economy picking up

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Sapphire Girl

That's interesting how you put George W. Bush's head on dissention's body.

IN HIS DREAMS

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

increase in jobs/pay = increase in income = increase in tax revenue

BTW - you will not die of shame if you admit the economy is getting better, which it clearly is throughout the nation. BTW - if housing proces are so high in your area - who is buying them - must be people with a job. I mean the market charges what the consumer will pay I submit that weakens you argument. But, I know you will never ever under any circumstances admit that anything good is happening during W's adminitration no matter whether it is his doing or not and no matter what the facts say, like the facts in the articles above.

the increase in tax revenue came from the sale of stocks/bonds correct? (re-read your post) that does not equal income from working in MY book.
therefore, the increase is misleading.

also, the housing prices in Chico are as high as they are because out of towners are coming in to buy and it has made the sticker prices go sky high. It is NOT due to people being able to afford them from THIS area, the truth is, people from the Bay Area are selling their homes and relocating here and either paying cash or engaging in creative financing which I think is a major mistake. People dont realize the hidden dangers of adjustable rate mortgages or balloon payments or other such deceptive financing. When people actually LIVE here, they realize there arent any JOBS here, which is why the young people move away. The people coming INTO the area are retirees. There is NO chance for first time home buyers in Chico any more. You have to go pretty far afield to find a fixer upper you can afford if you are just starting...

So, your "facts" are misleading. Everywhere I look, I see/hear about job layoffs and budget crunches. Remember California is the exception to your sunny predictions (again, re-read your article) Maybe the rest of the nation is experiencing some good time, but not here.

btw: I prefer to get economic data from primary sources rather than a magazine with a possible bias. If the Census/economic data support what you say, then there is no disputing it. But, I've learned to distrust all mainstream media any more...and maybe even PBS with that Nazi at the helm, Ken somebody or other....who has ties to McCarthy and the right wing agenda...

edit:
here is a link to census data, and you may be right about some indicators however, poverty is also rising...and household incomes declined since 1999 and retail trade is down...manufacturing, mining and trade is unchanged, homeownership is only slightly higher. New home sales and housing starts are up, which may be due to the low interest rate you mentioned.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

edit:
here is a link to census data, and you may be right about some indicators . . . .

relatively painless wasn't it

BTW - how is your lobbying going?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

relatively painless wasn't it

BTW - how is your lobbying going?

well, the painless part was due in part to your being partly right and partly wrong! (same as me!) so when we are both right/wrong, I call it even! Plus, I CAN admit when Im wrong, in spite of what you might think

having said that however, I still stand behind my statement (and the excerpt from your article) that California is the exception to your sunny economic outlook. Living in CA, I dont have any real idea of how the REST of the country is doing, I only really know about this state....and its a MESS

as for my lobbying, my trip to Sac was pretty much a wash for MY bill as the Senator decided at the last minute to take it off calendar. I found out after I got there, needless to say I was disappointed. But, nothing is ever wasted, and I was requested to stay and support a similar bill. Baby steps over time will do the same amount of good a giant step does, it just takes longer and I fret about the needless suffering. I want to pose a question to you:
since the CA Judicial Council and the CA Judges Association are adamant about any restrictions on their "discretion" what line of attack would YOU suggest? Personally I think the blank check discretion they've exercised has led to the most heinous dispicable rulings ever in Family Court. Abused kids being given to the abusers and the innocent mothers losing custody is a travesty of the highest order. My thinking is, we need to narrow the field by inserting items that MUST be considered before a ruling can be made. Is there anything you could suggest re: judicial discretion? Oh, btw: the ACLU chimed in and said my amendment treated convicted sex offenders as a separate class of people (as if this was a bad thing) and presented a brief against my bill....good grief eh? and to think I belong to the ACLU! I think Im revoking my membership asap!

[strandinthewind]

Judges are loathe to give away their discretion. But, it has happened - look at the mandatory child support guidelines most states have - they usually cannot deviate from those without written reasons and the statutes call for those reasons usually to be extraordinary. As for your situation, getting public support for it appears difficult as people are hesitant to give a third party automatic control over their kids, esp. when the system can be abused by bad parent. But, the insertion of "must be considered" is a good way to do that without really doing that. In other words, in my experience, judges appear to think a little more when they have to provide specific written reasons for their rulings. As for the ACLU - they will not support this because they support everyone. That is a good thing in most instances, but it sucks here.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Judges are loathe to give away their discretion. But, it has happened - look at the mandatory child support guidelines most states have - they usually cannot deviate from those without written reasons and the statutes call for those reasons usually to be extraordinary. As for your situation, getting public support for it appears difficult as people are hesitant to give a third party automatic control over their kids, esp. when the system can be abused by bad parent. But, the insertion of "must be considered" is a good way to do that without really doing that. In other words, in my experience, judges appear to think a little more when they have to provide specific written reasons for their rulings. As for the ACLU - they will not support this because they support everyone. That is a good thing in most instances, but it sucks here.

yes it does, in spades! Here's what I see on the horizon: Judicial power will be scrutinized closely (unfortunately because of Terri Schiavo, which I thot was a correct decision) in the years to come and the broad reach of judicial discretion will be curtailed. My thinking is, we need to restrict the arena under which judges operate....for instance, CA Family Code 3044 notifies judges that an award of sole or joint custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence is detrimental to the best interests of the child, and as such, may only be rebutted (by the abuser) by a preponderance of the evidence. Furthermore, any determination that the presumption has been overcome must consider whether an award of sole or joint custody to an abuser is in the best interests of the child, and "in determining the best interest of the child, the preference for frequent and continuing contact with both parents.......or with the noncustodial parent.....may NOT be used to rebut the presumption, in whole or in part.

So, as I see it, this limits the ability of an abuser to demonstrate that he/she should be allowed joint or sole custody merely using the "best interests of the child" doctrine...and relies instead upon hard evidence that the custodial parent is instead, unfit for some reason....do you read it this way also?

btw: I have MASSIVE public support, just not Judicial support or the support of the ACLU.......