Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Initiative
67 Comments Published by clay October 23rd, 2008 in State and Local Politics.
California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, is an initiated state statute that will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 is one of two ballot initiatives focusing on alternative fuels that will appear on the November 4 ballot in California. The other measure, Proposition 7, is sometimes referred to as Big Solar while Prop. 10 is sometimes referred to as Big Wind.
I would have to say no to this prop 10. it does sound like a good idea specially now that everyone is going crazy off gas prices but it does not look like its going to have a good outcome. The whole thing is going to cost 5 billion in bonds. They are going to be distributing this money into different things. for example, a certain percent of it will be used on alternative fuel vehicles, another percent on research, renewable energy technology, etc. At the end these alternative vehicles that they are going to have are going to cost much more than a simple gasoline car. Sure these new alternative cars are going to help you on buying alot of gas and good for the enviorment but the cost of them will be too much. The proccess that they have to go through is high in expenses. And besides Gas is going down now. went pAst a gas station today and regular fuel was at 2.99. I got happy and filled my 4-cylinder toyota with $35, all too the top. NOw that made my day!
And im sticking to NO on prop 10.
Even though Prop 10 would benefit our environment, I would vote
No on Prop 10. I believe that Californians are highly aware of
our environment and are doing a lot to benefit it. But if Prop 10
was to be voted in it would cost the California Budget $5 billion and
almost $10billion with interest. Since our economy is already plummeting
down we don’t need to add on this extra amount, which would be a little
extra help towards our environment but not much. And considering other
countries, like China, our environment isn’t so bad anyways.
Proposition 10 is a great idea, but not now. We are trying to find a way out of the debt, not get even deeper inside. Now we are splitting between saving the environment or our economy. At this point, I believe government giving money to save environment is a bit too late, it will destroy our economy, which will worsen the world. By not saving the environment, there is no point to having money, but we can’t mix both in order to save one. We need to find a balance and that is fixing the environment with our own money not the government’s, while the government worries about our economy at this point. We will end up destroying both paths we need to fix in the end if we go this route. No to Prop. 10.
Prop 10 is another idea of supporting renewable energy, which requires amount of money in order to make it work. During this economy crisis, I don’t think we really afford another 5 billions of dollars, especially when california is in a deep debt. It would be great if this proposition is brought up after the state solve the money issue. It is just not a right time for it. I would vote NO on it.
Prop. 10 seems like it is the best thing to do for our environment at this point in time, but it also seems like the worst to do for our economy at this point in time. Right now our economy is in its worst shape its been in years and we are in a lot of dept. This prop. will need 10 billion dollars to go towards clean fuel reaserch and the production of clean vehicles. Say that the prop. does pass, I still have not seen one autoshop that knows how to repair a “Green Car”, so even with the rebate that the government will give for the purchase of a clean car, that money will be spent on trying to repair the car if it ever breaks down. Gas is going down now, even though it is bound to skyrocket any time soon because of how the market is, I filled up on mediun for 2.89, that is the cheapest I have filled up in months, so with this bill, we will be in dept and have no money to pay for gas, so I’d say NO to this bill.
I would have to say no on prop 10. I don’ t think we need to use any of our money on environmental stuff anymore we have bigger things to worry about. Plus i was talking to my dad about hybrid cars that are suppose to help the environment and he said that they are actually hurting it. he told me that in Canada where they are getting the nickle that they use for the battery, the land is all messed up and the wild life can’t even live their anymore. plus hybrid battery’s may last longer than a regular car battery but they cost way more too.
i just think that money could be used on other things such as higher education.
No on prob 10!
ok first of all prob 10 doesn’t even clean our air!
This prob. would cost way too much and would be a waste of money.
We are in a $15 billion debt ALREADY, and this prob is saying that they want to spend another $5 billion a 10 billion interest fee. It would take our states $335 million for 30 years for this to be paid off. Spending $335 million a year to go towards prob 10 means that other things will get cut such as schools, health care, police safty! In my opinion these things matter way more then prob 10 does! Taxpayers would cover $2.5 billion just to sponser trucking companies to get suposebly “clean” trucks. But these trucks that we would be paying so much money for pollute just as much as a regular truck, diesel, and gas powered trucks do.
Also prob 10 claims to protect the global envirnment,(but all major envirnmental groups say no) it’s public finanical support is skewed towards building markets for an engery source, which could enhance global warming.
I would vote no on Prop 10.
Californians are already trying to do what we can to fix our environment and this prop is a good idea, just not at this time. I don’t think we need to be spending $10 billion for this prop. When have you ever been out driving and seen an alternative fueling station. Theres not that many and building more would probably cost California more money. Not only that, but there aren’t that many mechanics that can fix ‘green’ cars. Training mechanics that can fix these cars will cost even more money. In a few years, maybe this prop can be fixed and voted on again, but I don’t think it is the right time to pass this prop now, our money can be spent on better things.
I would vote no on prop 10 because it is something that the technology has not been developed well enough. This prop is just funding the research part of alternative fuels, which is being done already. With our current economic crisis, we would just end up being more in debt in California by 10 million dollars. They will raise the taxes just to compensate for this prop. But there are some reasons that this prop would be great, such as replacing all the diesel fuel trucks with cleaner fuel efficient trucks. Overall, this proposition is good in some sense, but the price of this prop will put back another 30 years of debt and raised taxes.
I vote yes on this proposition because it is needed, would solve bigger problems, and the opposing arguments are weak in comparison. The proposition calls for 5 billion dollars from the general bonds which would be split up in order to move on with America’s future: 58% goes to buying high fuel economy and alternative fuel cars, 20% goes to research development for renewable energy production, 11% for research and development for alternative fuel, 5% for purachesing renewable energy, 4% for grants to 8 cities in those technologies, and 3% to train students in this technologies. This helps america not to be dependent on foreign fuels. The energy is something that is needed.
As much as this sounds like a good idea I believe that now is not the time to be researching things like in that matter. I would vote no on Prop 10 because we are already having an economic crisis and this just adds on to our debt. Its just going to be used for research and if they can’t even come up with anything more useful or helpful then it would be a big waste. It would be great to have more fuel efficient cars with the gas and smog and all of that but I feel that now is not a really good time to be doing this. We should focus our attention to some matters tha are more urgent than researching alternative fuels which is being done slighlty already. We don’t need more funding for this. PLus gas prices are starting to go down which is great. I can fill up my car for less now so thats a plus but still I think they should put this off for some other time. So No on Prop 10!
I’m usually for anything to save the enviroment… But too bad we can’t afford this right now. Can’t we find something cheaper than $325 million per year? Just plant some trees or something (ok, not really)!
This whole alternative fuels thing is also pretty new too. Many mechanics don’t know how to fix alternative fuel cars.
So while it might save nature, it will hurt our economy.
hmmm well i’m thumbs up for the environment but right now doesnt seem like the good time to ask for so much money. maybe instead of barrowing money to help the invironment we can make it a win win situation by helping the environment AND saving money. like here is this web site i found (http://www.willyoujoinus.com/takeAction/mpgOptimizer/), and if you drive you can put what kind of car you drive, if you get your car tuned regularly, etc, and it will tell you how many miles to the gallon your saving.
also this website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/bestworst.shtml has information about 2009 most and least fuel efficient cars so you can convince your parents next time they want to buy a car to consider a car with high mpg. tell them to expect being on a waiting list for some of the cars but i’d say the wait is worth it.
I vote No on Prop 10.
We are already in debt. This will take another $5billion over 30 years, of money we don’t have. Plus there are companies that would also need to reconstruct there business and equipment in order to make the change to alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy. While I think it is a good idea and I can say we do need to pull away from gas and oil. This should take place when we can afford it. Right now things are so tight to cut. I also think that if we start to change out now a lot of people wont be able to afford this new technology especially because of our financial status as a state.
When we come out of dept or at least most of it and the economy balances out I think then we can start thinking about alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy.
I would vote no on Proposition 10. It sounds like a good idea for the reason that it would please our environment but, I don’t think we can afford it at this moment. We are already in a big debt and this would just make matters worst. I think that spending more than 5 billion dollars at this moment is completely ridiculous.
With all these new propositions that we will be vote on in Novemeber it seems like no one is considering that we are in debt. They are good ideas but our economy is in the worst state that we have ever been in for so long to the point were people aren’t able to predict what will happen next. Isn’t that enough already? Most of these propositions are good ideas but they require that we invest money that we don’t have. I think we should focus on paying the debt first and getting ahead. When the economy is back on track then maybe we should consider these propositions.
Our environment is not doing well and we are all aware of that. I think that even though we fight against global warming there’s only so much we can prevent. Of course there are things we can do to prevent but, there are things we have done to our environment that we can’t change anymore. In the end no matter what, global warming is going to have a major affect on us. So in conclusion, I think that at this moment it is not the best time for propostion 10.
No on prop 10.
As much of a good idea as this proposition sounds, now is not a good time for it. It would however, help our environment alot. We could finally get cleaner fuel for those gross smelly diesel trucks. But with the debt we are in right now, it is just not the right time. Besides, it’s only for research, which is already in progress right now. And like everyone’s said, if we did find alternative fuel sources, there aren’t any mechanics that know how to fix a “green” car. So you would have a great ‘green’ fuel effecient car, but if you crash you’re screwed. So I would vote no on Prop 10.
This proposition is a good idea but unfortunately it has bad timing. The biggest and main priority is the economic problem. We need to solve the economic problem because unlike the environment problem its growing faster. Global warming will affect us over generations but the economic problem is affecting s now and if nothing is done about it will just grow and kill our country. Proposition 10 would help though, it would clean our air a bit, or find more ways to fix this since it does help the research in global warming. unfortunately people would rather just get by in their non-environmentally friendly cars because we cant afford to buy new cars or upgrade to these new efficient ways of living. So for now and until the financial crisis is fixed we should focus on it more then we can fix our global warming problem.
No on proposition 10
For proposition 10 I would have to cast my vote as a no. It seems like a good plan if you just hear the title of the proposition, seem like something to help out with the energy crises that is happening in California (as well as the country). Main reason why I would vote no to proposition 10 is because, I’m not to sure how this proposition is written. From Wikipedia it seems pretty good, “20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology…” and “11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology…” over all those seem like good percentages for those two things.
For the ‘fiscal impact’ of this proposition Wikipedia says, “Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to beyond 2018.” and “Increase in local sales tax and VLF revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2018-19.” Which are good estaminets if you ask me. From the sound of things you would think I would vote yes on this proposition, however there are a few things that I see on Wikipedia that just do not seems to make sense to me.
“58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles…” That right there does not make sense, I personally think that you should develop the alternative fuel vehicles technology first, then worry about purchasing them. “State costs of about $9.8 billion over 30 years to pay both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($4.8 billion) costs on the bond.” $9.8 billion, not to much (but still quit a bit of money) to spend on our fuel/energy crises. But like all things in the ‘great’ country of ours, the estimated price will surely go up to even more. and we will really be paying $20 billion instead of $9.8. How do I know this, well I don’t I am just using history as a guide to the future because everything we say we will only spend $X amount we end up spending 3x the original price.
Through all of that, I would just have to make a tuff dissuasion and vote no towards proposition 10. Until this proposition makes a little more logical sense to me, I would sadly have to vote no against it. Even though there are some good ideas in this proposition, as a whole I do not agree with it.
Proposition 10 is The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act. Its main focus would be to authorize $5 billion in bonds which would provide rebates to buyers of natural gas powered trucks along with some research and development funding. If I were 18 this November I would vote NO on proposition 10. California is already in enough of a financial crisis and they do not need to be spending money of unnecessary things. So if this bill passes it would costs our state’s General Fund $335 million per year for 30 years which would put us even more in debt. Plus if this proposition passes it would not even clean the air it would just help the environment. By living in Southern California all my life I have got used to the smoggy air which is sad. But in my opinion if this propositions main focus was to help clean the air, then I think a lot more people would support and vote for it.
But for now NO on PROP 10!
I would vote no on prop 10.
This would cost the state too much money with not enough results. The people for it make it sound like there will be money going to the regular citizens who are buying the hybrid cars, but it won’t be. In fact, because of the amount of money this would require, the tax payers will actually be losing money. Those who will benefit from the rebate are the companies that own a multitude of vehicles, and even though this will help our environment, personally, I don’t think it’s enough. Also, with the money given back, a portion of it will be used in finding a mechanic able to repair these types of engines and the fuel for them. I think we are going to need a lot more than what this proposition is offering to try and prevent any more damage on our environment. And it would not be smart to put ourselves into even more debt, which would force us to cut other valuable services.
i do think switching from gasoline cars to other methods would be a good idea because pollution is at the high levels but I dont think they would be cheap since its safe for the environment. There would be $5 billion dollars to be wasted in this though and I still dont think that wasting money like that right know would be a good idea since of course the crisis isnt ending. This would be divide into 6 sections like research, purchasing renewable energy, research, teaching collage students about it and other ones. Anyway i would have to say No to proposition 10 because its not really needed at the moment and it would only hurt us on our debt we still have.
So far, everyone has pretty much said it. It seems like an unanimous vote: no on Prop 10. We’d love to see a new fuel that was not only environmentally friendly, but also cheap. We’d love to find that fuel cheap and in a hurry, but that’s not very likely.
The bottom line is just what Ericka said: “This proposition is a good idea but unfortunately it has bad timing.” Maybe one day in the far distant future, we will be able to afford such expensive plans such as these.
It’s not just that it’s expensive though. This Prop isn’t a necessity. We can live without this magic fuel for a couple more years. Americans are currently affording their oil (gas prices are going down) and California is doing pretty well on the environment-friendly front. Although we don’t make the top 10 on Forbes.com’s Greenest States list (due to our long-term smog and ozone pollution in our major cities) we do set the bar for most environmental policies (http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates.html).
We’ll be fine without this Prop and our research will still continue. I’m sure we can survive; especially since our economy wouldn’t if we did pass it.
If i was 18 and had the chance to vote i would have voted No on this proposition. The main reason why i would vote no on this propostion is because in order for this to pass they are going to need 10 billion dollars in order to make everything happen but where will we get that money from? We are already in debt so why do they still come up with great solutions for one problem but still dig their grave deeper when it comes to another problem? They should stop trying to pass all these new ideas that require money in order to happpen they should first fix the economy and than move on to other problems like this one. Thats the main reason why i say No to proposition 10
I would vote No on proposition 10. The reason is because it would require a $10 billion cut out of the state’s general fund. But really, you would be cutting out of anything, because that would just cause more debt. That would be like “burning” a hole in a pocket that doesn’t even exist. There is no pocket, and if there isn’t a pocket, then there for sure isn’t any money. America is at a point where it dung its self a grave, jumped in threw the dirt on its self, and has a straw to breath out of. If America continuos wasting money that we don’t have, that straw will be stepped on by all the people we own money to and we will suffocate and die. Also the proposition argument stated that there are few mechanics which know how to fix natural gas engines and there are few stations that offer natural gas. It would be nicer if many more natural gas stations and more efficient vehicles, but with the money issue that America is having now, I don’t believe that is most important. When America can dig its self out of that hole and recover from its damage from being underneath for so long, then it would be a GREAT opportunity to do so, but at the moment, not so much.
Proposition 10 is The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act. Its main focus would be to authorize $5 billion in bonds which would provide rebates to buyers of natural gas powered trucks along with some research and development funding. I would vote no on prop 10. At first it sounds like an ok idea but we are already doing a lot to help the environment in California. I think at this time prop 10 costs way too much money. We don’t have money to just spend on something we already put a lot of money towards fixing.
Proposition 10, like many of my peers i would vote. While this proposition sounds like a good idea it has come to us at a bad time. Our economy is suffering badly right now and spending all this extra money on what could possibly be a positive thing in our life just isn’t worth it..we’re trying to do too much at once. In my opinion we need to fix our economic issues and maybe in a few years down the line we can come back to this proposition but at this point in time i vote no on prop 8.
I know I can barely afford gas as it is. A couple weeks ago it was painful to fill up my gas tank; a record $60 to fill my Honda accord all the way up. Although now gas has gone down and I spent half the amount of money I was spending before on gas. The economy is horrible and we don’t have enough money to spare to solve the non- renewable resource dependency we have. We don’t have 10 billion dollars to spend on something that isn’t set in stone. What if we don’t find a clean air alternative? It is all an elusive idea that isn’t sure fire.
I also think this prop is just self serving. The major donor to this prop was Clean Energy Fuels Corp which donated almost $4 million. The man that owns that company is named Boone Pickens. His company share price increased 20% since the prop was introduced and Boone is going to make even more money if the prop is passed. In addition house speaker Nancy Pelosi is an investor in Boone’s company so she would also be making money off the prop too. Boone happens to be the bill payer for the proposition and his firm sells natural gas for cars and trucks. If the bill passed, his firm would skyrocket because of the need for natural gas to fuel the new natural gas cars.
In addition, there are not many mechanics who know how to work with a clean air engine nor are there many gas stations that offer natural gas.
I would vote no on Proposition 10. Even though this prop sounds pretty good, this just isn’t the time to spend more money then we have to. We are already in a huge debt and this will just add to the problem. This proposition will authorize the use of $5 billion dollars in bonds and 9.8 billion with interest. Also, I think there are other ways to try to do what this proposition is trying. Like, instead of telling us what alternative fuel technology the market should adopt to make the environment better, they could have vehicle pollution limits. Another thing is gas prices are starting to drop, making it cheaper to fill up your car, so I think we can put this prop off for now.
I would vote no on prop 10. Prop 10 is going to cost a lot of money that California does not have. $10,000,000,000 is way too much money to add to California’s debt. The idea is ok but isn’t there something cheaper to do to help the environment? Maybe we will have a better economy in 4 years. I think that only when the economy is doing great should we consider a large, expensive long time project like prop. 10.
There are also very few natural gas stations and a project like prop 10 should have some infra structure before it tries to change vehicles into using natural gas.
I would definately vote NO on Prop 10. They have a saying known as
“It isn’t green, it’s greed”! This Prop would not help all that much for
our environment. It will surely not clean our air. It is an expensive thing that will
only take money out of the budget from school and health care. It would cost 5 billion in bonds. 9.8 billion with interests. It will total up to 335 million per year for about 30 years. We do not need to spend on something that would end up being a problem instead of part of the solution. Also Prop 10 would end up adding to the problem and issues we have now with money. Check out the videos to see what I mean.
http://www.noonproposition10.org/?page_id=727
NO NO NO on prop 10!
This isn’t a top priority to me, we have other things to worry about, sure it’s a great idea. But we already have no money. Gas may be about to go back up, and isn’t eco friendly, BUT it’ll hold us over. We can get back to alternative fuels later. We need to work on getting out of this ressesion. Plus i’m pretty sure to start saving money from buying a fuel efficient care at this day and time you have to drive it for over 30years to start SAVING money on gas. We can work on making all this cheaper once we get out of everything.
Also, with all this money going out, it may end up not working out. May not be what we need. No on prop 10, we have more important things to worry about right now.
this prop reminds of me prob 7 which funding research for cleaner use of energy, but i read the counter arguments and it said that it hurts the animals in a very bad way.
this prop funds will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”.
# The funding will allow the replacement of “older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks” and provide for research into alternative fuels. This sounds great, but we have to take a good look at the money expenses that will be suffered.
The Los Angeles Times editorialized against Prop. 10 on September 19, saying, “Spending bond money on something as intangible as privately owned vehicles is a terrible idea unless there is a clear public benefit.I personally would vote yes on this prop
if we can find way to effectively conserve and use cleaner energy then we darn well find an effective way to save money or use it in a more efficient manner.
I would vote no on proposition 10. Yes it is a way to solve our fuel and energy crisis but its not the way we want to go if were having major money issues. We are in a time were time is changing and people want better solutions to problems. But what people don’t realize or simply choose to ignore is that solutions have a cost. A cost that would affect all of California. We should focus on how to fix our economy not the environment. Even though the environment is an important factor you simply can not just choose to improve it without money supporting it. Another important issue is how do we know if it will actually work? We would just be throwing all that money in the trash when it should’ve been in our pockets. I believe that this idea is a very great idea but for now we should put on the side and once we start booming ourselves up again we should then try to modify fuel and energy.
I do not agree with this Proposition as it’s just to much money being spent. 3.5 Billion dollars just can’t be used in this day and age like that. I think we need to think it all over, because if we continue the way we are going and keep borrowing money, out State will get even worse in depth than it will ever be able to handle. This may “possibly” cover one problem, but i find it to be an opening to many, many other problems that will ruin this states economy more than ever. I hope that we learn to manage our money before me try and make big steps like this, gas may be a big problem, but it isn’t the only problem. I hope that we will find a better way to fix it, without having to spend all the money.
On prop 10 (i basically agree with everyone else) and i vote No on prop 10. I know that buying gas now-a-days were eating up everyones wallet and having alternative fuels would help us in a way, but of course trying to get this process takes up a lot of moolah($) that we can use for different things like paying our HUGE debt that we are in. Our economy is already really bad with this huge debt over our heads (affecting soo many familes) this would put us in a worse positon, so thats why i say no to this. If we jus worry about one solution for one of our 99(and plus) problems, its better to try and focus on one of our main ones to make us all relieved.
Alternative fuel Vehicles and renewable energy…..sounds great. But whats the outcome of it all?
I vote No on number 10.
Once again, the state is in debt, and the government is trying to find a way to stop all this, and to ask something like this? Its really a good idea, but theres no money. So why try. There is no guarantee of environmental benefit. and using this money will hurt schools, and other important things in the communities.
5 billion dollars in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, to “help” consumers and otheres purchace cerain vehicles, and to fund research in renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles. it’ll take 30 years to repay about 10billion dollars. As years pass the rates increase making life misrable. so no, save the hassle and save the money for better and more reliable things. PLEASE!
I am all for fuel savings and protecting the enviornment. I think that having the government help us all get fuel efficient cars that would both save gas and clean the air is a great idea. I’m not entirely sure if it would work, but some times idealistic notions actually work and I know that I would love to see an additional decrease to my gas spending each month. But this would mean all the car companies would have to change and remake many of their cars, most likely loosing money. This would not be good for the economy and a lot of people would not be able to afford new cars either, no matter how much of a discount the government gave individuals. So, as much as I would want to see prop 10 put into effect, I’d have to say that with the way California’s economy is, I would vote NO on it. I don’t think that it would be feasible in the way it was written to be and that even though good would come of it, not enough benefit would be created to outweigh the consequences.
So NO on prop 10.
Proposition 10
Vehicles and renewable energy sound so super but , If I were old enough to vote I would vote no on proposition 10. That is because I think we could help our environment other ways with out getting our government involved. For example we could start driving more hybrid cars that don’t require gas to run. Because if we have to get our government into helping our environment it would cost them time and money, and that is something that we need for more urgent things like our economy. So fixing the environment is up to us the Americans but with out help from the government. So prop. 10 does not have my vote.
I agree with some of the points that Juan Carlos had to say about either is one or the other. And i to say No to prop 10. OK 58% is way too much money that will just be spent on trying to get people to buy cars and i feel that if people were actually smart and cared about the environment they would buy their alternative fuel cars on their own without the government rewarding them. Ok people will start buying less fuel consuming cars later through the years because the gasoline will raise so high that people will just have to do that themselves and dealerships will again start driving. What good is going to do the economy of California to borrow 5 billion if were practically going to double that in a period of 30 years. And yes the environment is getting harmed but most of the pollution doesn’t even come from the automotive business. So I would vote no on Prop8.
I would vote No on Prop 10 because i don’t think they know exactly what they’re doing. Take for example, the fact that the increase in state sales tax revenue and local sales tax and VLF revenue is an “unknown amount.” If i would vote, i would definitely want something a little more specific, since I’m the taxpayer and its coming out of my pocket. That basically gives the government free run to tax us however much they want. They make think they can fix it, but i think that i government leaves a lot of things hanging. They say that they have a new plan or bill or proposition or whatever that will help get us out of the gutter, but sometimes it can take 6-30 years to see the effects of the bill that you passed. So in the meantime, were being taxed, our debt is growing, and nothing is getting done. Then, later on, new people come into office and do things their way, so that was all for nothing. I basically see Prop 10 as a unnecessary tax that calls for an excessive amount of money, and i honestly doubt that we would ever see the results of this proposition if it does pass.
I think that I would honestly vote NO on prop 10, only because now is not the time to increase the spending of a state that has a deficit thats in the billions. Because if you think about it there should be no reason to spend 10 Billion dollars when we don’t even have funds to pay for state services and employees. Even thought I believe that all of the ideas in this proposition are completely necessary and make nothing but sense. But I think that this proposition is something that should definatly go on the ballot for next year, because first of all it will bring much needed annual revune to the state of California which will help with any fiscal problems. But my issue with this problem is, how can we afford to to risk almost 10 billion dollars over something that might take up to 30 years to pay off, and by then how are we supposted to be able to know what is going to happen with the economy or the depletion of fossil fuels and its direct effect on California or new developments in eco-friendly fuels. But this is all about risk and reward, and at this point the risk is much higher than the reward, and thats something that we can’t afford to ignore.
Prop 10 talks about a rebate program that would be given to people who buy energy saving fuel-saving cars. I think its a good idea and would help in the long run but now isn’t the time yet. It would helps us become less relenting on foreign countries that have oil. But my personal belief is that if people can switch to a fuel-efficient car on there own that would be great. But we shouldn’t bribe people buying fuel-efficient cars, if they cant afford it.
Well I say No to this proposition but in future when our economy is better I will say yesh.
This is another situation of a good thought but not necessarily the right move. We dont need to another debt situation on our hands that is how I see “bonds” because how is it possible to pay them back if we are losing money. The money would be spent on things that are not definite solutions. They are more like possibilities and at this point and time I think we need certainties not millions in research that might not lead to anything. Dont get me wrong I am all for alternative ways to get energy I just dont think this is the way to do it. So I would vote no…which i feel I have expresse.
I would most likely vote o on prop 10. I think it’s a great idea especially considering the environmental issues we are experiencing, but i think the timing of this proposition os horrible. Before we try to make any major moves involving money, we must get our economy back on it’s feet. During the current time Californians can make smaller changes to their own lifestyles to help improve the environment. Fuel efficiency in cars is steadily improving and it seems the whole nation is making more of an effort to slow any environmental crisis. So when we eventually get our economy up and running again we should re-introduce prop 10 for voting.
i personally would not vote yes on prop 10. I believe that alternative fuel is a great idea and i am all for it. But i believe that we are not in the a state economically where we can be spending 10 billion dollars. This would be a great idea if we were not economically unstable and in debt. I believe we should proceed this idea in the future when we have more money to spend but for now i would go against this proposition.
Like a lot of people have already said i think this is a very good idea but the time is not right for it. Because our economy is so bad right now, and we dont even know how we are going to get out of it, passing this proposition would make us get into a bigger debt. It would be good to try to save the environment but it will destroy our economy, which affects us as well as the whole world. We can not afford to spend so much money to improve all the environmental issues. I would vote no on proposition 10, but in the future once the economy is better if we were to vote on this then I would say yes…..for now, no!
i would have to vote NO on prop 10. Just for the simple fact that we DO NOT have the money to be paying people. We are in serious debt. I do feel that it is a good gesture but it is just impossible right now. I am for helping the environment and trying to prevent global warming but i do feel that we can be using the money for more important things that will benefit us as a country rather than just using money to bribe people to use alternative fuel.
*NO on prop 1o
While briefly reading through prop 10 I think that this is something
that could wait. It is very clear that we cannot support it financially.
We DO NOT have the money. Prop 10 would help us in the long term but I
do not think that this is something that we bring about now. I think
that if we wait until we are less in debt to bring this prop back into
action. Once we have more money I think yes we should follow through
with this but as of right now NO!
The facts of these propositions are quiet simple. The arguments in favor with this prop. are that it will make united states less dependable of foreign fuel. Since most of the fuel that the us buys comes from the same country that US is having a war with, The other countries could sell the fuel at what ever price they want and when the US buys it and gives them the money the foreign nations use the money to continue the war. So in reality The US is just harming themselves. And in any way we see the subject there will always be back fires.
At first prop 10 seemed like a good idea but now that i have actually read up on it i realized that in reality, this is not a great proposition at this time.
If we were not in a financial crisis then i believe this would be a good plan, but with it costing us $5 million dollars, not so swell.
We are doing what we can with the money we have right now, and right now that’s going to have to be enough. We could use the money we would be spending on alternative fuels on education and such, so then MAYBE in the long run we can have some other smarty pants to come up with a great plan for an alternative fuel.
No on Prop 10, until we are out of our recession.
:]
If I could vote I would definitely vote no on proposition 10. Why? Well, only for a small little thing we call ECONOMIC CRISIS! we do not have the money to be spending on expensive and unrealistic dreams. Sure it is a good idea and it would help nature, but when it comes down to it proposition 10 will not (and I repeat WILL NOT) really help us. This proposition will only make the gap in our economic debt larger. Besides, even if we did produce energy efficient cars that might help reduce the risk of Global Warming we still are only the United States (a small part of this big planet called earth) so we can’t really make a big difference. Even if we could control the US and reduce the pollution and Greenhouse Gases here other countries would continue the way they are and it won’t really make a difference in the rate if Global Warming because there would still be a lot of pollution around the world. So I say vote NO on proposition 10!
I would say no because it would make up pay another 10 milliondallors a year. now i know that our current deficite is 700billion but still I dont want to add to it. and if Im not mistaken, which I think I am, it would also limit MPG on cars and that would then make it so cars that I like Lamborghinis, and so on won’t be sold or legal.
so long story short no
I would vote No on Prop 10. It seems like everyone can’t stop talking about renewable energy. I think it is a step in the right direction. Since we have been hit by the high gas prices, people having been looking for an alernative to gas. Prop 10, would help reduce dependancy on foreign oil, which is something that I don’t really care about. I mean sure its good to produce something in our own country instead of depending on other countries, but in the case of oil, other countries also depend on us to buy oil for them and we couldn’t just stop. The really bad thing about this prop is that it costs so much money! California can no longer handle digging a deeper hole. Plus, I don’t think that electric cars is the future for our country. I think we are going to come up with a better way than fuel effecient vehicles. Overall, Prop 10 is not good right now, try again later.
I would vote no on Prop 10. Usually bonds are used for things that would be useful for a long period of time. However, Prop. 10′s effects would be temporary. The main thing that is being supported by Prop 10 is rebates for people buying fuel-efficient and alternative energy vehicles. I believe this is a good idea, but we do not have the money to do that. I think that once the cars are further developed and have been on the market for long enough they will decrease in cost anyway and more people will be able to afford purchasing one.
I think that I would vote yes on proposition 9 because I think that the victim should feel safe from whatever crime was committed to them. If they did something wrong I guess they should know what the consequences because I think that everyone was given the same rights and once violated it will take a long time to fix. I wouldn’t want to know when the person who hurt me or attempted to hurt me was out of jail. I would like to feel protected. I would like for the criminal to know how I feel and how much I want him/her in jail.
I would say no on prop 10. Prop 10 is a proposition on creating more renewable energy. I think it is the wrong time to start working on this because of the current economy crises. We are in major debt now and focusing on renewable energy would create job losses and would put us in further debt. And I think that we should gradually make the change toward renewable energy to gradually ease people into even though we need change right now
I would vote no on Proposition 10. First of all, it would probably cost an additional $5 billion dollars to recycle or discard all of the gasoline engines. Pollution emissions are at its highest peak right now; imagine how long it will take to eliminate the pollution. Lets fix the economic crisis first, then we can worry about pollution. This is only going to help the middle/upper class since fuel efficient cars are typically expensive.
No on prop 10!
At first it seemed like yeah vote yes, it will help with the economy. After reading more on it its really not a great idea. It wouldn’t actually work because it would be money going towards research and try to build technology that might help. It’s not even a for sure a thing if it would help the economy. The economy isn’t in good shape right now, so that wouldn’t be too smart! Hopefully the prop doesn’t get passed, we would be in a much deeper debt than we already are. Right now we need to work on getting out of this recession.
Plus I’m saving that $5 billion check that i got from the government to buy my own little country, and name it “Awesome” because everything would be awesome! ha ha well maybe.
I would vote no on prop 10
Most people are doing something to help fix our environment. I like what this prop is trying to accomplish but I don’t think it’s the right time for it. The money that it will take can be used for something needed more right now. There are not a ton of choices for fuel-efficient cars to choose from anyways and I think that people might not respond the way the makers of this prop think. I think that this prop can be saved for a latter time when we have more recourses of money.
I would vote no on prop 10 because it’s just another expense added to California’s debt. If you think about it, buying a gasoline car and adding all of the gasoline bills over time would end up costing the same as a hybrid. I bet hybrids are even more expensive to maintain. This is kind of selfish, but I wouldn’t be alive when the world is breathing 100% pollution.
After reading what prop 10 is about, I would have to vote NO. I do not believe that it is necessary to pay people money just so they have to use alternative fuel. The U.S. is in huge debt and we should not have to bribe people to do these kinds of things. I feel we should use the money on things that we actually need. Do something more productive with it like for schools and hospitals.
To conclude, I believe voting NO on prop 10 is the right thing for me to do as a citizen. It would be a waste of money.
After reading what prop 10 is about, I would have to vote NO. I do not believe that it is necessary to pay people money just so they have to use alternative fuel. The U.S. is in huge debt and we should not have to bribe people to do these kinds of things. I feel we should use the money on things that we actually need. Do something more productive with it like for schools and hospitals.
To conclude, I believe voting NO on prop 10 is the right thing for me to do as a citizen. It would be a waste of money.
I would also have to vote NO on this proposition because one we have a much bigger crisis that must be solved which is the economy crash. We have a much better chance of fixing this crisis than fixing the pollution problem. I’m all for the environment and better fuel options but i feel it would be more effective and make more sense on focusing on one larger topic, which is the economy crash. It would be nice to have lower gas and oil prices and all but for now we should focus on the more solvable problems.
I would vote no on proposition 10 because alternative fuels re expensive and they will take the money from everyone and spend it on this new resource and the resource would not even be perfected so what if the alternative fuel did not benefit us? Then the money would be wasted, instead of wasting money just perfect the fuel we have no.
When it comes down to the end, I believe that Proposition 10 is a good proposition, but not when the economy is as low as it is now. Proposition 10 is good because it will make California the leader in cleaner energy, it will also create hundreds of new jobs, but it comes at a price. Proposition 10 will cost millions of dollars. Citizen also fall at risk of higher electric prices, higher taxes. This is a major problem because right now the economy is low and the state just cannot afford any extra spending. We need to save money rather than spend more. This proposition will be a good idea when the economy recuperates. To conclude, I would vote no because it is just not the time that we should be doing this. The major attraction of this bill is for people that buy fuel-efficient cars but that is a very small part of what the bill is. Bonds are for major spending that is necessary but for now, were cool the way everything is.
NAAAAAH, no on Proposition 10. For alternative fuels that could spend an additional 5 billion dollars just to recycle gasoline engines. Pollution are at its highest right now; and how long would you think it would take to get rid of all that pollution. Fixing the economy should be our first priority right now, then pollution.
Like most of you, I voted no. I think we are trying to force the alternative fuel issue. If natural gas is the way to go, the market will direct us this way.