Reagan fell from grace in my eyes by his support of apartheid. He ruined California's economy then wreaked havoc on the
American economy.
President Obama came under fire from the Obama must fail factions from the moment he took office. No matter what bill or change he attempted it was fought. His attempts to reach across the isles was constantly rejected. They're still some trying to stop the ACA.
Whether or not it will be admitted, his being Black was and is the root of his opposition.
Like all who've held the office he's made mistakes. Given the condition the country was in when he was elected and his lack of support from the worst Congress in history I think he's done a good job.
Do you really think Obama was attacked more than Clinton?
But I do agree, and have stated often, that the Republicans on day one, literally on day one during President Obama's Inauguration, when on January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress met for a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, and plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy.
They knew what history had in store for Republicans after Roosevelt was elected to fix the Republican mess he was handed, and another Roosevelt could not be tolerated.
Yes, I think he was attacked more than Clinton. Clinton was attacked for his sexual activities not his race or policies with exception of his health care reform.
There was Whitewater, the most investigated allegation in the history of man. There was Travelgate, and Vince Foster, the various troopergates, the spending the night in the Lincoln room, and Chinagate, just to name some of the constant attacks against Clinton.
As Clinton said, Republicans can't win on policy so they attack him personally, and as I say, they just make (bleep) up or embellish or deliberately miss characterize or attack with specious accusations. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67706 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:05 am Post subject:
ribeye wrote:
jodeke wrote:
ribeye wrote:
jodeke wrote:
Reagan fell from grace in my eyes by his support of apartheid. He ruined California's economy then wreaked havoc on the
American economy.
President Obama came under fire from the Obama must fail factions from the moment he took office. No matter what bill or change he attempted it was fought. His attempts to reach across the isles was constantly rejected. They're still some trying to stop the ACA.
Whether or not it will be admitted, his being Black was and is the root of his opposition.
Like all who've held the office he's made mistakes. Given the condition the country was in when he was elected and his lack of support from the worst Congress in history I think he's done a good job.
Do you really think Obama was attacked more than Clinton?
But I do agree, and have stated often, that the Republicans on day one, literally on day one during President Obama's Inauguration, when on January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress met for a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, and plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy.
They knew what history had in store for Republicans after Roosevelt was elected to fix the Republican mess he was handed, and another Roosevelt could not be tolerated.
Yes, I think he was attacked more than Clinton. Clinton was attacked for his sexual activities not his race or policies with exception of his health care reform.
There was Whitewater, the most investigated allegation in the history of man. There was Travelgate, and Vince Foster, the various troopergates, the spending the night in the Lincoln room, and Chinagate, just to name some of the constant attacks against Clinton.
As Clinton said, Republicans can't win on policy so they attack him personally, and as I say, they just make (bleep) up or embellish or deliberately miss characterize or attack with specious accusations.
OK they went after Bill with a vengeance.
It causes me to chuckle when viewing the presidents who are vilified. They're usually the ones who are doing the bidding of the people rather than that of the special interest groups. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Amazing how Jerry Brown, Grey Davis and Arnold get a free pass here. Those three are 10 times worse than Reagan ever was as governor yet you fail to mention them. You are being partizan to the max and that is probably the reason why it's pointless to have a fair political discussion around here. You're not judging the person, you're judging the party blindly.
Are you going to give Reagan credit for Clinton's success as president then?
Oh noooo he's a republican!!!
But he had such a profound influence on the American economy and way of life for the last 35 years hasn't he? Yeah Clinton succeeded in spite of Reagan's ill influence didn't he? he was a magician who turned dirt into gold.
Are you going to point the finger at Reagan for the end collapse but not going to give him credit for almost 30 years of prosperity in between? Can you see how hypocritical it is what you're saying?
So which is it?
Reagan was a messenger. A voice of an era. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else. The whole country was going a certain direction regardless who was in power. That direction had much bigger force behind it than one man sitting in the white house. And I find it quite insulting to the American public equating them to a bunch of sheep following some golden pide piper to the inevitable collapse. It's not only insulting but arrogant as well.
And you really really need to get of that race card routine. It takes away from your credibility. The majority of the American public voted Obama into office TWICE.
Did that have anything to do with color?? _________________ It's winnin' time!
No. 17, looking at the options that the Republicans had, they kind of had no choice.
Come on, McCain and Palin? You gotta be kidding.
Romney, Mr. Let them Eat Cake and VP Ayn Rand?
The republicans fielded stuff that as simply horrible.
Clinton did something that he had to do early on in his Presidency that cost the Democrats the House, and that was raise taxes to help balance the budget. Then he hosed us by doing the whole capital gains BS and now, the inequality in income has just gotten insane.
Arnold? He was horrible. He flat out lied about not being beholden to special interests. He had a frickin' tent outside for his cigar smoking pay to play ways. Horrible ish.
Gray Davis? Blew it with the car taxes sunset, but seriously, it would have saved our hides during the last few years.
Jerry Brown? I like him much more than any of our previous Governors. Why? He's a tight wad (Jesuit and all). He keeps a tight leash on the budget and gets ticked when he finds people overspending where they should not have.
Reagan? Again, spend and don't tax really does suck. It lives in the world of, starve the beast, which makes life miserable for the long run. But they do it because that's the plan that ensures that fewer services are available to people.
These days, there's literally 0% chance I'd vote for a Republican because their views are just flat out not based in reality. But they pull the wool over people's eyes and say, "abortion", "state rights", and "guns." The right gets paralyzed and vote R down the ticket, and it's just that simple.
Amazing how Jerry Brown, Grey Davis and Arnold get a free pass here. Those three are 10 times worse than Reagan ever was as governor yet you fail to mention them. You are being partizan to the max and that is probably the reason why it's pointless to have a fair political discussion around here. You're not judging the person, you're judging the party blindly.
Are you going to give Reagan credit for Clinton's success as president then?
Oh noooo he's a republican!!!
But he had such a profound influence on the American economy and way of life for the last 35 years hasn't he? Yeah Clinton succeeded in spite of Reagan's ill influence didn't he? he was a magician who turned dirt into gold.
Are you going to point the finger at Reagan for the end collapse but not going to give him credit for almost 30 years of prosperity in between? Can you see how hypocritical it is what you're saying?
So which is it?
Reagan was a messenger. A voice of an era. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else. The whole country was going a certain direction regardless who was in power. That direction had much bigger force behind it than one man sitting in the white house. And I find it quite insulting to the American public equating them to a bunch of sheep following some golden pide piper to the inevitable collapse. It's not only insulting but arrogant as well.
And you really really need to get of that race card routine. It takes away from your credibility. The majority of the American public voted Obama into office TWICE.
Did that have anything to do with color??
Yes, as I said previously, Reagan did not start the movement, but he became the voice, a voice that often did not comport with his actions.
But I don't think this movement or this voice was good for the country. The country had come together, like no other time in our history, to combat the evils of Nazism and the imperial monsters from Japan. This was a total effort, both for the men on the battle field and all those at home sacrificing luxury and leisure to produce the armaments of war at an astounding pace. After, with the GI bill, cheap education, and government projects, that generation and the subsequent, had it such that only the most incapable or incorrigibly lazy (or faced with discrimination) could not find decent work. And the country grew. And grew and grew. Incomes were rising, poverty was dropping and unemployment hovered in the upper four percent range.
But, as Americans became accustomed to a better life and a taste of luxury, we wanted even more. And more and more. By the time of the mid 1970's, a new movement was afoot, led by Jack Kemp and Jarvis/Gann and Laffer and Waniski, who began to tell Americans that what was theirs was theirs, which over time, came to mean that no longer would subsequent generations have the same opportunities afforded the baby boomers. The ownership class and the investment class became the new, and extremely wealthy and powerful, aristocracy. No longer were we team USA. We came to believe in some diluted form of Objectivism, that it is the individual who matters and not the team. And we were fooled to believe that if this new aristocracy could have even more wealth, they would create more jobs for all, and all would prosper. And Reagan was the voice behind it. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Amazing how Jerry Brown, Grey Davis and Arnold get a free pass here. Those three are 10 times worse than Reagan ever was as governor yet you fail to mention them. You are being partizan to the max and that is probably the reason why it's pointless to have a fair political discussion around here. You're not judging the person, you're judging the party blindly.
Are you going to give Reagan credit for Clinton's success as president then?
Oh noooo he's a republican!!!
But he had such a profound influence on the American economy and way of life for the last 35 years hasn't he? Yeah Clinton succeeded in spite of Reagan's ill influence didn't he? he was a magician who turned dirt into gold.
Are you going to point the finger at Reagan for the end collapse but not going to give him credit for almost 30 years of prosperity in between? Can you see how hypocritical it is what you're saying?
So which is it?
Reagan was a messenger. A voice of an era. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else. The whole country was going a certain direction regardless who was in power. That direction had much bigger force behind it than one man sitting in the white house. And I find it quite insulting to the American public equating them to a bunch of sheep following some golden pide piper to the inevitable collapse. It's not only insulting but arrogant as well.
And you really really need to get of that race card routine. It takes away from your credibility. The majority of the American public voted Obama into office TWICE.
Did that have anything to do with color??
Yes, as I said previously, Reagan did not start the movement, but he became the voice, a voice that often did not comport with his actions.
But I don't think this movement or this voice was good for the country. The country had come together, like no other time in our history, to combat the evils of Nazism and the imperial monsters from Japan. This was a total effort, both for the men on the battle field and all those at home sacrificing luxury and leisure to produce the armaments of war at an astounding pace. After, with the GI bill, cheap education, and government projects, that generation and the subsequent, had it such that only the most incapable or incorrigibly lazy (or faced with discrimination) could not find decent work. And the country grew. And grew and grew. Incomes were rising, poverty was dropping and unemployment hovered in the upper four percent range.
But, as Americans became accustomed to a better life and a taste of luxury, we wanted even more. And more and more. By the time of the mid 1970's, a new movement was afoot, led by Jack Kemp and Jarvis/Gann and Laffer and Waniski, who began to tell Americans that what was theirs was theirs, which over time, came to mean that no longer would subsequent generations have the same opportunities afforded the baby boomers. The ownership class and the investment class became the new, and extremely wealthy and powerful, aristocracy. No longer were we team USA. We came to believe in some diluted form of Objectivism, that it is the individual who matters and not the team. And we were fooled to believe that if this new aristocracy could have even more wealth, they would create more jobs for all, and all would prosper. And Reagan was the voice behind it.
It worked pretty good for close to 30 years. Pointing the finger at one man is total exaggeration and scapegoating. This last recession was the worst in history since the depression but there were several shorter recessions in the last 30 years which is a natural thing to happen after long term expansion and prosperity.
Economies contract in countries all over the world all the time. Growth doesn't last forever. There were many reasons for what happened in 2008, too long of a list but Reagan had nothing to do with it.
If you're going to criticize capitalism as a whole that's another topic but I think you're actually criticizing greed (Me too BTW) . I think it's totally unfair and unjust to find one person to blame. is he responsible for the savings and loans fiasco? Is he responsible for the 2000's housing bubble? Is he responsible for the greedy bleeps on Wall street? I don't think so. You're simply giving too much credit to one man from 35 years ago as if he was some kind of superman with supernatural powers and influence. He wasn't. _________________ It's winnin' time!
It worked pretty good for close to 30 years. Pointing the finger at one man is total exaggeration and scapegoating. This last recession was the worst in history since the depression but there were several shorter recessions in the last 30 years which is a natural thing to happen after long term expansion and prosperity.
It did great for the 1%. The rest of the folks are just trying to stay afloat. The whole "rising tide lifts all boats", from the data, is complete BS.
Amazing how Jerry Brown, Grey Davis and Arnold get a free pass here. Those three are 10 times worse than Reagan ever was as governor yet you fail to mention them. You are being partizan to the max and that is probably the reason why it's pointless to have a fair political discussion around here. You're not judging the person, you're judging the party blindly.
Are you going to give Reagan credit for Clinton's success as president then?
Oh noooo he's a republican!!!
But he had such a profound influence on the American economy and way of life for the last 35 years hasn't he? Yeah Clinton succeeded in spite of Reagan's ill influence didn't he? he was a magician who turned dirt into gold.
Are you going to point the finger at Reagan for the end collapse but not going to give him credit for almost 30 years of prosperity in between? Can you see how hypocritical it is what you're saying?
So which is it?
Reagan was a messenger. A voice of an era. If it wasn't him it would have been someone else. The whole country was going a certain direction regardless who was in power. That direction had much bigger force behind it than one man sitting in the white house. And I find it quite insulting to the American public equating them to a bunch of sheep following some golden pide piper to the inevitable collapse. It's not only insulting but arrogant as well.
And you really really need to get of that race card routine. It takes away from your credibility. The majority of the American public voted Obama into office TWICE.
Did that have anything to do with color??
Yes, as I said previously, Reagan did not start the movement, but he became the voice, a voice that often did not comport with his actions.
But I don't think this movement or this voice was good for the country. The country had come together, like no other time in our history, to combat the evils of Nazism and the imperial monsters from Japan. This was a total effort, both for the men on the battle field and all those at home sacrificing luxury and leisure to produce the armaments of war at an astounding pace. After, with the GI bill, cheap education, and government projects, that generation and the subsequent, had it such that only the most incapable or incorrigibly lazy (or faced with discrimination) could not find decent work. And the country grew. And grew and grew. Incomes were rising, poverty was dropping and unemployment hovered in the upper four percent range.
But, as Americans became accustomed to a better life and a taste of luxury, we wanted even more. And more and more. By the time of the mid 1970's, a new movement was afoot, led by Jack Kemp and Jarvis/Gann and Laffer and Waniski, who began to tell Americans that what was theirs was theirs, which over time, came to mean that no longer would subsequent generations have the same opportunities afforded the baby boomers. The ownership class and the investment class became the new, and extremely wealthy and powerful, aristocracy. No longer were we team USA. We came to believe in some diluted form of Objectivism, that it is the individual who matters and not the team. And we were fooled to believe that if this new aristocracy could have even more wealth, they would create more jobs for all, and all would prosper. And Reagan was the voice behind it.
It worked pretty good for close to 30 years. Pointing the finger at one man is total exaggeration and scapegoating. This last recession was the worst in history since the depression but there were several shorter recessions in the last 30 years which is a natural thing to happen after long term expansion and prosperity.
Economies contract in countries all over the world all the time. Growth doesn't last forever. There were many reasons for what happened in 2008, too long of a list but Reagan had nothing to do with it.
If you're going to criticize capitalism as a whole that's another topic but I think you're actually criticizing greed (Me too BTW) . I think it's totally unfair and unjust to find one person to blame. is he responsible for the savings and loans fiasco? Is he responsible for the 2000's housing bubble? Is he responsible for the greedy bleeps on Wall street? I don't think so. You're simply giving too much credit to one man from 35 years ago as if he was some kind of superman with supernatural powers and influence. He wasn't.
The reason why Reagan is singled out is the same reason he is so beloved by so many: he was the spokesman for the new deal--not the New Deal, but the-let's-get-the-welfare-queens-and-ignore-the-gays-and-raise-taxes-on-the-poor-while-lowering-them-for-the-rich, new deal.
And yes, I'm concerned with excessive greed more than capitalism as I believe in capitalism, though a throttled version.
As for the recession, there is blame to go around and, as I said we need to look at those in charge at the time, but we can't ignore the cultural shift that began with Carter and Reagan. I add Carter here as he really began the deregulation meme but was not nearly as vocal as was Reagan, and, as such, it is not Carter who we remember.
Anyone in business hates regulation and red tape and I get this frustration and often the redundancy. But these rules and regulations were not developed becasue business was kind to workers or consumers or the environment. So the anti-regulation force, was a cultural shift beginning in the mid to late 70's, which had Reagan as its spokesman, and had Clinton in near agreement when it came to the banks. Clinton, just like Obama was close to Wall Street, too close.
But yes, it is not all on Reagan as it was the Ayn Rand loving Greenspan, leading the movement who believed that Wall Street would self-regulate.
The man in charge of the Fed believed that Wall Street would self-regulate.
This is why, in a nutshell, Wall Street failed: our leadership was just plain foolish--well for the American people anyway. _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Joined: 17 Nov 2007 Posts: 67706 Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 10:52 am Post subject:
No. 17 wrote:
Quote:
Amazing how Jerry Brown, Grey Davis and Arnold get a free pass here
They don't ger a pass from me. However, we're talking about presidents. None, other than Reagan, were presidents.
In order of horrible
1) Schwarzenegger
2) Davis
3) Brown _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 19865 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2014 11:12 am Post subject:
tlim wrote:
No. 17 wrote:
It worked pretty good for close to 30 years. Pointing the finger at one man is total exaggeration and scapegoating. This last recession was the worst in history since the depression but there were several shorter recessions in the last 30 years which is a natural thing to happen after long term expansion and prosperity.
It did great for the 1%. The rest of the folks are just trying to stay afloat. The whole "rising tide lifts all boats", from the data, is complete BS.
Patiently waiting for it to trickle down! It should happen any minute now.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:11 am Post subject:
Yeah, the issue for me is that you can't tell me how popular Reagan was/is and then walk that back on the issues he championed. For better and worse, the current right wing and the current economic issues stem from a rightward trend he kick started and moved a fair bit himself. There is a reason the people who destroyed the economy love the hell out of reagan. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
No. 17, looking at the options that the Republicans had, they kind of had no choice.
Come on, McCain and Palin? You gotta be kidding.
Romney, Mr. Let them Eat Cake and VP Ayn Rand?
The republicans fielded stuff that as simply horrible.
Clinton did something that he had to do early on in his Presidency that cost the Democrats the House, and that was raise taxes to help balance the budget. Then he hosed us by doing the whole capital gains BS and now, the inequality in income has just gotten insane.
Arnold? He was horrible. He flat out lied about not being beholden to special interests. He had a frickin' tent outside for his cigar smoking pay to play ways. Horrible ish.
Gray Davis? Blew it with the car taxes sunset, but seriously, it would have saved our hides during the last few years.
Jerry Brown? I like him much more than any of our previous Governors. Why? He's a tight wad (Jesuit and all). He keeps a tight leash on the budget and gets ticked when he finds people overspending where they should not have.
Reagan? Again, spend and don't tax really does suck. It lives in the world of, starve the beast, which makes life miserable for the long run. But they do it because that's the plan that ensures that fewer services are available to people.
These days, there's literally 0% chance I'd vote for a Republican because their views are just flat out not based in reality. But they pull the wool over people's eyes and say, "abortion", "state rights", and "guns." The right gets paralyzed and vote R down the ticket, and it's just that simple.
No one wants to do business in California. High taxes, overly regulated business climate. No jobs! businesses are fleeing to neighboring states and to Texas and for a good reason. Who's responsible for that? _________________ It's winnin' time!
No. 17, looking at the options that the Republicans had, they kind of had no choice.
Come on, McCain and Palin? You gotta be kidding.
Romney, Mr. Let them Eat Cake and VP Ayn Rand?
The republicans fielded stuff that as simply horrible.
Clinton did something that he had to do early on in his Presidency that cost the Democrats the House, and that was raise taxes to help balance the budget. Then he hosed us by doing the whole capital gains BS and now, the inequality in income has just gotten insane.
Arnold? He was horrible. He flat out lied about not being beholden to special interests. He had a frickin' tent outside for his cigar smoking pay to play ways. Horrible ish.
Gray Davis? Blew it with the car taxes sunset, but seriously, it would have saved our hides during the last few years.
Jerry Brown? I like him much more than any of our previous Governors. Why? He's a tight wad (Jesuit and all). He keeps a tight leash on the budget and gets ticked when he finds people overspending where they should not have.
Reagan? Again, spend and don't tax really does suck. It lives in the world of, starve the beast, which makes life miserable for the long run. But they do it because that's the plan that ensures that fewer services are available to people.
These days, there's literally 0% chance I'd vote for a Republican because their views are just flat out not based in reality. But they pull the wool over people's eyes and say, "abortion", "state rights", and "guns." The right gets paralyzed and vote R down the ticket, and it's just that simple.
No one wants to do business in California. High taxes, overly regulated business climate. No jobs! businesses are fleeing to neighboring states and to Texas and for a good reason. Who's responsible for that?
Selling a candy bar for $.25 when it costs $.30 to make is what places like Texas and Nevada are doing. Yes, companies are fleeing to fleece those states and their citizens. It is up to their legislators but as we have seen, jobs is more important than long term horizon. Play the long game instead of the huge tax breaks that cost you much more than just the tax breaks for those companies alone. No regulation and no services. Right wingers scream that government is too big until they realize that the government is the only thing that protects them from being manipulated and their dying of cancer. It's too bloody late and then they go cry about it and say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
And the big companies who leave? They get to pay their workers 25% less than what they pay people in CA. So the costs for labor is less, and the board is happy and give the CEO that 25% bump.
Sorry, playing the "flee the state" due to taxes and costs is a race to the bottom. Playing that game ensures that the oligarchy becomes even stronger and the states are even more beholden to those big companies.
Finally, tell the people who are continually getting their water polluted and undrinkable due to fracking that there's too much regulation.
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 9315 Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:25 am Post subject:
No. 17 wrote:
No one wants to do business in California. High taxes, overly regulated business climate. No jobs! businesses are fleeing to neighboring states and to Texas and for a good reason. Who's responsible for that?
The greed of the corporations is responsible for that.
It is also responsible for companies leaving the USA and moving to other countries (and no, that doesn't include Texas).
Companies that leave California (and the USA) are like the monkeys that live in trees.
They build a nest, live in it until it is so dirty from their own wastes that they can't stand it anymore, and then go and build a new nest in a new tree.
People who expect something for nothing, expect to not pay enough taxes to support the infrastructure and don't want regulations that protect the environment because it adds to their cost of doing business, are not people any of us should be sorry to see leave. _________________ I would rather have questions I cannot answer than answers I cannot question - Richard Feynman
Selling a candy bar for $.25 when it costs $.30 to make is what places like Texas and Nevada are doing.
Even the dumbest business man wouldn't do such a thing and if they did they wouldn't be able to stay in business for 5 minutes. Come on, you don't believe what you just wrote here?
Quote:
Yes, companies are fleeing to fleece those states and their citizens. It is up to their legislators but as we have seen, jobs is more important than long term horizon. Play the long game instead of the huge tax breaks that cost you much more than just the tax breaks for those companies alone. No regulation and no services.
I don't think you understand the basic concept of: no business, no jobs, no income no tax money, no tax money-no services.These corporations who you hate so much are the main job providers and if they don't exist-there's no money for anything else- unless you rely on Obama to print more money- yeah that's the ticket!
Quote:
Right wingers scream that government is too big until they realize that the government is the only thing that protects them from being manipulated and their dying of cancer. It's too bloody late and then they go cry about it and say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
You're being a bit melo dramatic here? the government will save us from getting cancer? happy days are here again..
Quote:
And the big companies who leave? They get to pay their workers 25% less than what they pay people in CA. So the costs for labor is less, and the board is happy and give the CEO that 25% bump.
Business is started and maintained to make money. If it doesn't make money it fails and closes down. These companies aren't leaving because they have to pay more to their workers, they're leaving because your government is choking them with taxes they can no longer afford in order to stay in business. They are being choked with city taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, insurances of all kinds EDD SSI Medi cal, workers comp and the list goes on. Until they reach a point where they are losing money and makes no sense for them to stay here.
Did you know that workers comp alone is a huge reason why companies can't stay in business in this state? did you know for example that if you're an illegal allien in this state, you work for someone for a while and one day you decide to file a workers comp claim (A lot of them fake it ofcourse) you're entitled by the laws of this state to get 66% of you salary for the next 104 weeks if your claim was accepted not to mention a hefty settlement when the case goes to court? How pathetic is that? an illegal alien! he's not supposed to be here or work here! and who do you think is paying the ridiculous premiums for that? the business owner that you hate so much, that's who. I urge you to do some research and find out who's responsible for these draconian laws
Quote:
Sorry, playing the "flee the state" due to taxes and costs is a race to the bottom. Playing that game ensures that the oligarchy becomes even stronger and the states are even more beholden to those big companies.
Again, businesses pay taxes and provide jobs. You don't care if business runs away from here because you're being short sighted. Yes your beloved government workers' pension plans are more important. Did you ever stop to think where is the money coming from to pay for that? _________________ It's winnin' time!
One needs to get creative to combat this race to the bottom. Just thinking out loud here (or thinking with my fingers here).
Cali is the 8th largest economy again. First of all, that ain't bad, so go live in freeking Texas. Second, Calif has tremendous purchasing power and we need to use it.
What if Calif rebated all or a portion of the sales tax for all products made either entirely, or maybe 50% or more, in Cali, especially new products currently not produced in Cali? Or any locally owned sole proprietorship receives a partial sales tax rebate. (Of course one would have to provide an analysis to see how this would project out)
Also, of course, the sales tax rate would have to be increased, to maybe 10% or more, so that the over-all effect was negligible.
So, you buy a Toyota made in Tennessee. Full sales tax. 10%. Buy a Toyota made in Cali and the plant receives maybe a 50% sales tax rebate. 5%. Buy a Tesla owned and made in Cali, Tesla receives up to a 100% rebate, depending on ownership structure. (Maybe) 10%. You need a new battery in a few years made in Nevada, depending on the ownership structure, no or little rebate. Bring that plant back to Cali, full or near full rebate.
I believe 10% is more than most margins on cars and many products.
(Man, I would just love to see made in Cali stickers on products) _________________ "A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
(Finally have it edited with the quote /quote business...)
No. 17 wrote:
tlim wrote:
Selling a candy bar for $.25 when it costs $.30 to make is what places like Texas and Nevada are doing.
Even the dumbest business man wouldn't do such a thing and if they did they wouldn't be able to stay in business for 5 minutes. Come on, you don't believe what you just wrote here?
I was referring to the states that do that. They win over the biz of the company and make their constituents either pay more for services or not even have them.
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, companies are fleeing to fleece those states and their citizens. It is up to their legislators but as we have seen, jobs is more important than long term horizon. Play the long game instead of the huge tax breaks that cost you much more than just the tax breaks for those companies alone. No regulation and no services.
I don't think you understand the basic concept of: no business, no jobs, no income no tax money, no tax money-no services.These corporations who you hate so much are the main job providers and if they don't exist-there's no money for anything else- unless you rely on Obama to print more money- yeah that's the ticket!
Tell that to Kansas who lowered taxes to try and bring in more biz only to get into a deficit. Data shows that the states who didn't put in the heinous austerity programs are now faring better overall. And seriously? You think all 30M will move out of CA? You're pushing an extreme view point that will never happen due to lower taxes. What could make CA go up in smoke is not having WATER though. But seriously, your assertion is an utter joke about CA. Yes, some companies are leaving, but others are cropping up. Opportunity for some, and the folks who can't hack it in CA leave for lower total costs.
Exactly why hasn't people like Apple, Google, and others just leave flat out CA but instead, they are building ever larger campuses? Your assertion is not credible.
Quote:
Quote:
Right wingers scream that government is too big until they realize that the government is the only thing that protects them from being manipulated and their dying of cancer. It's too bloody late and then they go cry about it and say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
You're being a bit melo dramatic here? the government will save us from getting cancer? happy days are here again..
Melodramatic? From the guy who pointed to the "no business, no jobs"? Are you serious? Before ACA, you could have worked your ass off and been the model citizen, and have insurance like a good old boy. Then if you want cancer treatment, many people literally went _bankrupt_. Just a simple fact. Without ACA, this kind of stuff would still happen.
Quote:
Quote:
And the big companies who leave? They get to pay their workers 25% less than what they pay people in CA. So the costs for labor is less, and the board is happy and give the CEO that 25% bump.
Business is started and maintained to make money. If it doesn't make money it fails and closes down. These companies aren't leaving because they have to pay more to their workers, they're leaving because your government is choking them with taxes they can no longer afford in order to stay in business. They are being choked with city taxes, state taxes, federal taxes, insurances of all kinds EDD SSI Medi cal, workers comp and the list goes on. Until they reach a point where they are losing money and makes no sense for them to stay here.
Did you know that workers comp alone is a huge reason why companies can't stay in business in this state? did you know for example that if you're an illegal allien in this state, you work for someone for a while and one day you decide to file a workers comp claim (A lot of them fake it ofcourse) you're entitled by the laws of this state to get 66% of you salary for the next 104 weeks if your claim was accepted not to mention a hefty settlement when the case goes to court? How pathetic is that? an illegal alien! he's not supposed to be here or work here! and who do you think is paying the ridiculous premiums for that? the business owner that you hate so much, that's who. I urge you to do some research and find out who's responsible for these draconian laws
Quote:
Sorry, playing the "flee the state" due to taxes and costs is a race to the bottom. Playing that game ensures that the oligarchy becomes even stronger and the states are even more beholden to those big companies.
Again, businesses pay taxes and provide jobs. You don't care if business runs away from here because you're being short sighted. Yes your beloved government workers' pension plans are more important. Did you ever stop to think where is the money coming from to pay for that?
Did I _say_ that I love the government worker's pension? Strawman argument?
Sorry, but your arguments are all over the place and that is focused more on strawmen than actual real information.
Show me the _data_ that CA is doing horribly? Show me the _data_ that NY is doing horribly? That they are losing jobs left and right and the jobs are kaput?
What does _data_ show me about where the worst health services are? Where the poorest people are? Where the worst overall services are? The data point to the states in the South. So many damn places. And you know what the worst part is about those damn states? The "red" states in the south who say, "the federal government is stealing from us" actually are stealing from the REST of the country as they get more Federal tax dollars sent to them (up to $2 for every $1) than they actually _pay_.
CA, because gets $.79. If CA seceded from the Union, we'd be coming out _way_ ahead.
So again, the _data_ supports that the RNC policies are just wrongheaded in many ways for the society as a whole.
What _data_ do you have that's not from a place like the Heritage Foundation?
Last edited by tlim on Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:49 pm; edited 2 times in total
Please edit your post with proper quotes and rebuttals. Kind of like the 'info' you're posting here?
And no, I'm not going to start doing research for you. I've got work to do. It's available to everyone now. And if you can't figure out that California is doing bad and businesses are fleeing the state, i'm sorry but I can't help you..
Here is a quote from wiki to show you how wrong you are:
Quote:
As of June 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that California's unemployment rate is 7.4 percent, tying with Georgia, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia for the fifth-highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Sorry but this is not a state that's doing well, and it's definitely not the prospering state it used to be. Burying your hand in the sand won't change that. _________________ It's winnin' time!
While it's true that Cali has an unemployment rate of 7.4%, it was 12.4% before the Financial Crisis. Actually in 2007, the year prior to the recession (though it started officially in Dec 2007) the rate was 5.3%. Don't blame this on Cali. Blame it on the greed of many, a philosophy that the banks would self-police and a Federal government asleep at the wheel--or simply needing a housing boom as it had nothing else going for it, hoping that when the bubble burst it wouldn't be severe.
The 7.4% unemployment rate is the 9th best improvement of the 50 states over the year.
Please edit your post with proper quotes and rebuttals. Kind of like the 'info' you're posting here?
And no, I'm not going to start doing research for you. I've got work to do. It's available to everyone now. And if you can't figure out that California is doing bad and businesses are fleeing the state, i'm sorry but I can't help you..
Here is a quote from wiki to show you how wrong you are:
Quote:
As of June 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that California's unemployment rate is 7.4 percent, tying with Georgia, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia for the fifth-highest unemployment rate in the nation.
Sorry but this is not a state that's doing well, and it's definitely not the prospering state it used to be. Burying your hand in the sand won't change that.
California's unemployment rate has been historically a bit high. 1993 had a higher rate of unemployment than right now. Yes, it's not great, but it's not as bad as you make it out to be.
It still doesn't point to the fact that the poverty rates are much higher in the South and in CA or other progressive states.
And finally, I already know that businesses leave CA. There are still plenty that stay, and more business crop up every day. It's the cost of doing business in CA.
No. 17, looking at the options that the Republicans had, they kind of had no choice.
Come on, McCain and Palin? You gotta be kidding.
Romney, Mr. Let them Eat Cake and VP Ayn Rand?
The republicans fielded stuff that as simply horrible.
Clinton did something that he had to do early on in his Presidency that cost the Democrats the House, and that was raise taxes to help balance the budget. Then he hosed us by doing the whole capital gains BS and now, the inequality in income has just gotten insane.
Arnold? He was horrible. He flat out lied about not being beholden to special interests. He had a frickin' tent outside for his cigar smoking pay to play ways. Horrible ish.
Gray Davis? Blew it with the car taxes sunset, but seriously, it would have saved our hides during the last few years.
Jerry Brown? I like him much more than any of our previous Governors. Why? He's a tight wad (Jesuit and all). He keeps a tight leash on the budget and gets ticked when he finds people overspending where they should not have.
Reagan? Again, spend and don't tax really does suck. It lives in the world of, starve the beast, which makes life miserable for the long run. But they do it because that's the plan that ensures that fewer services are available to people.
These days, there's literally 0% chance I'd vote for a Republican because their views are just flat out not based in reality. But they pull the wool over people's eyes and say, "abortion", "state rights", and "guns." The right gets paralyzed and vote R down the ticket, and it's just that simple.
standing ovation for you.. best post i've seen on politics in awhile.
No. 17, looking at the options that the Republicans had, they kind of had no choice.
Come on, McCain and Palin? You gotta be kidding.
Romney, Mr. Let them Eat Cake and VP Ayn Rand?
The republicans fielded stuff that as simply horrible.
Clinton did something that he had to do early on in his Presidency that cost the Democrats the House, and that was raise taxes to help balance the budget. Then he hosed us by doing the whole capital gains BS and now, the inequality in income has just gotten insane.
Arnold? He was horrible. He flat out lied about not being beholden to special interests. He had a frickin' tent outside for his cigar smoking pay to play ways. Horrible ish.
Gray Davis? Blew it with the car taxes sunset, but seriously, it would have saved our hides during the last few years.
Jerry Brown? I like him much more than any of our previous Governors. Why? He's a tight wad (Jesuit and all). He keeps a tight leash on the budget and gets ticked when he finds people overspending where they should not have.
Reagan? Again, spend and don't tax really does suck. It lives in the world of, starve the beast, which makes life miserable for the long run. But they do it because that's the plan that ensures that fewer services are available to people.
These days, there's literally 0% chance I'd vote for a Republican because their views are just flat out not based in reality. But they pull the wool over people's eyes and say, "abortion", "state rights", and "guns." The right gets paralyzed and vote R down the ticket, and it's just that simple.
standing ovation for you.. best post i've seen on politics in awhile.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
