| Author | Message | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2166 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sunny: What do you mean, are they gone? My understanding is that California has instituted action against the various energy brokers, and the administrative law judge has found that the actions of those brokerage companies was indeed illegal. Having said that, the same judge (I'm not really sure about this) has said that the damages will be limited, and as a result, California is unable to get out of the various high cost long term contracts that Davis signed. This will produce higher costs of government, etc. While it probably wasn't the brightest thing for him to have done, at the time it probably made some sense. At any rate it isn't fixable at this point in time. My comments about Bush, et al are simple: the political spectrum is changing for him: 1. the economy isn't coming around, and 2. the Iraq isue is just getting started, if they can't stop the American casualties, and more information keeps coming out about information the government had that disproved the claim of weapons of mass destruction, then Bush is going to have difficulty. A good guage as to whether or not Bush is vulnerable is Hilary Clinton. If she jumpes into the race, the betting will be that Bush is toast. I don't think that she'll let another democrat get the nomination if Bush is vulnerable. The Clintons are about the smartest people in politics now, and I'd certainly trust their judgement. I'm unsure if she'd be as good a president as Bill, but we may just find out. Art | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 694 Registered: 2-2003 |
Art, I understand. Are they really gone though?  Back to the DMV fees, whats likely to happen? Sunny | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2151 Registered: 6-2001 |
Sunny: the Bush appointees on the energy regulatory commission, refused to do what their enacting legislation required them to do: step in and restrict the prices,which had increased by 1000% due to this manipulation. Since these positions are appointed, the only way to make sure that the foxes in the chicken coop are gone is regime change. When our president appoints people to a commission who won't do their job, get rid of the President. These issues have been researched and it is clear that politics took over for duty, and California got screwed in the process. Art | ||
| Jean-Louis (Jlm348)
Member Username: Jlm348 Post Number: 618 Registered: 11-2002 |
Sunny I am having one of those days. I know how your feeling | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 686 Registered: 2-2003 |
Don't pay any attention to me, I'm just bitchy from work. Too many issues and not enough staff to cope with a 25% increase in the employee pool in the last 2 months and pushing our infrastructure. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 685 Registered: 2-2003 |
I agree, Art except about the regime change in Washington. We'll always choose to blame someone because of position, be it our President, our boss or someone we work with if it was a corporate environment. Assuming we get an economist to do wonders and make us rich, we'll berate them for environmental policy, foreign policy, taxes, schooling, the homeless, ad nauseaum. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Assuming it was a single individual and not the likes of the our own representatives, etc who didn't play a part in the belly flop we're in. Greenspan was quoted on CNN saying the economy is taking a dive while Clinton was still in office, that GWB Jr. screwed it up for is is a load BS. He may have helped, but, since when was all the economic policies coming from the White House all sugar and spice? Please. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2137 Registered: 6-2001 |
Luke: I wish it was that simple. All of the States are having problems with their budgets. The economy, California in particular, is poor, the feds have cut back on the aid to the States because the fed budget is stressed. To compound the problem, California was ripped off by the oil companies, and even when we complained about that, the federal watchdog agency declined to intervene. The evidence is now coming out that a few oil companies manipulated our pricing. While some of them may go to jail, it isn't going to reduce our energy costs, which the State paid for. Remember that the vote to "decontrol" our energy output was 100% in both houses (that's right apparently they paid EVERYONE off to get what they wanted. What we truly need in this state is a law making it a crime for a legislature to vote on those items which individuals have received campaign contributions. On a final note, this impeachment will lead nowhere, its just sour grapes by the Republicans, and Issa in particular (take a long and hard look at his record, he has a bit of a problem with stolen cars, insurance claims, etc. He's been charged with at least one felony, perhaps more. Hasn't been convicted, but he sure isn't the type of guy I'd trust). What we need is this recession to end. That is going to take a regime change in Washington however. Art | ||
| Luke Kowalski (Lukek)
New member Username: Lukek Post Number: 6 Registered: 5-2003 |
I have one thing to contribute to this thread: http://www.RecallGrayDavis.com thx, luke, Belmont, CA 1963 Ferrari 250 GTE 1974 Alfa Spider 03 Ford, 03 Audi | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2114 Registered: 6-2001 |
Matt: Back in LA on the 28th. I'll call you Monday. Art | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 224 Registered: 2-2001 |
I called the DMV and got this answer. Starting in October 2003, the fees will be 2%, period. The DMV is going back to the way it used to be. Currently the fees are 2% less a 65% rebate on the 2%. So for example, on a new $50K car, the fees would be 2% of $50k ($1000) minus 65% rebate ($650.) making the total fees $350. Starting in Oct the 65% rebate is being eliminated. | ||
| "The Don" (The_don)
Senior Member Username: The_don Post Number: 6149 Registered: 8-2002 |
J.D. I agree. e-mail me @ [email protected] I might have a solution to your dog's diet. Matt | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 223 Registered: 2-2001 |
Don Your are correct. I was on the DMV website and saw that the fees are 2%. The new fees start in Oct. Nowhere on the DMV website can I find what the new fees will be. It makes sense to assume they will be 6%. At 8:00am I'm calling them to get clarification. As an aside, I don't want to sound like a cheapskate but when you buy a new Ferrari and have to pay over $12K a year in fees this gets to be too much. | ||
| "The Don" (The_don)
Senior Member Username: The_don Post Number: 6144 Registered: 8-2002 |
According to the DMV website http://www.dmv.ca.gov/ current fee's are 2% | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 221 Registered: 2-2001 |
Matt We moved out of CA in 1998 after living there since 1971. It was a bad decision to move in 98'. Housing appreciation was so high we thought we would sell our house and take the money and run. We thought we would never come back to CA to live. The house we sold in 98' is now back on the market for an additional $700K. Now we want to come back to CA. My wife is already working in Burbank. I am hesitant to move back because I didn't want to pay the high DMV fees. I didn't know the rate had been dropped to .8%. I could probably live with 2.4%. I'm calling the DMV today to get an answer whether the rate is 2.4, 2.5 or 6%. | ||
| Matt (Blurr)
New member Username: Blurr Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2003 |
J.D. when was the last time you lived in CA? When I moved here a little over 4 years ago the DMV fees were 2%. Shortly there after part of the CA fees were deemed unconstitutional and CA had to refund a good portion of those fees and lower the tax rate. I remember getting a ~$400 check in the mail from the registration of a $24000 car. The tax has since been .08%. It is now tripled to 2.4%. Therefore the tax on a $200,000 car would be $4800. I would like to know what made the last 2% rate unconstitutional vs. the 2.4%. | ||
| "The Don" (The_don)
Senior Member Username: The_don Post Number: 6136 Registered: 8-2002 |
Art, He was asking "if" the fee's rise. Not the current level. BTW - Lunch next time you are down in LA? | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 220 Registered: 2-2001 |
Art The last time I lived in LA the DMV fees were 2% of the value of the car. So the license plate on a $40K new car would be $800. When I heard that Calif tripled the fees I assumed the fees will be 6% of the value? How do you come up with 2.5%?. I like your number better than mine. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2104 Registered: 6-2001 |
I don't think so, it would be 2.5%, or 5k. Art | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 219 Registered: 2-2001 |
Don,thanks. My wife and I are looking for a small home in the Pasadena area but I am trying to avoid licensing my car in Cal. Those fees are more than most house payments. | ||
| "The Don" (The_don)
Senior Member Username: The_don Post Number: 6124 Registered: 8-2002 |
You got it  | ||
| J.D. Smythe (Jeff)
Junior Member Username: Jeff Post Number: 218 Registered: 2-2001 |
Do I have this correct? On a new car purchase of $200K, the license plate would be @$12k. I basing this on the new law tripling the fees. |