46 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
46 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Crap Sandwich: You Made It, You Eat it! or Toyota leaves California for Texas.

by Joe Mobley
37 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Let's see how this works.

Entitlement minded voters elect politicians with similar mindset.

Those politicians raise taxes on businesses among other things.

Businesses seek better opportunities elsewhere.

Businesses leave.

Befuddled politicians are left scratching their butts and wondering what happened.

The aforementioned voters are left with a less-than-wonderful situation that they created!!!


Frank Portillo, a co-owner of Los Chilaquiles Mexican Grill next to the Toyota headquarters said he did not blame Toyota, although he might lose business himself. "The taxes are lower in Texas. There are fewer regulations. It's cheaper for a company there. Why wouldn't they leave California?"
Toyota withdrawal a bombshell, economic blow to California city | Reuters

Hmmm... How's that sandwich tasting?

Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Corporations need to be reigned in on a global scale - but taxing isn't what we need right now. What we need is corporations to start being socially responsible to their human employees. It's not right that they are allowed anywhere globally to treat employees as slaves. Humans deserve to not have drop dead work hours and conditions, they deserve time off for rest and for illness. When these things can't be given to people just because the company wants an added billion a year, it's time to just level them and only allow them to grow to a certain point of money and power. It's not taxes that disgust me. It's the power they are given to abuse employees that makes me thoroughly ill.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147410].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Corporations need to be reigned in on a global scale - but taxing isn't what we need right now. What we need is corporations to start being socially responsible to their human employees. It's not right that they are allowed anywhere globally to treat employees as slaves. Humans deserve to not have drop dead work hours and conditions, they deserve time off for rest and for illness. When these things can't be given to people just because the company wants an added billion a year, it's time to just level them and only allow them to grow to a certain point of money and power. It's not taxes that disgust me. It's the power they are given to abuse employees that makes me thoroughly ill.
      Ironically, TAXES are one reason why hours are long and wages are low!

      I recently heard that 81 million people in the US are in some way paying for all the rest!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147465].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Sounds like a smart move on Toyota's part.

      Newsflash: If there are no businesses, there are no jobs.

      Look at Detroit.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
      January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
      So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147634].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Corporations need to be reigned in on a global scale - but taxing isn't what we need right now. What we need is corporations to start being socially responsible to their human employees. It's not right that they are allowed anywhere globally to treat employees as slaves. Humans deserve to not have drop dead work hours and conditions, they deserve time off for rest and for illness. When these things can't be given to people just because the company wants an added billion a year, it's time to just level them and only allow them to grow to a certain point of money and power. It's not taxes that disgust me. It's the power they are given to abuse employees that makes me thoroughly ill.
      Corporations only have the power over employees that those employees allow. If the people who work there feel there's nowhere else to go, then they'll allow themselves to be abused. If there were an abundance of jobs, people wouldn't put up with some of the crap that they put up with just to keep a paycheck. If there were an abundance of jobs, corporate management would understand that employees need to be treated fairly, or they'll leave.

      If the labor pool were smaller in relation to the jobs available, wages would go up, benefits would increase, the tax base would grow, the standard of living would get better. It's just a supply and demand thing.

      Now - question of the day: what would cause the workers available/jobs available ratio to get to a point where the worker felt able to use the power that he/she has?

      I know the answer, and it ain't 'more government'.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147716].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        Corporations only have the power over employees that those employees allow. If the people who work there feel there's nowhere else to go, then they'll allow themselves to be abused. If there were an abundance of jobs, people wouldn't put up with some of the crap that they put up with just to keep a paycheck. If there were an abundance of jobs, corporate management would understand that employees need to be treated fairly, or they'll leave.

        If the labor pool were smaller in relation to the jobs available, wages would go up, benefits would increase, the tax base would grow, the standard of living would get better. It's just a supply and demand thing.

        Now - question of the day: what would cause the workers available/jobs available ratio to get to a point where the worker felt able to use the power that he/she has?

        I know the answer, and it ain't 'more government'.
        I know! I know!

        How about when the government decides to over-haul imigration laws? Even though Latinos tend to vote D, ever wonder why the Rs allow so many to enter this country too? Could it be because the illegal immigrants flood the labor market and drive the cost of labor down? Maybe it's that old "supply and demand" thingy again?

        Or are you trying to say that less gov restrictions on immigrants will help the situation for the US labor force?
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147741].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          I know! I know!

          How about when the government decides to over-haul imigration laws? Even though Latinos tend to vote D, ever wonder why the Rs allow so many to enter this country too? Could it be because the illegal immigrants flood the labor market and drive the cost of labor down? Maybe it's that old "supply and demand" thingy again?

          Or are you trying to say that less gov restrictions on immigrants will help the situation of the US labor force?
          Oh, please. Securing a country's borders is one of the proper functions of government, and one that it is doing a piss-poor job of.

          No, I don't wonder why the Rs are caving on immigration and sanctity of our borders. Follow the money.

          Nice try, though. You're getting as bad as TL and the others.

          And yeah, it is 'that old "supply and demand" thingy again'.
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147780].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            Oh, please. Securing a country's borders is one of the proper functions of government, and one that it is doing a piss-poor job of.

            No, I don't wonder why the Rs are caving on immigration and sanctity of our borders. Follow the money.

            Nice try, though. You're getting as bad as TL and the others.

            And yeah, it is 'that old "supply and demand" thingy again'.
            Your feeble ad hominem fallacy is as bad as your voodoo economics. In your earlier post, you said the gov had nothing to do with it. Then you say it does.

            Can you please make up your mind? Don't ask the questions if you can't handle the answers. The way to add jobs is for businesses to have CUSTOMERS.

            BTW, I'm STILL waiting for a supply side WSO. You know, the one that teaches people to pay no attention to demand, and only focuses on government regulations being too restrictive and taxes too high to start an Internet business now.

            When can I expect YOUR supply side WSO?
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147817].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Your feeble ad hominem fallacy is as bad as your voodoo economics. In your earlier post, you said the gov had nothing to do with it. Then you say it does.

              Can you please make up your mind? Don't ask the questions if you can't handle the answers. The way to add jobs is for businesses to have CUSTOMERS.

              BTW, I'm STILL waiting for a supply side WSO. You know, the one that teaches people to pay no attention to demand, and only focuses on government regulations being too restrictive and taxes too high to start an Internet business now.

              When can I expect YOUR supply side WSO?


              And I'
              C'mon, Kurt. Back off just a touch. This isn't personal, don't make it so. You already got at least one thread shut down, maybe we can try to keep this civil?

              I don't know what you are referring to with 'ad hominem fallacy'. Something, I'm assuming, to do with government and borders and job supply. I thought I was pretty clear, and have been pretty clear on the proper and necessary functions of government. Securing the borders is one of those functions. Deciding just who gets in is a political function, and one that is totally messed up.

              What you refer to as 'voodoo economics' (a 'Bushism', BTW, which I find funny as hell) is classical economics. People who favor Keynes are generally also in favor of greater government intervention, believing - as I do not - that the government knows best.

              So - if you want to talk about the merits of Adam Smith-style economic theory vs. John Keynes economic theory (for that's all they are, is theory), let's get to it.

              If you want to talk borders and immigration policy, I'm all ears.

              Just lay off the insults a little and lets act like adults.
              Signature

              The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

              Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147868].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                C'mon, Kurt. Back off just a touch. This isn't personal, don't make it so. You already got at least one thread shut down, maybe we can try to keep this civil?
                I've had more than one thread closed or shut down in the more than a decade I've been here. And I bet you've contributed to a few yourself.


                I don't know what you are referring to with 'ad hominem fallacy'. Something, I'm assuming, to do with government and borders and job supply.
                Here you go:

                Nice try, though. You're getting as bad as TL and the others.
                This is a classic example of an ad hominem attack, on me, TL (and the "others).

                Are these types of comments are your idea of "keeping things civil"?


                I thought I was pretty clear, and have been pretty clear on the proper and necessary functions of government. Securing the borders is one of those functions. Deciding just who gets in is a political function, and one that is totally messed up.
                Sorry, I don't keep notes on every poster here, nor do I read every post. In this thead you implied the gov couldn't do anything. I posted how the gov could (and should) do something. Securing our borders is only part of the immigration issue.

                What you refer to as 'voodoo economics' (a 'Bushism', BTW, which I find funny as hell) is classical economics. People who favor Keynes are generally also in favor of greater government intervention, believing - as I do not - that the government knows best.

                So - if you want to talk about the merits of Adam Smith-style economic theory vs. John Keynes economic theory (for that's all they are, is theory), let's get to it.
                I don't want a debate. There's no need. History plainly shows that once supply side economics began, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. All classes should show similar gains or losses in a fair economic system. We've had 34 years of EXPERENCE to show this is a failed economic system.

                I want an example of ANY marketing course that takes a supply-side approach to running an Internet business. Debates are simply words. Marketing and business plans are action. And we both know actions are better than words.

                Words can be used to try to persuade others for personal gain. Let's see what type of Internet business plans people are actually creating and selling.

                Please explain to me why there is too much regulation and taxes are too high for me to have an Internet business? And because of the suffocating taxes and regulations, should I expand my Internet business, try new online ventures or just close shop?


                I've read plenty of marketing reports and plans from the demand side that suggest to check out the demand for a niche or product, but I've NEVER read a product that actually taught me how to run an Internet business using supply side principles.

                What is the exact tax rate where I shouldn't have an online business? Should I quit because the FTC has tightened up on some regulations concerning online marketing?

                Businesses will open and expand if they have CUSTOMERS. It should be obvious, but to many it isn't. If there are paying customers, businesses have shown they are willing to over-come regulations.

                Not to mention, companies like BP would probably have saved themselves (and many others) plenty of money and lives had they followed some of those regulations.

                Often, regulations may restrict one person, but be freedom to another. Clean air regulations may restrict a business, but give me and you the freedom of breathing clean air.
                Signature
                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147970].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                  Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                  I've had more than one thread closed or shut down in the more than a decade I've been here. And I bet you've contributed to a few yourself.
                  Not as a direct result of some post that I mad, that I'm aware of, but I could be wrong.

                  Here you go:
                  Nice try, though. You're getting as bad as TL and the others.
                  This is a classic example of an ad hominem attack, on me, TL (and the "others).

                  Are these types of comments are your idea of "keeping things civil"?
                  I actually wrote that totally tongue-in-cheek, but you couldn't see that. I can see why you'd think that it was.


                  Sorry, I don't keep notes on every poster here, nor do I read every post. In this thead you implied the gov couldn't do anything. I posted how the gov could (and should) do something. Securing our borders is only part of the immigration issue.
                  I have no problem with the government taking fulfilling its constitutional obligations. None whatsoever. I do have a problem with it overstepping its constitutional boundaries. I know you and I don't see eye to eye on what those boundaries are, and we probably never will.

                  I don't want a debate. There's no need. History plainly shows that once supply side economics began, the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. All classes should show similar gains or losses in a fair economic system. We've had 34 years of EXPERENCE to show this is a failed economic system.
                  What history really shows is that, regardless of economic theory, wealth moves to a certain group of people, and away from another. And so far, no government applying any economic theory has been able to influence it in anything other than the short term. Until people are taught how to be wealthy, and apply the knowledge, it will continue to be that way.

                  I want an example of ANY marketing course that takes a supply-side approach to running an Internet business. Debates are simply words. Marketing and business plans are action. And we both know actions are better than words.

                  Words can be used to try to persuade others for personal gain. Let's see what type of Internet business plans people are actually creating and selling.

                  Please explain to me why there is too much regulation and taxes are too high for me to have an Internet business? And because of the suffocating taxes and regulations, should I expand my Internet business, try new online ventures or just close shop?

                  I've read plenty of marketing reports and plans from the demand side that suggest to check out the demand for a niche or product, but I've NEVER read a product that actually taught me how to run an Internet business using supply side principles.

                  What is the exact tax rate where I shouldn't have an online business? Should I quit because the FTC has tightened up on some regulations concerning online marketing?

                  Businesses will open and expand if they have CUSTOMERS. It should be obvious, but to many it isn't. If there are paying customers, businesses have shown they are willing to over-come regulations.

                  Not to mention, companies like BP would probably have saved themselves (and many others) plenty of money and lives had they followed some of those regulations.

                  Often, regulations may restrict one person, but be freedom to another. Clean air regulations may restrict a business, but give me and you the freedom of breathing clean air.
                  You are over-simplifying and misrepresenting supply-side and neoclassical economic theory. Nowhere does it say demand is not important.

                  I don't know where you get some of those statements from. No, you shouldn't quit because of over-regulation and over-taxation (at least, voluntarily. I suppose you would if the regulation and taxation made your business non-viable). You should argue against both.

                  Some businesses have also shown that they cannot overcome regulation, and close their doors.

                  The key to business is to find a need and fill it. You are saying SS economics says demand is not important, that it holds that it's just a matter of "if you build it, they will come." That's just not true.

                  So, getting back on track - would you force Toyota to stay in California?
                  Signature

                  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9148158].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              BTW, I'm STILL waiting for a supply side WSO. You know, the one that teaches people to pay no attention to demand, and only focuses on government regulations being too restrictive and taxes too high to start an Internet business now.

              When can I expect YOUR supply side WSO?
              Lol. Hilarious. I bet it would sell pretty well here also with just a touch of hype and a couple good testimonials.
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147898].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                I do feel bad for the people in that town who will lose customers and tax revenue, but somehow I think our state will survive. I really feel bad for those who have to leave California to live in Texas though. I wouldn't move there for 10 times the income. I've known quite a few Texans who moved here and they will never move back. They love it here.

                By the way, not all businesses pay lower taxes in Texas. The taxes on small businesses is generally higher than in California and most other states. It's the large companies that get the big tax breaks and subsidies. Plus, the middle class and poor generally pay a higher percentage of taxes than in many other states despite no state income taxes. This is because of higher local and property taxes. Texas has one of the most regressive tax systems in the country. So, while a company like Toyota will definitely benefit by moving to Texas the employess who do end up going along with them will likely not benefit that much or may even end up paying more taxes. Plus, they will have to live in Texas instead of California. Sad.
                Signature
                Over 50 Dating
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author salegurus
    Al i can say to those dumb @$$'s in Cali is "Thank you for sending the business our way".
    And to Toyota i say "テキサス州へようこそ"...
    Signature
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    ― George Carlin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147451].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
    Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

    Let's see how this works.

    Entitlement minded voters elect politicians with similar mindset.

    Those politicians raise taxes on businesses among other things.

    Businesses seek better opportunities elsewhere.
    Let's see how this really works.

    Entitlement minded business spend huge sums of money to elect politicians with similar mindsets.

    Those politicians to everything they can to rig the markets in favor of those select businesses (screw any competitors who didn't back them).

    Businesses in less corrupt areas seek out better "opportunities" where things are more corrupt.

    In fairness, though, the voters are indeed left with a less-than-wonderful situation that they created.
    Signature

    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
    _______________________________________________
    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147758].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      Let's see how this really works.

      Entitlement minded business spend huge sums of money to elect politicians with similar mindsets.

      Those politicians to everything they can to rig the markets in favor of those select businesses (screw any competitors who didn't back them).

      Businesses in less corrupt areas seek out better "opportunities" where things are more corrupt.

      In fairness, though, the voters are indeed left with a less-than-wonderful situation that they created.
      Actually, according to that liberal rag Forbes.com, it isn't the rich moving from CA. It's the poor and lower middle class. Because of this fact, I'm not sure I buy the entitlement theory.

      Also, Toyota is moving 3000-4000 jobs. California has over 18,000,000 jobs. It's like taking a gallon of water out of the Pacific Ocean and then claim sea levels are falling.

      BTW, both Californians and Texans are moving to Colorado.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147769].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Actually, according to that liberal rag Forbes.com, it isn't the rich moving from CA. It's the poor and lower middle class. Because of this fact, I'm not sure I buy the entitlement theory.

        Also, Toyota is moving 3000-4000 jobs. California has over 18,000,000 jobs. It's like taking a gallon of water out of the Pacific Ocean and then claim sea levels are falling.

        BTW, both Californians and Texans are moving to Colorado.
        Toyota is moving 3,000 - 4,000 jobs from an area where the workforce is approximately 80,000. I think the consequences are a little more severe than dipping a bucket of water from the ocean.

        The two biggest employers in Torrance, which has a population of 147,000 according to city figures, are Toyota and Honda. Both have about 4,000 employees. Losing Toyota will mean an annual loss of $1.2 million in tax revenue, Scotto said, but the emotional toll and wider economic impact will be much bigger, he said.

        ...

        About five percent of the city's workforce is employed by Toyota. Last year the city had an annual budget of $271 million, and $121 million of long-term debt.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147795].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      Let's see how this really works.

      Entitlement minded business spend huge sums of money to elect politicians with similar mindsets.

      Those politicians to everything they can to rig the markets in favor of those select businesses (screw any competitors who didn't back them).

      Businesses in less corrupt areas seek out better "opportunities" where things are more corrupt.

      In fairness, though, the voters are indeed left with a less-than-wonderful situation that they created.
      You cannot comprehend how much it pains me to agree with most of what you said.

      But how in the hell is the answer to that problem 'more government and regulation' when it's the government and the politicians who are peeing in the pool in the first place??
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147788].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        You cannot comprehend how much it pains me to agree with most of what you said.

        But how in the hell is the answer to that problem 'more government and regulation' when it's the government and the politicians who are peeing in the pool in the first place??
        I never meant to suggest that it was the answer, Steve.

        Trouble is, after Citizens United there's not much that can be done to clean things up, short of another constitutional amendment.
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147797].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          I never meant to suggest that it was the answer, Steve.

          Trouble is, after Citizens United there's not much that can be done to clean things up, short of another constitutional amendment.
          How about term limits? How about getting rid of the behind-the-scenes cast and crew that are entrenched in the federal government?

          There is a lot that can be done to clean things up. Career politicians are the disease, not the money.
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147809].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            How about term limits? How about getting rid of the behind-the-scenes cast and crew that are entrenched in the federal government?

            There is a lot that can be done to clean things up. Career politicians are the disease, not the money.
            We already have term limits. It's called "elections". I want more choice, not less. It's easy. Don't like someone, vote for the other guy/gal.

            BTW, it's the new people in Congress that can't get anything done. The Dems and even Boenher are trying to reform immigration. It's your new guys that can't seem to do anything.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147831].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

        But how in the hell is the answer to that problem 'more government and regulation' when it's the government and the politicians who are peeing in the pool in the first place??
        The answer is of course, not more, or even less government and regulation, it's BETTER GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION.

        How you achieve that though is beyond me, although banning all political donations would go a long way towards it.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147805].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          The answer is of course, not more, or even less government and regulation, it's BETTER GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION.

          How you achieve that though is beyond me, although banning all political donations would go a long way towards it.
          And replace the donations with what? Some kind of formula that disburses tax money amongst the anointed candidates? Chicago-style politics at a national level to an even greater degree than it is now?

          I don't know the answer, either. But I do believe there is a distinct lack of accountability in all three branches of the federal government. People ought to be pissed off about how D.C. works, but they aren't. I suppose they have more important things to think about.
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147826].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            And replace the donations with what? Some kind of formula that disburses tax money amongst the anointed candidates? Chicago-style politics at a national level to an even greater degree than it is now?

            I don't know the answer, either. But I do believe there is a distinct lack of accountability in all three branches of the federal government. People ought to be pissed off about how D.C. works, but they aren't. I suppose they have more important things to think about.
            Actually, yes. We do what the Brits do, we ban all political donations and each qualifying candidate gets a campaign fund paid for by the US gov. This eliminates the need for politicians to kiss the butts of donars and make back room deals to win an election.

            I'm sure a fair qualifying system could be worked out.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147839].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            And replace the donations with what? Some kind of formula that disburses tax money amongst the anointed candidates? Chicago-style politics at a national level to an even greater degree than it is now?

            I don't know the answer, either. But I do believe there is a distinct lack of accountability in all three branches of the federal government. People ought to be pissed off about how D.C. works, but they aren't. I suppose they have more important things to think about.
            And that's a major part of the problem. Everyone's pissed, but nobody has a solid idea about how to make it work better. (By "solid" I mean something beyond catch phrases like "banning donations" or "term limits.")

            That said, money is still a major part of the problem. Not that many decades ago, most people in Congress actually cared about doing something to benefit the nation. You may not have agreed with all their solutions, but their intentions were a lot better than they are now.
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147926].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Unemployment in Texas is 5.5% compared to 8.1% in California. California ranks 17th in state taxes - Texas ranks 42nd (no income tax). Texas has no personal or corporate income tax - California has 8.6% corporate income tax and personal income tax.

              Salaries are lower in Texas - but so is cost of living.


              A little union news this week:

              Media Matters is self described on its site as:

              progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation
              It says it is "devoted to exposing right wing lies...". It doesn't say what it does about left wing lies (j/k).

              Media Matters roundly bashed FOX news for unsympathetic coverage of striking fast food workers and their $15/hr demands. Media Matters held that workers had a right to be unionized and demand better conditions and wages.

              Helloooooo.....Media Matters is now fighting to keep it's OWN employees from joining a union. Wow....just wow.

              Media Matters Employees Feel 'Betrayed' By Management's Opposition To Their Union
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
              ***
              Dear April: I don't want any trouble from you.
              January was long, February was iffy, March was a freaking dumpster fire.
              So sit down, be quiet, and don't touch anything.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9148005].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                In related news: Hyundai decides to build $200 million US headquarters in Fountain Valley CA.

                City of Fountain Valley officials said Alabama, where Hyundai has a manufacturing plant, was also on the list of possibilities. Fountain Valley didn't offer Hyundai any financial incentives, but Hyundai decided to stay there.

                UC Irvine economics professor Jan Brueckner said foreign car companies are drawn to Orange County.

                "They want to keep in touch with the trendy parts of the United States, where fashion trends and car trends are set," Brueckner said.

                Hosford also said keeping talented employees is important.

                “There is a great, very talented workforce from which we can draw here in Southern California," Hosford said. "There are a lot of people that are knowledgeable about autos here in Southern California and that’s important to us in recruiting people.”
                Hyundai building $200 million US headquarters in Fountain Valley | 89.3 KPCC

                So, other states offer incentives to move to their state as Tennessee did in 2005 when Nissan moved there. California didn't. Texas did in this case also by giving a $40 million grant. Ahh. Capitalism and the free market at work. Oh wait. That isn't capitalism. That's tax payers money. That's um, what do some folks call that sort of thing? You know when the government uses tax payers money and interfer with the free market? Oh yeah. Socialism. lol
                Signature
                Over 50 Dating
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9148053].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  That's tax payers money. That's um, what do some folks call that sort of thing? You know when the government uses tax payers money and interfer with the free market? Oh yeah. Socialism. lol
                  THAT was a true coffee-spitter right there
                  Signature

                  The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                  Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9148183].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Elsewhere in the OT forum there's a thread about psychics.

    Although I'm somewhat sceptical about anything like that, I'm going to make a "prediction".

    This thread will be closed down very shortly.
    Let's see how good a psychic I am.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147792].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      Elsewhere in the OT forum there's a thread about psychics.

      Although I'm somewhat sceptical about anything like that, I'm going to make a "prediction".



      Let's see how good a psychic I am.
      This has actually been a fairly civil discussion so far, compared to some of the others. Hopefully it can stay that way.
      Signature

      The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

      Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147800].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    There are a LOT of low paying jobs in California and MANY highpaying, as well as low paying jobs are NOT held by citizens.

    The poor and middle class would LOVE to be in California. California has EVERYTHING going for it except politics, society, and economics. So WHY are the poor and middle class moving? I mean I lived most of my life there! My father STILL lives there. My mother DID, until she moved here like 2009 or so. The weather is nice, the ocean is nice, there is lots you can do. But cities get run down, and the state is in a shambles economically.

    And again, the number of jobs DOES NOT MATTER! HECK, I would be HAPPY to hire everyone in the US! How does 3 cents a year sound?

    If you drop one nice engineering job, and create three minimum wage jobs, it just isn't the same thing.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147843].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      There are a LOT of low paying jobs in California and MANY highpaying, as well as low paying jobs are NOT held by citizens.

      The poor and middle class would LOVE to be in California. California has EVERYTHING going for it except politics, society, and economics. So WHY are the poor and middle class moving? I mean I lived most of my life there! My father STILL lives there. My mother DID, until she moved here like 2009 or so. The weather is nice, the ocean is nice, there is lots you can do. But cities get run down, and the state is in a shambles economically.

      And again, the number of jobs DOES NOT MATTER! HECK, I would be HAPPY to hire everyone in the US! How does 3 cents a year sound?

      If you drop one nice engineering job, and create three minimum wage jobs, it just isn't the same thing.

      Steve
      Obviously, it's because they were getting too many entitlements in California. :rolleyes:

      IF you don't want to use total jobs, then use the GDP of each state. Per capita, California and Texas are virtually tied, with California having a larger GDP due to a larger population.

      However CA has always had more regulation and higher taxes than Texas. Yet the GDPs per capita are basically the same.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147853].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        We already have term limits. It's called "elections". I want more choice, not less. It's easy. Don't like someone, vote for the other guy/gal.

        BTW, it's the new people in Congress that can't get anything done. The Dems and even Boenher are trying to reform immigration. It's your new guys that can't seem to do anything.
        Elections aren't term limits, when the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time.

        Boenher is in the pocket of big business. Dems would like open borders because, as you said earlier, most Latinos vote Democrat. I have suspicions as to why this is so, but it is what it is.

        So, as far as I'm concerned, 'my new guys' ARE doing something - they're doing their best to block changes in immigration that many people believe are not in the best interests of legal citizens.

        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Until someone (me) posted an opposing view and you started your BS.
        Do I call your opinions BS? Back off, Jack.

        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Actually, yes. We do what the Brits do, we ban all political donations and each qualifying candidate gets a campaign fund paid for by the US gov. This eliminates the need for politicians to kiss the butts of donars and make back room deals to win an election.

        I'm sure a fair qualifying system could be worked out.
        What if, rather than banning donations, which would be contrary to our principle of freedom of speech and association, we make donations confidential so that the receiving politician doesn't know whose butt to kiss? Just a thought.

        As an aside, do you think either Clinton or Obama would have been elected under the system you describe? I can't say that I think that would have been a bad thing, but the point is: shouldn't our political system be open to everyone? I don't particularly want some backroom committee deciding who is going to be on a ticket (although that's pretty much what it's like now).

        I don't know the solution, but restricting people's ability to make their voices heard - whomever that voice belongs to - doesn't seem to me to be an equitable solution.

        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Obviously, it's because they were getting too many entitlements in California. :rolleyes:

        IF you don't want to use total jobs, then use the GDP of each state. Per capita, California and Texas are virtually tied, with California having a larger GDP due to a larger population.

        However CA has always had more regulation and higher taxes than Texas. Yet the GDPs per capita are basically the same.
        Which doesn't really tell the whole story.

        Texas v. California: The Real Facts Behind The Lone Star State's Miracle - Forbes

        If, as the critics opine, Texas is adding jobs simply because it is adding people, then the ratio of jobs added to population increased ought to be roughly the same there as in the U.S. as a whole. The data shows the opposite. Texas added one new job for every three people from 2000 to 2013, while the nation added one job for every seven people, meaning that Texas outperformed the U.S. job creation rate by more than two-to-one. In the same period, California added one job for every 11 new residents.


        No amount of taxes will allow one worker to support 11 people indefinitely, no matter how robust the welfare state.

        Taking into account official measures of regional price parity, Texas' real personal income was about 4.6% higher than California's in 2011. But this data reflects Texas' far lower unemployment rate.


        California's wages, for those who had jobs, were higher. But wages are used to buy goods and services. Once California's higher costs for housing, food, transportation and health care are considered, Texas workers end up with the advantage: $47,413 in cost of living adjusted average wages compared to California's $41,680--before taxes.

        The policy differences between the two biggest states result in vastly different outcomes for the most vulnerable of residents. The U.S. Census Bureau recently published a new, more comprehensive measure of state-by-state poverty that took into account cost of living as well as the value of government assistance. This survey showed that California had America's highest poverty rate, 23.5 percent, with proportionately 42 percent more people living in poverty there than in Texas.
        Signature

        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147955].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

          Elections aren't term limits, when the incumbent is re-elected 90% of the time.

          Boenher is in the pocket of big business.
          Another ad hominem attack.

          Dems would like open borders because, as you said earlier, most Latinos vote Democrat. I have suspicions as to why this is so, but it is what it is.
          A more open society is generally a D thing. And a larger voter base has to be another motivation.

          However, the Rs (including Reagan) also allow an influx of illegals, despite it being against their own political advantage. It is however, in their economic advantage. This could easily backfire, as even Rand Paul admitted Texas will flip from red to blue pretty soon.

          So, as far as I'm concerned, 'my new guys' ARE doing something - they're doing their best to block changes in immigration that many people believe are not in the best interests of legal citizens.
          If by doing "something" you mean "nothing", I agree. It's not an opinion, facts show that this is the most "do nothing" congress in US history.

          Do I call your opinions BS? Back off, Jack.
          Your personal comment about me is what I called BS, not your opinions...I'll repeat it for you for your convenience.

          Nice try, though. You're getting as bad as TL and the others.
          ^BS.

          What if, rather than banning donations, which would be contrary to our principle of freedom of speech and association, we make donations confidential so that the receiving politician doesn't know whose butt to kiss? Just a thought.
          Maybe, but I believe money is contrary to "freedom of speech" and flies in the face of the Founder's concept of "one man, one vote".

          As an aside, do you think either Clinton or Obama would have been elected under the system you describe? I can't say that I think that would have been a bad thing, but the point is: shouldn't our political system be open to everyone? I don't particularly want some backroom committee deciding who is going to be on a ticket (although that's pretty much what it's like now).
          I see no evidence to confirm or deny who would or wouldn't have gotten reelected. I do know if we ran elections like the Brits, anyone elected wouldn't have obligations to special interests.

          Also, remember the Bush/Gore election? At that time, Ds would have prefered to run Clinton for a third term and the Rs wanted Arnold. However, neither could run due to Constitutional restrictions.

          I would rather have had EITHER Clinton or Arnold instead of either Bush or Gore. But we were denied that option. And I'd take Clinton and maybe even Arnold over Obama and Romney/Mcain.

          I don't know the solution, but restricting people's ability to make their voices heard - whomever that voice belongs to - doesn't seem to me to be an equitable solution.
          Voices can and should be heard, but they shouldn't be able to be drown out other voices simplybecause they have more money.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147991].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      And again, the number of jobs DOES NOT MATTER! HECK, I would be HAPPY to hire everyone in the US! How does 3 cents a year sound?

      If you drop one nice engineering job, and create three minimum wage jobs, it just isn't the same thing.

      Steve
      Why do you cherry pick a situation to fit only your point of view? Why do you assume Texas has better jobs than CA?

      What if someone creates 3 nice paying engineering jobs and drops one minimum wage job?

      As I pointed out above, the GDP per capita is about the same for both TX and CA. Therefore, let's assume the value of the jobs are about even and not assume things that fit our agendas, at least until we have more info.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147878].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    BTW, if elections are effectively term limits, why do we have a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of a president?
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147973].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

      BTW, if elections are effectively term limits, why do we have a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of a president?
      Because the Rs became afraid of another FDR. Ironically, the next president that likely would have won a third term was Reagan.

      Edit: I'd be willing to bet that many people would have prefered Reagan for a third term, instead of either Big Bush or Dukakis. It would have been nice to at least have had the option, instead of regulations limiting our freedoms and choices.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9147999].message }}

Trending Topics