Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

tjwash

(8,219 posts) Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:14 AM Jun 2012

Meanwhile, in San Diego...

City workers get fucked out of their pensions, unions to start getting shut out of city contracts...oh and I guess the mega millions that big-tobacco dumped into the "no on 29" campaign didn't go to waste.

1 step forward, 2 steps back in this fucking country

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Meanwhile, in San Diego... (Original Post) tjwash Jun 2012 OP

Can 99ers even afford to live in San Diego? ananda Jun 2012 #1

I can, but only because of my age. I bought my house in 1994. slackmaster Jun 2012 #2

Even the Los Angeles Times opposed 29. I'm strongly against smoking but voted Yes on it as well. slackmaster Jun 2012 #3

ananda

(28,866 posts)

1. Can 99ers even afford to live in San Diego?

Reply to tjwash (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:15 AM

Jun 2012

I think that city's been fucked for a good while.

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

2. I can, but only because of my age. I bought my house in 1994.

Reply to ananda (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:16 AM

Jun 2012

At its present market value, I could not afford it on my salary.

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)

3. Even the Los Angeles Times opposed 29. I'm strongly against smoking but voted Yes on it as well.

Reply to tjwash (Original post)

Wed Jun 6, 2012, 09:19 AM

Jun 2012

I'd love to see the price of cigarettes go up, but 29 was deeply flawed. I care about how the money would have been spent on the back end - None of it would have gone to the state's General Fund for things like K-12 education, and there was no guarantee that any of it would have been spent in California other than about $125 million per year on a new bureaucracy.

Reply to this discussion