party returns to it's own grass roots and initial impetus ... revulsion at all the bail outs. I find some common ground between the Tea Party and these Occupy Wall St. folks on some of these issues, especially the deeply shared anger about the bail outs of Wall St.

A constitutional amendment to prohibit political donations from corporations is worth serious consideration .... so long as it included prohibition on donations from labor unions. Neither entity is "a person" in a real sense. Let political donations come from real persons only.

Romney's comment was unfortunate. He meant of course that corporations represent shareholders (sometimes poorly, sometimes well) who are people. Mostly people like you and me, saving for our old age, putting away our IRA's and pensions into corporate stock. But like you, I'm in favor of eliminating the middle-man ... I'd prefer to make my own donations, as a saver, rather than entrust these to corporate managers.

Likewise, Unions aren't persons, they represent real persons (sometimes poorly, sometimes well) who work like you and me. I'd prefer to make my own donations, as a worker, rather that entrust these to union managers.

So it's worthy of real consideration. I might support it if it's framed along these lines.

On Occupy Santa Barbara Mobs De la Guerra Plaza

Posted on October 6 at 6:20 a.m.

I think the protesters are nutty if that list of demands shared above by cartoonz is "official" from the organizers.

But I share their anger about Wall St., though my anger is directed to the Democratic Party and the President. The financial reforms they passed (when both House and Senate had Democrat majorities) under "Dodd-Frank" were a sham, and I feel my vote for the President has been betrayed. Too big to fail is still alive and well and thriving, and there's no way that Dodd-Frank's failure to address it can be laid at W's feet. This is Obama's bad, he owns it all sad to say.

Now the president I voted for is trying to make up for this failure by proposing punitive and crowd pleasing taxes on the rich. Well and good if that flicks your bic ... but it solves nothing fundamental. They are still too big to fail, it's gonna happen again very soon, and we will be back to shovelling newly printed money their way in short order. Nothing, I mean nothing, has changed.

Break the banks up. Now. Turn "too big to fail" into "too small to bail". Return banking to something resembling a free market. Where you do actually fail, and succeed, on your own, depending on whether you're adding value.

Too bad this isn't the protester's agenda. They're pushing socialism, when the problem is that's what we have ... We All own the banks now, we have all the downside, none of the upside. We've nationalized them, without calling it that, and it's a botched nationalization at that.

On Occupy Santa Barbara Mobs De la Guerra Plaza

Posted on October 4 at 5:35 a.m.

That's one big entitlement mentality you've got there Mr. Akre, just about the biggest one I've seen. Yes, surprise, surprise, Casa Esperanza is not Shangri-la. Ya see, there's just no money in helping the homeless, and so things get a little ragged for sure. I'm sure all the more so when pathetic ingrates like you feel the need to write such terrible reviews about your free lunch.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you paid! ... that big $300 coming out of your social security check. I'm glad to see that you found a better bed and breakfast in SLO for your $300. I'm sure all kinds of landlords were beating a path to your door to get that kinda money.

I'm sure they have their faults like all humans, but I know the good people working at Casa Esperanza don't deserve what you've dished up here.

On A View from In There

Posted on September 14 at 7:09 a.m.

The thing I don't get is why the local growers haven't formed a cooperative, and built the transportation hub in Oxnard themselves, on their own dime. Why does this have to be done by the Federal Government (USDA)? Anybody remember Sunkist? Citrus growers seemed to figure all these things out on their own, why not the flower growers?

That said, I'm all for revoking whatever advantages the Colombians are receiving courtesy of Uncle Sam ... perhaps Rep. Capps could more productively focus on getting these eliminated, rather than loading our grandchildren up with more federal debt to finance BOTH the grower's Oxnard facility as well as the subsidies to the Colombians.

On Flower Power Revival?

Posted on September 14 at 6:42 a.m.

Leaving a legacy of land. Isn't this what we're trying to accomplish by channelling development toward infill projects with higher density? Like what's proposed at San Marcos & Hollister? Where else are you going to provide places for your children to live, that does a better job of leaving a legacy of land to them?

Are you supporting a big low density tract house development in Naples to house your kids, so you can preserve as a legacy for their enjoyment that wonderful parcel of land bookended by Cody's and Von's on one side, and Sungate Ranch on the other?

On Let's Leave a Legacy of Land

Posted on September 13 at 7:48 a.m.

JohnLocke, help me out if you would. You said that 10 years ago SB City government was half it's current size, but I'm having a hard time confirming that. I looked at the City's budget documents for FY 2012 and FY 2002 (at their website), and they show that overall city staffing has actually declined (modestly) over these past 10 years. Then I looked at overall budgeted operating expenditures, and this did show real growth of 30%, after controlling for inflation over the 10 years ... but that's nowhere near the 100% growth that your comment suggested. Is there another measure for the size of the City government that you had in mind when you said it has doubled over the past 10 years? Thanks in advance.

On Must the County of Santa Barbara pay such lavish, "competitive" pensions to its retired executives?

Posted on September 8 at 7:27 a.m.

They're obviously not confined to a wheelchair, they'd very quickly have another viewpoint. The old terminal was horrendous.

On Not Fort Wayne Here

Previous | Page 3 of 12 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: